Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Slade on July 18, 2012, 01:24:17 PM
-
Concerning the F6F it has been stated:
Visibility from the cockpit was excellent for almost 360 degrees. Visibility aft was enhanced by a rearview mirror.
Others respected AH flyers have sat in an actual F6F and claim the rear visibility was better than what is modeled in AH.
Don't get me wrong, I think AH did a great job modelling the F6F but there are ample data points suggesting this one area can be improved. AH even improved it slightly after the latest F6F update so many months ago.
That all being said: please increase the rear visibility of the F6F.
Thanks,
Slade :salute
-
You might have better luck requesting the F6F-3.
-
I'll toss my vote for both better visibility on the F6F-5 and getting the F6F-3.
-
I sometimes joke about the rear visibility on the Hellcat, but looking at photos of the RL F6F-5 canopy the AH one seems pretty close. It lacks the blown canopy of aircraft like the Spitfire, which let the pilot get his eyes out beyond the rear bulkhead of the cockpit when checking six. Also the Hellcat has a big rear cockpit bulkhead. The rear windows featured on the F6F-3 would help matters, but I think if HTC were going to do that version, they would have done it when the F6F-5 was updated.
-
They still could add the F6F-3. Would be almost as easy to add as the P-47M was.
-
I honestly doubt a pilot would have a good visibility behind him - so 360 degrees is a little far fetched.
After looking at some photos, actually the Pilot should not be able to view from 5 oclock to 7 clock position - Even further - Late model F6F's had the Rear Window removed which would obsecure even MORE view from the rear.
-
They still could add the F6F-3. Would be almost as easy to add as the P-47M was.
The P-47M was externally identical to the P-47D-40, so all that was needed on that plane was a new skin and a minor revision to the flight model for the extra power and possibly weight of the uprated engine. Similarly the F6F-3 would need a skin and minor flight model revisions. However it would also require changes to the external 3D model for the differently shaped cowling and the extra windows, as well as revised damage modelling for the reduced armour. Also it would need altered internal cockpit art, again for the rear windows. A lot more work than the P-47M.
-
Thanks all for the comments about this great plane. :aok
That being said, this is still just a wish for: please increase the rear visibility of the F6F.
Who else is in?
-
Thanks all for the comments about this great plane. :aok
That being said, this is still just a wish for: please increase the rear visibility of the F6F.
Who else is in?
The Visability is fine, what more do you need?
-
Thanks all for the comments about this great plane. :aok
That being said, this is still just a wish for: please increase the rear visibility of the F6F.
Who else is in?
They already increased the visibility twice. You should have seen it when it was first remodeled. :cry
It is not terrible now, but one more little fix like the last one would be nice. Just don't count on it.
-
get trakir you will be able to see your rear with no problems. even in planes like the f4u you can see just as clear as a spitfire.
semp
-
get trakir you will be able to see your rear with no problems. even in planes like the f4u you can see just as clear as a spitfire.
semp
Try flying one sortie in the F6 and you'll see that the F4U is like IMAX in comparison.
edit:
"The P-47M was externally identical to the P-47D-40, so all that was needed on that plane was a new skin and a minor revision to the flight model for the extra power and possibly weight of the uprated engine. Similarly the F6F-3 would need a skin and minor flight model revisions. However it would also require changes to the external 3D model for the differently shaped cowling and the extra windows, as well as revised damage modelling for the reduced armour. Also it would need altered internal cockpit art, again for the rear windows. A lot more work than the P-47M." - Greebo
But still a hell of a lot less work than a new plane from scratch.
-
Just take a wingman, he can look into your 5 to 7 o'clock for you. :aok
-
Try flying one sortie in the F6 and you'll see that the F4U is like IMAX in comparison.
edit:
"The P-47M was externally identical to the P-47D-40, so all that was needed on that plane was a new skin and a minor revision to the flight model for the extra power and possibly weight of the uprated engine. Similarly the F6F-3 would need a skin and minor flight model revisions. However it would also require changes to the external 3D model for the differently shaped cowling and the extra windows, as well as revised damage modelling for the reduced armour. Also it would need altered internal cockpit art, again for the rear windows. A lot more work than the P-47M." - Greebo
But still a hell of a lot less work than a new plane from scratch.
i have flown the f6f many times. i have actually flown every fighter/attack airplane and i can see clearly behind me with no problems. except for those rare birds like the il2.
semp
-
>> get trakir
Sorry for the dumb question. Is that a piece of external hardware and\or a mode you put your plane in for visibility?
I am a simple guy. I use a keyboard and mouse. Alt-tab all the time between the game (to write code etc.).
BTW, I am not arguing over which plan has better or worse 6 views, flying with wingmen etc. My context is this: please make a change to the F6 to increase the 6 view. Thanks.
-
The thing is this game is in part a simulation of WW2 aircraft and vehicles and their respective strengths and weaknesses. Simulating the differences in cockpit visibility of the various aircraft is a part of that and artificially improving the F6F's would give it an unfair advantage over planes which had a better rear view in real life. So unless you can prove the real aircraft had a better rear view than the AH version has, your wish is probably not going to happen.
-
So unless you can prove the real aircraft had a better rear view than the AH version has, your wish is probably not going to happen.
Prior to posting this wish, I found multiple posts suggesting the visibility of a real F6F was better than the game version. I may have been wrong in understanding this. I think there is only one way to get the truth. Sit in an existing F6F-5 and observe the 6 view. Share photos if the view is actually better.
Where is the closest F6F-5 from Cape Canaveral, FL?
Sounds like a fun adventure (at least to me).
EDIT: I do have an F4F one mile from me that I could do this with but that would probably not be close enough to an F6?. If you guys think otherwise I'll do an F4F recon and post the images from the cockpit.
-
I wish for better visibility for all planes and vehicles.
My wish pertains mainly to the vertical canopy posts. In real life the canopy posts are NOT blind spots. Right now all game simulations assume the operator has cyclops vision. In real life most operators have two (2) eyes. Having two eyes means you can see around some objects. The blind spot in a canopy post, for example, would only reach a few feet after the post (assuming the post's width is less than the measured distance between a persons eye, which is around 2 to 2.5 inches). The cheep fix is to make the canopy posts thinner, unfortunately some of the AH2 upgrades included fattening the canopy posts.
-
that is one thing I imagine trackIR gives you a good advantage with - the rare occasions I fly a 109 I wish I had trackIR just to glance around the girders.
I think there is only one way to get the truth. Sit in an existing F6F-5 and observe the 6 view. Share photos if the view is actually better.
good idea, and make sure you tighten the lap belt so you cant move in the seat. and if you take photos, make sure the camera is pushed up against your face, no holding it at arms length ... :)
-
Having two eyes means you can see around some objects. The blind spot in a canopy post, for example, would only reach a few feet after the post (assuming the post's width is less than the measured distance between a persons eye, which is around 2 to 2.5 inches). The cheep fix is to make the canopy posts thinner, unfortunately some of the AH2 upgrades included fattening the canopy posts.
Smoe, that is a very good point and suggestion sir. +1
-
that is one thing I imagine trackIR gives you a good advantage with - the rare occasions I fly a 109 I wish I had trackIR just to glance around the girders.
Yes, it does help a fair bit with most aircraft. Another main advantage is you can track other aircraft much much better with it looking through the blackout tunnel. Downside with TIR is the rear views in things like the F6F/F4Fs. I can get better six views in them with the hat, but looking around the rest of the cockpit bars is better with the TIR.
good idea, and make sure you tighten the lap belt so you cant move in the seat. and if you take photos, make sure the camera is pushed up against your face, no holding it at arms length ... :)
If we used those constraints for all aircraft, the view system in this game would be much more limited than it is. I think it's a pretty fair concession to game play that we are all Linda Blair, and can move impossibly in the cockpit.
Wiley.
-
I think it's a pretty fair concession to game play that we are all Linda Blair
:lol :aok
-
A squaddie of mine summed it up nicely. "Fly the F6F... You'll never look back." :lol
-
A squaddie of mine summed it up nicely. "Fly the F6F... You'll never look back." :lol
I love the plane. It greatly reduces stress, not having to bother looking behind you and getting depressed by what's on your six. :D
Wiley.
-
The thing is this game is in part a simulation of WW2 aircraft and vehicles and their respective strengths and weaknesses. Simulating the differences in cockpit visibility of the various aircraft is a part of that and artificially improving the F6F's would give it an unfair advantage over planes which had a better rear view in real life. So unless you can prove the real aircraft had a better rear view than the AH version has, your wish is probably not going to happen.
+1 After looking at images after images I see no proof here but a bunch of whiners saying they can't see behind them.
-
if while looking to the side you roll the plane slightly left or right that gives you a better viewing angle of what is behind you. do a full roll while looking back and you will have no doubts. it doesnt get any easier than that. not plane is perfect but if you really want to change something, change the forward view of the f6f. I can see better in back of me than forward in the f6f, go figure. that is the reason I hardly fly german planes, cons right in front of me keep disappearing.
semp
-
I hardly use the f6 just because the views suck.
-
I see out the rear fine in the F6F.
-
In TrackIR 2axis mode or hat switch mode you can emulate being a 6ft+ guy like this with your head high up inside of the cockpit. Then you just see back over and around the upper edge of the bulkhead. That mirror is probably what everyone really wants. Hitech recently replyed concerning mirrors with a "NO". One reason is it would favor players with better computers.
(http://www.nostalgicaviation.com/New%20Photos/Seattle%20Signed%20Photos/Ray%20Hawkins.jpg)
-
F6F-3 would be great to a point. No bombs/rockets... low speed roll up to around 280 would be better than the -5 but much inferior above that. May not be modeled as tough due to unreinforced tail section. Overall it would become the 38J to the 38L without as much use.
-
I wish for better visibility for all planes and vehicles.
My wish pertains mainly to the vertical canopy posts. In real life the canopy posts are NOT blind spots. Right now all game simulations assume the operator has cyclops vision. In real life most operators have two (2) eyes. Having two eyes means you can see around some objects. The blind spot in a canopy post, for example, would only reach a few feet after the post (assuming the post's width is less than the measured distance between a persons eye, which is around 2 to 2.5 inches). The cheep fix is to make the canopy posts thinner, unfortunately some of the AH2 upgrades included fattening the canopy posts.
+1; I made a very similar argument to this one about 5 years ago. Not only do we have 2 eyes, but we have flexible necks.
MH
-
+1; I made a very similar argument to this one about 5 years ago. Not only do we have 2 eyes, but we have flexible necks.
MH
we have more flexibility then whats in AH :headscratch:
-
sure ... if you happen to be an owl :D
-
My email to the New England Air Museum. They have an F6F-5.
Hello xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
I visited your museum a few years back and was very impressed! My Mom, xxxxxxxxx, actually worked there at the field during WWII. Some of her fondest memories were there.
I have a huge favor to ask please. I participate in HiTech's "Aces High". It is the best WWII flight simulator that exists and has been for about a decade. One aspect of the F6F they may not have modeled correctly is the view looking back, AKA the "6" view. Many feel the 6 view modeled is too limiting but more important than that, it may not be accurate. Could you please have someone take some digital image photos from the cockpit looking straight back? With the canopy closed for accuracy please. The goal is to be able to view to the rear as best as a WWII pilot was capable. We need to answer the question: "how good was the 6 view of the F6F"?
We will share this with HiTech to update the plane modelling. If you would do this I would return the favor with a donation. You can send the images to my email address if that is easiest.
I cannot thank you enough for considering this.
Sincere thanks,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
OK guys the New England Air Museum sent me the pictures from inside an F6F-5 looking back. All I have to say is that AH got it way right. :aok
The images speak for themselves. Enjoy!
Image A (http://michael-elliott.com/images/f6f-5a.jpg)
Image B (http://michael-elliott.com/images/f6f-5b.jpg)
Image C (http://michael-elliott.com/images/f6f-5c.jpg)
Image D (http://michael-elliott.com/images/f6f-5d.jpg)
Image E (http://michael-elliott.com/images/f6f-5e.jpg)
Image F (http://michael-elliott.com/images/f6f-5f.jpg)
Slade :salute
-
Neat photos. Not much rearward view in that one.
-
What do people see in the F6F? Not much!
Nice photos Slade, thanks for posting.
-
Wow, I'm surprised they actually accommodated your request! I was ready to head over there myself and see if I could beg a favor in person (the museum is four miles from my house). Thanks!
-
Great work! Looks like HT got pretty darn close. :aok
-
When the revised F6F was released, the rear views were awful. You could barely see the tips of the horizontal stabilizer. After listening to many complaints (myself included), they adjusted the views substantially by permitting a greater range of motion in the cockpit. A smidge more may be there, but not enough to make a real difference... I fly the F6F on a regular basis and I'm satisfied.
You know, you can always kick left and right rudder to reduce the blind spot looking back....
-
Thanks all. It just shows how close HiTech model their planes to the real thing.