Author Topic: 190 Heaven - NEWS + screenies (Read 4941 times)

Kweassa · « **Reply #135 on:** March 30, 2005, 02:01:28 AM »

Not a stupid remark straffo. I've thought about that.

If the cockpit was closed, the main canopy bars(upside down "U" shaped doohickey) would thicken a bit more, and come something close to the size of the bars in Nate's pic.

But the real problem is the frontal struts(two vertical bars left and right of the gunsight). Even if we take into account that the Fw190A-8 thicker armoured glass(IIRC), the frontal struts are way too thick.

Also, the area of the windshield (which is transparent, thus offering visibility) surrounded by outer cockpit bars(the big upside down "U" shaped doohickey) are too small.

Thus, the overall size of the main canopy bar(the upside down "U") is pretty good, but the visible areas surrounded by it are two small, and the frontal struts are also too thick.

Wmaker · « **Reply #136 on:** March 30, 2005, 02:24:25 AM »

Very nice work Kweassa! That's exactly what I would like to see!

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
* The red lines indicate the continuity of the frontal 'bars'(swathed in leather?). The real 190 cockpit pic has the right part of the bars misaligned.

Actually, I think it's the left part that's misaligned. The seam in the middle is teared and "the leather cushion" has come off from it's original mounting place from the left side.

mora · « **Reply #137 on:** March 30, 2005, 02:50:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Creamo
Really? I used to hate how everything was those same boring looking fantasy gages and wanted realistic guages for immersion, metric it it fit, even if I would struggle reading them. Truth be told, AH is a game of winning by knowing exactly how fast you are going right down to the digit. But after seeing the compromise with the better looking more realistic guages, with the numbers/format I am used to reading, I think it's a terrific idea.

Oh yes, I'm all for realistic gauges but those gauges are not all metric even if they appear at a first glance.

The variometer has a scale between 0-4. It must mean 0-4000 ft/min, as 0-4 m/s or 0-40 m/s would not make any sense. The altimeter doesn't look metric either as it reads 20 at the screenshot. I'm not sure about the airspeed, 700 mph seems like an overkill, but I also doubt any metric airspeed meter has a reading for 50 km/h in a fighter either, so I'm guessing it isn't metric.

straffo · « **Reply #138 on:** March 30, 2005, 03:19:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mora
but I also doubt any metric airspeed meter has a reading for 50 km/h in a fighter either, so I'm guessing it isn't metric.

From memory in some plane there was 2 "badin" (anemometer) one for low speed one for high speed.

Perhaps there was some where a 50km/h readout was possible ... prolly for WWI not WWII

or with strong front wind

I've found one

Kweassa · « **Reply #139 on:** March 30, 2005, 03:30:38 AM »

Okay, one more mock-up pic.

This is ALL I have to say about current 190 frontal view. I won't add/comment about this subject after this post.

eilif · « **Reply #140 on:** March 30, 2005, 03:40:34 AM »

Quote

The one thing that still bothers me is the fact that the canopies themselves have no life to them. I've sat in the F-15 enough times to know any canopy that has been on there for awhile has some type of wear. You'll also notice in certain lighting conditions that there are circular scratches on the canopies from polishing or lack there of. Now it's almost as if you can reach out of the canopy frame directly to the sky.

i made a post about this a while back, i too would like some "life" to the glass. So far you cant really tell its there.

Charge · « **Reply #141 on:** March 30, 2005, 04:51:12 AM »

Nice work Kweassa. That is something I'd like too see.

-C+

GScholz · « **Reply #142 on:** March 30, 2005, 06:04:56 AM »

Yeah, nice work Kweassa

TexMurphy · « **Reply #143 on:** March 30, 2005, 06:41:58 AM »

No offense Natedog but Kweassa cockpit does look much more inline with the pics shown.

Great work both of you, now merge it.

Tex

Wmaker · « **Reply #144 on:** March 30, 2005, 07:46:18 AM »

Like others have said, great work kweassa! I hope we'll see these changes in the game!

MANDO · « **Reply #145 on:** March 30, 2005, 09:47:00 AM »

Kweassa, in your proposal, you should divide the "depth" of the frontal arc bars by two or three.

Also, the effect of thickness of the frontal vertical bars is wrong, these bars were no thick at all. Each of these bars was composed by two thin panels, one for frontal glass joint and the other for lateral glass joint.

moot · « **Reply #146 on:** March 30, 2005, 10:38:48 AM »

the 3D simulated fov perspective's warping can't account for much difference between real and screenshots, right?

maik · « **Reply #147 on:** March 31, 2005, 02:41:20 PM »

incredible work Kwaessa.

Besides Mandobles sidenote it looks almost perfect.

Waffle · « **Reply #148 on:** April 04, 2005, 01:48:37 PM »

ok all you 190 gurus - check in here -

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147282

Thanks - Waffle

Nath_____ · « **Reply #149 on:** April 12, 2005, 04:17:06 PM »

to keep this discussion going, here's a pic of the new 190 cockpit which HTC said was reduced from the original screenshot before release.

To add, though, it seems as if there are additional parts of the frame jutting out into the field of view. They are not part of the main structure of the bars, but rather seem to be emulating some kind of "attachment" for the glass to the frame? I don't know. I haven't seen this in any 190 cockpit... check it out.