Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: streakeagle on July 27, 2011, 06:25:46 PM
-
The preview shots exhibited the problem, now the final release looks the same: something isn't quite right with the nose from the spinner to the chin air intake. Compare some srcreenshots from the game with photos of the real thing. It is very obvious with the P-40B, but the P-40E has similar problems:
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/1010/ahss3.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/28/ahss3.jpg/)(http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/4127/p40b1.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/4/p40b1.jpg/)
(http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6290/ahss2h.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/30/ahss2h.jpg/)(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7494/p40b3.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/7/p40b3.jpg/)
(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8118/ahss1.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/ahss1.jpg/)(http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/8339/p40b2.th.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/836/p40b2.jpg/)
I would say just looking at the photos/diagrams that the AH nose diameter is too small, making it look longer and thinner than it should.
-
Computer screens warp things slightly at all the different resolutions. Perhaps that is what you are seeing?
-
It is not warping due to field of view, or other planes wouldn't look right either. Specifically, look at the length versus width of the spinner and the attachment area between the spinner and the chin radiator intake. It looks long and skinny compared to the real thing. The P-40E has the exact same issue, but the bigger radiator intake makes it less obvious.
-
The middle comparison looks very similar to me and the top and bottom ones look like they are from different angles in-game and real life, even though similar angles, not exact. I am curious about what you are saying and I am not telling you that you are wrong, I just don't really see anything profoundly different.
-
If anything, the wheels look a little bigger in AH vs RL...
-
The fuselage spine is too flat. The radiator inlet scoop is too shallow. And, the tires are about 30% too large in diameter.....
The speed and climb model is unchanged... It's still modeled as a P-40C. Likewise, the P-40E retains WEP, which it didn't have in RL.
Handling seems improved, but I haven't had a chance to check turn radius yet.
-
Shouldn't we be comparing it to a set of P-40 plans instead of photos and artists' conceptions?
-
It would be a waste of my time to generate line drawings and overlaying them to show the problem. If you can't already see the problem without even looking at a photo, you probably never will. It was obvious to me the moment I saw the preview pics without looking at any photos. My first impression was that the spinner and the section of nose immediately behind it are too narrow compared to the rest of the aircraft, particularly from a side view, but also from a top view. I provided photos to support my observation. This error surprises me as HTC has always provided remarkably accurate shapes up to the limit of the number of polygons they were willing to use. I have used screenshots of HTC aircraft side by side with photos to point out errors of models for other sims. I was extremely happy when HTC originally released the P-40 for AH1. I have been looking forward to an AH2 update for some time.
Obviously, the shape of the nose isn't visible from the cockpit and doesn't matter much for gameplay purposes. But I am still disappointed.
-
I agree with the assessments so far, and will add: On the real B the intake conforms around the curvature of the nose, but on the AH remodel it juts out from it almost as if apart from it. Hard to describe, but on the real B the scoop looks blended in, but on the AH model it seems as if it's slung below the nose which stands on its own, and the shape then looks different to the eye.
I was hoping they'd smooth some of the edges around the intake, too. Seems rather boxy and angular like the old models.
-
I'm just a filthy heathen and I can't see the differences. :D
If it was a mosquito mind you...
-
Looks to me like the scoop might be too far back as well.
-
Shouldn't we be comparing it to a set of P-40 plans instead of photos and artists' conceptions?
I have... Neither P-40 is as accurate in shape as what it replaced.... Moreover, I cannot understand why they didn't look at the performance model....
-
Judge for yourselves...
IMHO, it isn't even close.
Upper photo is actual AVG Tomahawk, below is new P-40B...
(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff480/Tredlite/Tomahawk-AVG.jpg?t=1311827166)
-
Not disagreeing about the divergence, but...that top image looks like a painting, not a photo to me, Widewing.
The nose definitely doesn't match though.
-
Not disagreeing about the divergence, but...that top image looks like a painting, not a photo to me, Widewing.
The nose definitely doesn't match though.
It's a painting based upon a B&W photo. Very accurate.
Here's some other photos...
(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff480/Tredlite/p40-8.jpg?t=1311829973)
(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff480/Tredlite/P-40-1940.jpg)
(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff480/Tredlite/P-40B-Buffalo-1941.jpg?t=1311830099)
-
I have... Neither P-40 is as accurate in shape as what it replaced.... Moreover, I cannot understand why they didn't look at the performance model....
Ok, I see it now--your photo comparisons highlight the problems better. As far as the performance model, who knows?
-
Judge for yourselves...
IMHO, it isn't even close.
Upper photo is actual AVG Tomahawk, below is new P-40B...
(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff480/Tredlite/Tomahawk-AVG.jpg?t=1311827166)
My first reaction is the painting P40 is too short, and the AH model is too long. Seems from the photos it's somewhere in between.
-
I flew the P-40E for a short while tonight.
The top scoop extended all the way up almost touching the center aimpoint of the gunsight on default head position. That is NOT right...The scoop was level and the nose curved down. There is no/almost-no line of sight obstruction on the real thing.
(http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot-restricted/ww2planes/ww2-curtiss/curtiss_p_40e_kittyhawk-18113.jpg)
-
As to the performance model, there is evidence the P-40E received a higher boost rating (a WEP rating for our purposes) but this was later on in 1943 or so. So our WEP is accurate... just not for an early model.
-
*waves hand* These are not the droids you are looking for.
-
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/P40B.jpg)
P-40B line drawing. Hard to vouch for the accuracy of the drawing but it looks pretty good to me.
-
Wow those tires look ridiculous. I agree too with the nose section being off and the spine rake angle being too shallow. But those tires--they look like Walt Disney cartoon tires. Same on the P-40E?
You know, errors happen--it's just a fact. And sometimes they make it through to Production. But I think I'd probably pull the P-40s with a patch and go back to the old models. It's a setback but not the end of the world, and you demonstrate a commitment to quality by doing so.
I wonder could they keep the new cockpits but go back to the old 3D external model (and skins?)
-
They won't be going backwards. All the stuff tied to the 3D shape (lift points on the wings, where the airflow is modeled, damage zones mapped out in 3D space, bullet hits here it's a gas tank, here it's a tire, etc) would no longer apply. Too much to do to reverse the change.
Unfortunately, knowing a lot of effort went into this end result, I'm not seeing HTC all that willing to double it to do it over again. they are probably remodeling the Ju88s or B26s by now (or fill in whatever model next in line for revamping)
P.S.... Is it me or is the dark grey ammo counter against a black text box against a nearly black cockpit EXTREMELY hard to see even in sunny conditions?! I'm not even at massive resolution which makes things look smaller. I'm running 1280x1024.
-
*waves hand* These are not the droids you are looking for.
:bolt:
-
Tomahawk IIA drawings with cross sections:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/th_thawk_3.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/?action=view¤t=thawk_3.jpg) (http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/th_thawk_1.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/?action=view¤t=thawk_1.jpg) (http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/th_thawk_2.jpg) (http://s46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/?action=view¤t=thawk_2.jpg)
-
Looks to me like the scoop might be too far back as well.
That was my first read - distance bettween scoop and spinner is too great. I think this causes the scoop to appear stuck on and also makes the nose appear finer than it is.
-
A very nice resource with various technical drawings of all parts of the airframe (including the whole) for various variants:
http://www.p40warhawk.com/Models/Technical/Technical.htm
That's also a great resource for modelers.
But here:
http://www.p40warhawk.com/Models/Technical/P40-3.GIF
(link because it's a HUGE image)
We see that line-of-sight of the reflector gunsight should be totally clear of the scoop on the P-40E. Also we see that the gunsight should be about 50%-60% up the front glass, rather than as low as possible as we see in our in-game cockpit. I tried pulling lead on a few targets last night in a P-40E. It was impossible. Unless the target was above your or flying level you had very reduced visibility. Shifting the head position up did nothing as the gunsight disappeared and head movement was limited.
At this point the Fw190 has a better over-the-nose shot than does the P-40E.
EDIT: Size and shape of the E's top scoop:
part 1: http://www.p40warhawk.com/Models/Technical/Nose/E-K-M-N_Top_scoop_1.gif
part 2: http://www.p40warhawk.com/Models/Technical/Nose/E-K-M-N_Top_scoop_2.gif
-
Looks like the shapes are getting a tweak of some sort.
We're making some alterations to the P-40 shapes. We won't be accepting skins for the P-40s until the revised shapes are out, I don't have a timeline on that now. I would recommend holding off on making P-40 skins until then so you don't end up having to redo a lot of work.
-
Looks like the shapes are getting a tweak of some sort.
Score one for quality and getting the job done right. wtg HTC.
-
Very good news. Glad I was wrong on them not getting to it soon.
-
Krusty I think the gunsight LOS in the game is tilted downward a smidgin to make the default FOV work for the games gunnery model.
Offline fly an aricraft north and let it come to full speed where the center of your gunsight stops moving down. Pull up the target at 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000 on full zoom. Note the location of the gunsight center relative to the center red line of the target at each distance.
Bring the target in to 10-20 yards. You will notice the center line of the aricraft is the center of the target if you use F3 at that point. The gunsight center is about 82cm above the center line of the aircraft. Graph the gunsight LOS. If you change the covergence of the primary gun the GLOS will automaticly change its angle. Graph that......
Conv @ xxx
yards -----0-----200--400--600--800--1000
GLOS--+82cm----?----?-----?-----?-----?- <---distance above or below target center line at range. Guestimate in (Mil).
You can use a 512x512 bitmap gunsight. 1mil will equal 2 pixel. Remember a (gunsight.mil) file with 256 in it.
It's a computer simulation with a tiny window to look through into another world.
Oh, and the nose, cooler and tires are obviously off. Maybe the trailing edge shape of the rudder. Not sure on the rear deck line.
-
The thing is the view of the .target can be skewed because of AoA and flight attitude.
The FW190 flew with distinct nose-down attitude, for example, allowing clear view over the nose because the line of sight of the guns and the reflector were higher than the angle of the nose.
Our C-47 in-game has a distinct nose-down level flight angle as well. It makes it hard/unsettling to fly blind at low alts because you're looking "down" at the water rather than "ahead" at the horizon.
The target sits on your coordinates' center. It bases on the X, Y, Z of your view, rather than the line of sight itself. If you pitch up or down you can hit different parts of the target easily. Simply moving it in or out doesn't mean the LOS is wrong. Too many variables to come to that conclusion on this test alone.
-
The noses of the Spit I, Spit V and Seafire II were never fixed. <sniff> :(
-
^-- that's why I feared for the P-40 in this case.
Those noses still bug me!
-
Nice work on your part. :aok
-
Krusty,
In the FW190 armeror's manual the line of sight for the Revi is level to the horizon. The wing cannons are adjusted to fire upwards to cross the LOS at about 150m to drop back into it at about 550m. Both the MG and cannon fire upwards converging above the LOS at about +45cm GLOS. The MG drop back to the GLOS at 400m. All of the 109 family the GLOS is angled down from +74.5-82cm depending on the model along the hood to a point 400m out in line with the aircrafts CL. The MG and any gondola are set to arch along with the fixed motorkanon to pattern at 400m. HiTech lets us pivot the motorkanon in his game. :angel:
The P47 and P51 the GLOS was level and the 50cals shot up to and above the GLOS at about 300 yards dropping back close to 1000. The steams crossed at about 300-350.
Go offline and test that with the 190 or 51. LOS from the center of the gunsight angles down below the target center. You can graph it with what I outlined. Any primary gun at any convergence will never fire above the GLOS. They will only fire to it at the covergence you set. The gunsight LOS is tied to the primary guns convergence IP. If I remember correctly when I mapped 9 common fighters in the game. The GLOS gets lower on the target as you move the convergence out. But the primary gun(s) never fire above the GLOS. Only hood MG ,,,and I think the hood cannon on the Ki61 does.....
You can go as far as I did and make a 5mil waffle grid inside of a 100mil circle and do the mapping on full zoom. I set cov at 150, 400 and 600 for the 6 aircraft and mapped the GLOS along with impact dispersion clouds at 200, 400 and 600. Don't remember the primary gun IP going above the graticule center. Came to the conclusion HiTech auto tilts the gunsight LOS for us when we change convergence in the hanger.
Krusty instead of dismissing me do the same test offline I did with different fighters. Put a 5mil grid in a circle. I used the 51D, K4, Yak9T, spit16, I16, FW190D-9, 109G-2, Fw190A-8 and Yak9U. Cyan shows up best against the white of the target.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,317476.0.html
looks like they are re-adjusting the models some, good find by you guys.
-
The thing is the view of the .target can be skewed because of AoA and flight attitude.
The FW190 flew with distinct nose-down attitude, for example
In real life, yes. Fly our 190 A8 near the deck with CT on, and try to get a shot at a con at co alt on the deck in front of you. The nose is UP for some unfathomable reason! :huh
-
If the 190 LOS from the gunsight center were level to infinity you would be complaining about almost flying into the ground. Instead you have to hold the nose sligthly up possibly because the gunsight LOS has been auto tilted for you.
Try the offline experiment I outlined.....
-
The noses of the Spit I, Spit V and Seafire II were never fixed. <sniff> :(
care to elaborate?
-
care to elaborate?
The nose shapes of the single stage Merlin Spitfires is off. They are too....square or something. It is hard to describe.
-
Steele, I think it's not "up" it's just level. I hope if they revisit the 3D shapes (ugh... can't stand the tails/fuselages!) they tilt it down a tad.
Bustr, your test does nothing. All gunsights are lined up on the horizon. The issue is that the airframe doesn't have to be WHEN that is true. What angle relative to the ground is the plane mounted when setting those lines of sight? There are 2 lines and they are not always parallel. The wings will change the angle of your line of sight, and sliding a static target in and out IS going to move it up or down. This does not mean the line of sight is bugged. It doesn't change (you always "look foward" the exact same way).
It means your test is wrong.
-
All gunsights are lined up on the horizon.
gunsights are lined up with your guns, not the horizon. depending of the speed and the plane the gunsight can be under or over the horizon. The me262 gunsight is under the horizon at max level speed for example.
-
I know that, Noir... I was trying to illustrate how the angle of the plane is separate from the angle of the viewpoint. I used the term "line up with horizon" loosely to mean "when the view is level." I guess I wasn't very clear.
-
I know that, Noir... I was trying to illustrate how the angle of the plane is separate from the angle of the viewpoint. I used the term "line up with horizon" loosely to mean "when the view is level." I guess I wasn't very clear.
The matter is confusing, at least for me. Why conceive a fighter that is shooting under the nose at level? Makes sense for a ground strafer, but a fighter?
-
Because level is relative. Flying at 120mph you may need nose up. Maybe the wings have a sweet spot around 220mph where they are "level" to the horizon. What if at 375 you are nose down to maintain your altitude? Speed changes the AoA. Across a flight envelope your "level" changes. All that really matters is the view out the front.
-
Wing incidence (the angle of the wing chord versus the reference line that extends from the fuselage tail through the "center" of the fuselage) is almost always positive (i.e. a + angle) so that when the aircraft is at its design cruise speed, the fuselage presents a minimum drag profile to the relative wind. I don't know if this impact the gun installation or not.
Rough picture of the wing incidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aircraft_Angle_of_Incidence_%28improved%29--1080x660--25Mar2009.jpg
-
All of the aircraft I tested (9 of them, 10 later with the 262) had three common things in relation to the offline target.
1.) Set the target at 10-20 yards while at level flight and the center of the target lines up with the CL of the aircraft. Use F3 to verify this. Try 5 yards so the aircrafts nose is poking into the targets center. Even at 1000 yards the graticule center is below the target's center. It's a computer game after all and I wonder if the aircraft's center line is the primary reference point for many factors in it's data processes.
2.) As your aircraft picks up speed on auto level to it's cruise steady state, while on full zoom you can watch the center of the gunsight steadly move lower on the target until it is at some point below the target center. Your impact pattern will move up towards the graticule center as you move the target out to your convergence setting. But, your primary guns never patteren above the GC and fall away as you set the target past the ConvP.
If it was like the 190, 51, and 47 in real life the GLOS was set level to infinity with guns set to pattern per formulas at given distances. Then you would see rounds at two points hit on center. One near at the begining of the firing arch and one far as they dropped back in from the top of the arch. You would see rounds tracking above the target center in between the two points as you moved the target between those two distances. Then dropping below the target center as you moved past the second point. All engine HUB mounted cannon would emediatly drop towards the earth patterning consistantly lower on the target the farther it was set.
In the game we can set our HUB cannon to hit gunsight center at all convergence ranges...I almost have myself convinced the gunsight center is being auto tilted for those ranges so we dont have to really know how to use elevation marks in our gunsights and not the actual bolted down barrel inside of the engine block is really being tiled when we move the convergence slider.
3.) When you fire the guns the recoil is modeled such that you see a dispersion cloud at impact and your aircraft's nose is moved off the point it was at when level.
I take it no one has tried this and Krusty just wants to shut me up. Krusty have you performed this test with the aircraft I did yet?
Here is a copy of my data collection tool. Remember to include a (.mil) file with it in the sights folder or it won't show correctly.
(http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/5765/mrad.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/84/mrad.jpg/)
-
Your test is flawed and not a valid reference point for aiming. The .gunsight helps you determine only bullet impact relative to gunsight, NOT aiming points vs forward flight paths vs noses up or down.
Like I already said.
EDIT: Everything you describe is contrary to many other topics on the subject where HTC staff has commented on how the gunsight works.
-
Krusty,
I only gave you guys 200, 400 and 600 because of the smallest chance anyone would even try what I did including yourself due to the time involved.
I tested at every 50 yards from 50 to 1000 trying to initialy understand the MK108 motorkanon and it's trajectory relative to the convergence applet in the hanger. Due to the availability of german armerors documents and impact pattern figures from Rechlin E6 the results in the game bothered me. This was due to you only being able to change the graticule center point up and down as an elevation adjustment for impact point with the real Revi16b and not the cannon barrel in the engine. The hanger applet shows the initial angle of the gun being changed.
The 30mm drops off the target past 750 so I kept it's max distance to 650 in testing. The center of the gunsight angled down and below the target center all the way out to 1000 whatever convergence I set. The 109 manuals show that the Revi line of sight will angle down below CL so that was expected during testing. What was not, is aircraft with wing mounted guns were setup this way instead of seeing two points of crossing on the gunsight LOS. One at about 150 and one at about 350-400.
Hisspano 20mm drop of the target at 950 while .30 and .50 stay on the target dropping 12mil and 16mil respectivly. ShVAK 20mm drop off past 800. But, I suspect I was just reverse engineering the contents of some lookup tables.
You can up any aricraft offline and pull up the target at 10 yards and see the target center is centered on the aircraft center line. I'm inclinded after all my testing to beleive the target center out to 1000 yards is aligned to the center line of the aircarft when you put it on auto level and test your guns. 1000 was my maximum testing distance.
Krusty prove it isn't. And not by anecdotally remembering something from past conversations in these forums. That was kind of out of character for you. You have been willing in the past to do the work and bring data to the dance so to speak.
All 9 aircraft took me about 8 hours to view round impact relative to G/C and T/C at 50 yard incraments at 150, 400 and 600 convergence, then graph them. In all cases the G/C line from 0-1000 angled down below the T/C and round impact patterns raised up to the ConvP then dropped back below at distance. And yes I calculated Angular Mil for all of this. The different types of rounds drop at average text book values at all distances while dispersion looks about right from anything I can find on the internet.
Or someone from manegment can kindly step on me now since I'm acting so foolishly in public. Got Milk?
-
BUMP
The models have been tweaked, so I presume.
How do they stack up to the previous screenshots with the upturned nose?
-
At a glance, it looks perfect now. Big spinner, little conformal chin scoop. :aok
This is what I expected the release to look like :rock
Release notes also indicate that there will be more variants, at least a B vs C.
Can't wait.
-
Kudos to HTC staff for their quick response to the P-40B 3D model issues. Vast improvement... Nice work.
Moreover, the promise of the P-40B and P-40C is a great surprise. Inasmuch as the P-40C is already flight modeled, I'm really looking ahead to the P-40B flight/performance model.
Thanks guys... Much appreciated by your customers. <S>
-
Big :salute to the HTC staff.
"psst, could we also get a new plane for japan?" :aok
-
Big :salute to the HTC staff.
"psst, could we also get a new plane for japan?" :aok
D520 first! :D
-
You know, i take that last part back ,i would love to have the D.520 . It reminds me of a mini yak.
More early war birds would be fantastic tho. :aok :aok
-
P-40K! The ugliest WarHawk!
-
You know, i take that last part back ,i would love to have the D.520 . It reminds me of a mini yak.
More early war birds would be fantastic tho. :aok :aok
I think part of the reason for the lack of vitality in the Early War arena is the dearth of interesting EW equipment. Let's face it, our equipment set is biased late-war. Imagine how kewl early war would be if you had all the major, for example, types present in France 1940. Of course, the alpha birds would still be 109/Spit/Hurri but you'd also have the MS, Dewoitine, Bloch, etc. On the strike side you'd have Battles, Blenheims, Whitleys, Hudsons, etc. Nobody's fly those late war, but they might entice a foray in EW. That's without even getting into China and the PTO. There re so many kewl EW birds - Defiant, Roc/Skua, Swordfish, Gladiator, Do-17, He-111, TBD Devastator, Vought Vindicator, blar, blar, balr...
The whole arena issue is one of bandwagon effect. People go where people are.
-
wouldn't matter.
all arenas suffer from herd mentality.
you could... we did actually... have 2 late war arenas and the only reason one wasnt maxed and the other empty is people were forced to fly in the arena with 150 players instead of the one they wanted to fly in with 300 players.
oh and nice p40 tweak p40b looks amazing now...
p40E lower chin scoop looks excellent now but top of cowling p40E has a dent in it and there is debate about how high the top scoop should stick up? dunno about that but the actual cowling does dip in the middle then tilt up towards the spinner on each side of the scoop. someone must have dropped a p40b on it by accident.