Suggestion: Reduce cockpit frame and improve visibility

I love the F-14, but a problem that became apparent on day one is the poor visibility from the cockpit. Especially to the front, with all the window frames in the way.

But, is this really realistic? That we can barely see the guy we're in formation with or fighting in BFM? Or that during the final turn towards the carrier on a case 1 landing, we can't see the entire boat because of the window frame?

In reality, a pilot has two eyes, while our viewpoint in the game is a single point (unless you use VR). With two eyes, close obstacles like beams, hud frame and such will become much less intrusive, as one eye will see what the other won't (as I hope every two-eyed person on the planet is already aware of).

So I think it should be a possibility to make the cockpit frames a bit thinner or something to make up for the fact that we are one-eyed in the game.

I know that the cockpit frames are correct shape and size compared to the original plane, but since we are one-eyed in the game, some adjustments should be done, in my opinion.

For the purists, it should maybe be an option you could toggle.

And, before anyone says it: I don't think the solution is that everyone MUST play in VR to be able to see out from the cockpit. A lot can't or won't play in VR for a multitude of reasons, including motion sickness.

Currently, I can only fly the F-14 for a little while before I feel I'm getting tired from not seeing properly. So I hope this could be altered in some way.

I mean. There is a MiG here somewhere...

The frame is the frame. Using TIR, I find no problem maintaining bearing on the boat during landing, and flying BFM the frame isn't a big deal- because you shouldn't be pulling the bandit into the windscreen until it's time to shoot him.

Similarly, I'm hard pressed to think of a formation in which I'm holding a bearing at ten or so degrees. Even tanking is solved more reliably by a switch to a wider POV, and if required, a minor lowering of the view (in lieu of a seat height switch at this time).

Perhaps the dimensions of the forward frame of the canopy are a bit small but it's not much. Seems like it's just a poor visibility cockpit. And in reality you have a large helmet and not much wiggle room, so I doubt you'll be looking around any better than we can do with track ir

But my point about the two eyes still stands. I am not arguing that the cockpit is the wrong shape from Heatblur. I am simply saying that with the handicap of viewing through a monitor, some adjustments should be made.

As mentioned by lunaticfringe, a non-vr solution (though still requiring spending money) is Track IR. There are open alternatives (I switched to Track IR as I had issues with these). This will allow you to move your head around laterally to look around the cockpit frame. You still use your monitor, but do have to mount to a cap, or buy a separate clip for a headset.

handicap

It's the reality of what it was, and exhibits itself in VR as much as a flat panel- they have more compressed fields of view than can be experienced on an LCD. Operate regularly with your FoV relative to what one would actually see from a given seating position, rather than compressing the frame. It becomes far less of a bother- and, quite frankly, a useful tool for the employment and general handling of the airplane, especially in the panel-based world.

Yeah, I have TrackIR, but still I feel half blind when I fly the F-14B.

Am i truly the only one who feels this?

No, there have been other complainants before on this topic.

Whilst I don't disagree with you that having stereoscopic vision can help mitigate some masking effect of the canopy framing, I can tell you as a user who regularly jumps between stereoscopic VR headset and 2D monitor, the advantage of stereo vision is not so great as you might hope, and for the sake of a little extra lean on your part I doubt that every developer is suddenly going to feel compelled to remodel - inaccurately as well - every one of their carefully crafted and textured cockpits.

There will forever be some compromises on translating the 3D experience of flight to computer software experienced via a 2D monitor - your current woe being one.

Perhaps the dimensions of the forward frame of the canopy are a bit small but it's not much. Seems like it's just a poor visibility cockpit. And in reality you have a large helmet and not much wiggle room, so I doubt you'll be looking around any better than we can do with track ir

The canopy frame dimensions are correct to ~1-2 mm precision.

As for this thread topic; As VR very pointedly illustrates, the canopy frame is quite obtrusive even with stereoscopic vision.

Well there you have it.

The canopy frame dimensions are correct to ~1-2 mm precision.

I am sure they are, I am just saying that because of the way it is portrayed on a screen, we see significantly less than a real person would in an F-14 cockpit.

Because of the two eyes vs. one eye thing.

I am sure they are, I am just saying that because of the way it is portrayed on a screen, we see significantly less than a real person would in an F-14 cockpit.

 

Because of the two eyes vs. one eye thing.

I wouldn't say that's the case though; and this is easily illustrated in VR (which sets correct stereoscopic spacing of your eyes).

6cm of parallax (IPD) does not mean much more field of view.

I wouldn't say that's the case though; and this is easily illustrated in VR (which sets correct stereoscopic spacing of your eyes).

 

6cm of parallax (IPD) does not mean much more field of view.

I haven't played in VR, nor have I flown a real F-14 (obviously), but I still feel that it's very difficult to see anything out of the cockpit compared to what I would expect from seeing pictures of the real F-14 from outside and inside. Also, from reading stories from real F-14 pilots, they don't usually say anything about the cockpit view being this terrible. In the MiG-21 (for example), sure, they mention it all the time, but not in the Tomcat.

The only real thing I can compare it to is when you are driving a car: sure, the window frame is partly in the way, but you can easily see around it. You can much more easily move your head in real life than you can with TrackIR, and you have the advantage of two eyes.

I still think there should be a slight reduction of the frames to make the visibility a little better.

As someone who flies exclusively in VR and is rather picky about having the correct virtual seating position, I can tell you that the canopy frame is indeed quite obstructive. Being able to move your head around within the confines of being glued to your seat doesn't help much actually, so I guess real pilots had the issue as well.

I don't know, but my guess is we have a greater range of movement available to us with track ir and vr than a pilot had given seatbelt straps, gear, helmet, and canopy.

Adjust the sensitivity on your track ir profile so it's easier to look around.

Keep in mind that most photos are taken with the canopy up. This has huge implications on the perceived thickness.

I mean the pilot isn't spending a lot of time looking out the canopy anyway.

You don't need to see out of the front of it to deliver an aim-54 to a target 100 miles away. Plus you have the vdi and instruments to fly with. The HUD is rudimentary at best. She just wasn't designed that way and to me it feels like a very accurate experience.

An F-14 isn't an F-16.

+1 and not to forget: real live you normally had another pair of eyes behind the pilots seat that helped for situational awareness a lot, too. Something that couldn't get solved with AI controlled eyes, no matter how well it's programmed. So maybe try the Tomcat with a real RIO?

Ugh the placement of the HSD irl would drive me crazier than the forward canopy frame. At least in game we can remove the flight stick

Horizontal scan, TV ID fire job done.

Keep in mind that most photos are taken with the canopy up. This has huge implications on the perceived thickness.

 

...

 

The saying goes: "A picture is worth a thousand words".

And those 2 pictures clearly show it.

Have to remember manufacturing engineering was very different in the late 1960's when the cat was being designed, especially toughened canopy glass of aircraft. It was also a crossover in belief doctrine when the US was being tested in Vietnam away from the over reliance on BVR missiles with poor combat Pk and the realisation that WVR ACM was still massively important.

I think the counter argument to this is that for the time it was very forward thinking with the elevated pilot seated positing, especially the rio not having a bulkhead behind him unlike the F4. Later designs of the 15/16 further increased this visibility. Off the top of my head im struggling to think of a 4th generation fighter that precedes the tomcat that has better pilot/rio WVR view, either Nato or Soviet Block. Think about the Mig 31, 5 years later in first flight and poor visibility for the Rio with sunken pilot positions.

As for the pit and view, i only fly in VR and certainly the visibility compared to later 4th generation fighters is reduced but its reflective of the actual aircraft. I think what Heatblur have done is purely astounding in terms of the interior model - its way beyond ED to be fair.

I cannot recommend VR enough , the Rift S for me has been a game changer over the cv1. As for views in general, VR is the way forward the immediate SA especially on things like on the tank and close in ACM or A2G aquisition/roll in does improve your execution of flight. If you enjoy the game, invest in VR.

Well there is no 4th generation fighter that predates the Tomcat, but other than that I'd argue the view out of the F-5 is far better than the Tomcat, especially in the front.

Visibility at Mach 2 is far superior in the F-14 to the F-5. Also far superior to the rear- from either seat.