Jump to content

Armoured glass refraction must see video


MA_Goblin

Recommended Posts

Hi mates,

Sorry to lift the matter of refraction again but this german guy has made a fantastic video to demonstrate this effect and it's simply a must see video.

 

 

watch?v=l7nLTeNStX8#t=239

 

For some reason I cannot post the video so if some one could please do.


Edited by hakjar

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

_____________Semper paratus, In hoc signo vinces________________

 

PC: Intel i7-8700K (4.9 GHz), Aorus Ultra Gaming Z370 MB, Gigabyte RTX 3080, 32 GB DDR3 (3,2 GHz), Samsung EVO 860 M.2 500 GB SSD + Samsung 960 M.2 250 GB SSD Gaming: Virpil T-50 CM2, TM WH Throttle, Crosswind pedals, HP Reverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can't allow the legendary bar debate to end!

 

This is clearly an edited video. It's propaganda from those baby eating no-bar-ists:lol:

 

Seriously though does anyone have any idea if it would be possible to impkement defraction into DCS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My fear is that this problem can't be resolved properly without implementing refraction.

 

Let’s say they simply make the cockpit bar 2-3 times narrower. That’s great, now the lowest part of sight’s reflector plate won’t be obscured anymore. The problem is that now the plane’s nose starts to be visible a lot more than it should. IMO that’s precisely why even when raising a bit the cockpit view for landing until the nose is visible, the visibility forward-downward is so poor, complicating landing approach. Because without refraction the plane’s nose appears in the windshield higher than it should.

 

Because of refraction, probably in reality MG 131 guns cowling “bumps” were barely visible from the cockpit, if at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will just be moved, I posted the same and it disappeared to another forum.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

_____________Semper paratus, In hoc signo vinces________________

 

PC: Intel i7-8700K (4.9 GHz), Aorus Ultra Gaming Z370 MB, Gigabyte RTX 3080, 32 GB DDR3 (3,2 GHz), Samsung EVO 860 M.2 500 GB SSD + Samsung 960 M.2 250 GB SSD Gaming: Virpil T-50 CM2, TM WH Throttle, Crosswind pedals, HP Reverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientific experiment for the win. :)

 

I have to say that until this video explained the situation, I was not really aware of what the fuzz was all about, neither did I care; but this explanation changed my mind.


Edited by rrohde

PC: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X | MSI Suprim GeForce 3090 TI | ASUS Prime X570-P | 128GB DDR4 3600 RAM | 2TB Samsung 870 EVO SSD | Win10 Pro 64bit

Gear: HP Reverb G2 | JetPad FSE | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk.III w/ MCG Ultimate

 

VKBNA_LOGO_SM.png

VKBcontrollers.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I was the same - knew roughly what people were concerned about, but couldn't see it as a big deal, for me anyway.

 

This is a really interesting demonstration of a surprisingly strong optical characteristic.

 

It seems to me the enemy disappear behind the engine cowl rather than the bar anyway for long range shots whilst pulling.

 

EDIT : I take back my last sentence - just looked at a track - yeah the bar is in the way of a critical part of the guns cone, which I'm guessing the original designers, designed out being fully aware of the refractive properties of the armoured windscreen.

 

I didn't follow the original 'Bar' thread, but I know it was a 'runner' :) still can't quite understand why this needs to be 'hidden away'?


Edited by VIMANAMAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
It will just be moved, I posted the same and it disappeared to another forum.

 

Because the devs know of the issue, they know why its an issue and its been reported. Feel free to discuss here, but no more cockpit bar threads are needed.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I know correctly 3d model can be made visible only from one side and transparent from other. So there can be another smaller 3d model of problematic areas seen from inside of the cockpit and regular 3d model from outside.

 

I made once a 3d model for a game and this phenomenon was a bug for me. In this case it could be a feature :lol:

Don't know if this is possible in DCS, or even if I am correct, because that was 10 years ago and that was my first and last try at modeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a totally serious suggestion because I know it would have significant performance issues...

 

But just thinking out load here a moment...

 

The view through the front plate could... (if system resources, money and time were no obstacle, which of course they are...) ...but could be made a separate 'render' of DCSW - as the TGP display in the A10 is at the moment - like I said just thinking out loud :music_whistling:

 

Difficult one sure enough!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a totally serious suggestion because I know it would have significant performance issues...

 

But just thinking out load here a moment...

 

The view through the front plate could... (if system resources, money and time were no obstacle, which of course they are...) ...but could be made a separate 'render' of DCSW - as the TGP display in the A10 is at the moment - like I said just thinking out loud :music_whistling:

 

Difficult one sure enough!

Actually ... quite an interesting idea. Just shifting the image a bit.

 

Hrm, but true refraction would depend on the view angle, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually ... quite an interesting idea. Just shifting the image a bit.

 

Hrm, but true refraction would depend on the view angle, right?

 

Correct, could use tables whit pre calculated values though. increments of 0.5 degrees might do?

In the end you need the result, there's no need to calculate it on the fly.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it would definitely be more much more complex than the TGP - as the view angle would absolutely still have to be controlled by the the players head position, which moves the FOV, massively more / quicker than the TGP.

 

I haven't done the math :) and I don't think I could...:megalol:

 

but it's existing know-how that just might be adaptable...?

 

But if the TGP coding is nice then it could be scaled up and played with perhaps.... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct, could use tables whit pre calculated values though. increments of 0.5 degrees might do?

In the end you need the result, there's no need to calculate it on the fly.

Hrm, I am not so sure. A resolution 0.5 degrees would make an enemy aircraft probably skip up and down quite a bit if you move your head while aiming through the gun sight ...

 

But, yeah, what do we know. Maybe something like this is really "cheap" as performance is concerned and the resolution could be made so fine that it really would not matter too much anymore.

 

edit:

skipping? err ... a more general question: if the amount of "view shifting" is depending on the view angle, why is that not a problem in the real aircraft when using the gun sight? The target would move optically, but the guns sight reticle would not as it is not refracted and instead projected to infinity?

 

edit2:

Perhaps because the FoV when looking through the gunsight glass is so narrow that the change of view angle would be in fact negligible?


Edited by Flagrum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it would definitely be more much more complex than the TGP - as the view angle would absolutely still have to be controlled by the the players head position, which moves the FOV, massively more / quicker than the TGP.

 

I haven't done the math :) and I don't think I could...:megalol:

 

but it's existing know-how that just might be adaptable...?

 

But if the TGP coding is nice then it could be scaled up and played with perhaps.... ?

 

Just my thoughts -, TGP is running at lower resolution than the main render and by default doesn't compute every frame (unless you select it in options). So to render the front view with refraction, you would probably have to render the whole DCS second time (with another two renders for mirrors and TGP running separately). It is just my speculation, but it would be very hardware intense as many ppl have problems running DCS only with the main render (without mirrors/TGP).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my thoughts -, TGP is running at lower resolution than the main render and by default doesn't compute every frame (unless you select it in options). So to render the front view with refraction, you would probably have to render the whole DCS second time (with another two renders for mirrors and TGP running separately). It is just my speculation, but it would be very hardware intense as many ppl have problems running DCS only with the main render (without mirrors/TGP).

 

Yeah realistically this is what I'm thinking... but you know, I was just thinking out load, just throwing it out there so to speak. I'd forgotten about the mirrors as well as the TGP!

 

But yeah - You see a lot of people flying in vids with their mirrors off...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...