I have to say it... One of the biggest problems with 410 right now (with proof).

[Krusty]

No, I don't think that's it. Because round or angled you're still using the same amount of facets. It doesn't matter how "rough" the curve looks, as long as it's close to accurate. Ours doesn't look right, but worse yet doesn't function right which is the worser of the problems.

[bustr]

The truth of the matter is somewhere in here. The choice of the bottom tie down strap is wrong. It should be an angled flt peice of metal the lays over the base member of the aft cockpit. Look closely in the picture. If you photoshop a Revi16 into the gunsight frame on the right side in this picture, it really dosent look like you will get anymore view angle than we already have. But, there are obvious inconsistancies in the actual shapes of the cockpit and some structural members.





This is a bit of a "Hail Mary" in between a flat tiedown strap and the top cockpit structural member. Unless you can find photos taken through one of the side gunsights showing the range of view. You are sort of stuck with what the art team has given us. They still haven't fixed the lack of objective lense in the F4u1 N3C gunsight and the Typhoon's reflector plate rendering in front of the objective lense of the MkIIS gunsight.



Now again here you see obvious limitations in the line of sight for the Revi16 and the "Hail Mary" the art team chose in redering how the bottom of the canopy is tied down the the main large and bulky airframe member.



Kind of looks like we are getting our money's worth in Revi16 view lines in the game. Now the art choices.......

[Krusty]

There's a difference between minor graphics problems that are only eye candy, and graphics problems that prevent things from functioning properly. If there was a small graphics problem with the framing I would have let it go. If there's a giant frame right through the middle of some plane's forward gunsight, nobody would let it stand. The problem is the 410 sees such little use and has select few fans, that the outcry has been low so far. Smaller sample size.

Keep in mind the actual pivot point of the gunsight is different from ours, too. It's got a bit of an articulation working for it, or something. The photo is interesting but not definitive because the gunsight mounts are rotated UP and you're not looking through them.. All external photos showing gunsight mounts and the glass seem to indicate that you can look 40 degrees down without much if any obstruction.

As you say it is clearly an art issue, but I think there's more to it than that. An art fix would solve most of the problem. I think moving the gunsights OUT more (because the fuselage curve cross-section tapers too soon) so they look down past the fuselage better will be half of the solution, and re-modelling the canopy spacing and framing would solve the rest of it. I'm not saying it will be astoundingly better but at least you'l be able to see where you should be able to see.

[bustr]

From the last photo you can extrapolate that if you aim with the side gunsight so that the gun shoots down the side of the fuslage. As you depress the gun down, the reticle will be impared by the gun's blister. This does in fact happen in the Aces High Me410. Also from the last rear cockpit interior photo our gunsight looks like it will be impared by the lower wide framing about the same as the screen captures of shooting water I supplied.

The game graphics are not as good as I would want now that I've spent so much time finding real color photos. But, the range of motion and travers for the reticle looks about the same as the real Me410 rear cockpit photos. The recent P40 series of cockpits are much more faithfull reproductions.

The art team has done a genericly accurate job on the cross sectional shape of the canopy. At least all of our photos and screen captures show this in stark contrast. Maybe you can influence a remake for that, though you and I seem to be the only players who can see it or care.

Kind of like my beef with hollow airscrew engine mounted cannons and the fact the only convergence setting was the zero line of the engine.

[Krusty]

I don't agree. You can't extrapolate that from the last picture at all. Especially considering the much more extreme sweep forward the angled flat plates have. It's no coincidence the glass plate is angled the same as the maximum down angle the guns can fire, and perfectly matches the angle looking past the trailing wing root. This plane was desinged to shoot down below the tail. All the other evidence supports it had a better view, especially the bad 3D modelling shape we have in-game.

[bustr]

It shoots below the tail in the game.

Both of us can only conjecture unless you have a german armerors manual that describes the expected maximum arch of view with diagrams for setting the visierlinie of the reflexvisier gunsight. I would not be surprised if HTC owns that manual.

Unless you have this, your assertion is you know better via your analysis of photgraphs than HTC and are calling them out publicly on that. The only sure thing that is obvious from direct compairison is the shape and some of the structure of the canopy frame being off.

Locate a copy of the Me210\Me410 or Me410 A-1 Schußwaffenanlage booklet. I don't think you have a copy or you would have posted a visierlinie adjustment diagram in your original post and Waffel or someone would have responded early on.

As of now we are arguing feelings about how a function in a game operates.

The Revi25 is a compact version of the Revi16 designed for gun positions and was used in the 410 rear position. Since I was able to find a free download for a 410 A-1 general manual with this picture. I also found sources for pay of 210\410 manuals. I will assume HTC purchased a few of those manuals.

As of now your argument is with I assume, Hitech or Pyro on how they chose to impliment what they read and saw in those manuals. So it would be if you had those manuals an argument over preception. If you had the manuals they have.