[REPORTED] Fw 190 Cockpit Bar! (answer Post #173)

It's like I was never away from the bar debate.

It's like I was never away from the bar debate.

Its called a Krupi bar now. :music_whistling:

I'd say that 'Krupi' is more synonymous with 'Any Lap Dancing Club in Bristol', rather than the '190 Bar', but maybe I labour under a misapprehension. ;)

Okay, who is this :noexpression:

Ello Ello Ello!! has Krupi been rumbled? frequent the odd seedy gentlemans clubs eh?.........can I come?:music_whistling:

Those 50's cals could destroy a Tiger, but only if bounced off grass into the soft underbelly IIRC. As if the Germans would permit a bar to obscure the gunsight lol!

There are these storys, yes. But first of all it was said that it had to bounce off from concrete or roads and not grass and second this is all wrong. Allied pilots claimed many tankkills without confirming it right. Many shot on already bailed out tanks and what happened even more often was that they mistook p4 or panthertanks for tigers. In the normandy region they claimed about 3 times more tigerkills then tigers were produced during the whole war. And now think logically, can bullets of not even 15mm caliber, which are ricocheting from the ground, realy penetrate tanksteel? Plus at an angle not even close to 90°? The groundplate was already on the prototype 20mm thick, there is just no way u can penetrate that with cal 50 not even at point blank range.

Notice a theme here?

Seems that everybody who ever made a 3d model of a 190 all went with the 'bar' in view, presumably they all worked from good drawings to make the models.

refraction or not the bottom edge of the glass is fully visible as proved by this picture

Given that the entire bottom edge of the armoured glass in its frame was visible to the pilot because it physically sits on top of the instrument shroud in plain sigh of the pilot and clearly refraction does not eliminate this, one can deduce the bar was there and is accurately represented as visible above the instrument shroud, as illustrated in the above test picture this means that due to refraction in actual fact a small potion of view above the nose is hidden just like the small portion of the edge of the table is missing in the test picture, so it's not the bar that obstructs the view but actually the refraction that reduces forward visibility.......it's worryingly starting to look like forward visibility is actually better in the simulator than in real life.

The problem is when the bottom of the glass and frame obstructs the view in the Revi. That's what happened before and that how it might be now.

I have a hard time believing that Kurt Tank would have made the design as obstructing the sighting device.

The problem is when the bottom of the glass and frame obstructs the view in the Revi. That's what happened before and that how it might be now.

 

I have a hard time believing that Kurt Tank would have made the design as obstructing the sighting device.

yeah but in reality its not obstructing the actual sight reticule, only a miniscule portion of the overall sight aperture, as I just proved above the big problem is the refraction is eliminating a portion of the lower view, the sight glass could be made smaller in circumference or the pilot could lower his eye line slightly and hey presto the problem is solved, no blame on Kurt for that one, I'm sure he was just a human being anyway.

The problem is when the bottom of the glass and frame obstructs the view in the Revi. That's what happened before and that how it might be now.

 

I have a hard time believing that Kurt Tank would have made the design as obstructing the sighting device.

Refraction hasn't been modelled.

Nate

Notice a theme here?

 

 

Seems that everybody who ever made a 3d model of a 190 all went with the 'bar' in view, presumably they all worked from good drawings to make the models.

 

refraction or not the bottom edge of the glass is fully visible as proved by this picture

 

 

Given that the entire bottom edge of the armoured glass in its frame was visible to the pilot because it physically sits on top of the instrument shroud in plain sigh of the pilot and clearly refraction does not eliminate this, one can deduce the bar was there and is accurately represented as visible above the instrument shroud, as illustrated in the above test picture this means that due to refraction in actual fact a small potion of view above the nose is hidden just like the small portion of the edge of the table is missing in the test picture, so it's not the bar that obstructs the view but actually the refraction that reduces forward visibility.......it's worryingly starting to look like forward visibility is actually better in the simulator than in real life.

But bingo it's not obscuring the revi in those shots...

Wood appears to be white oak quarter sawn :)

But bingo it's not obscuring the revi in those shots...

Bingo?

Same model from the same forum.....or rather same design team rather than actual model

My point is that the sight may only occasionally appeared slightly obstructed, 6dof head movement is going to give a few varied head positions, I really don't see a problem there, but I have just identified where real world refraction might have given a worse forward view than we actually get in game.

I might add the refraction issue became blindingly obvious in the end, it doesn't even need the pictures to understand, when the viewpoint is reliant on being fixed i.e. looking through a sight then the entire image ahead is shifted down due to the refraction, if looking from that fixed point and the image is shifted down you lose the bottom portion of what you could see without refraction.

What does this prove bongo, it's still no where near the obstruction the video shows.

And who says your image is correct.

I still cant understand why is this a big deal.Hopefully some one would enlighten me or hopefully not, I dont want it to be a big deal :)

What does this prove bongo, it's still no where near the obstruction the video shows.

 

And who says your image is correct.

it proves the bar is visible despite any apparent refraction, physically this just is not even up for debate, the bottom edge of the glass is above the instrument shroud and the pilot can see above the shroud and refraction 'does not' eliminate the bottom edge of the glass. therefore the 'bar' is visible.

The gunsight sits only slightly above the instrument shroud, from many images the tolerance in how much higher than the 'bar' is almost negligible, it really wouldn't take much head movement to get a position where part of the 'bar' could obstruct a tiny portion of the sight.

'IF' we were to allow for refraction, then it is now clear that in actual fact we lose a small portion of the lower part of a natural view, this is also likely the part of view where the target sits in attempting a deflection shot.

This is without doubt the single funniest and most OCD thread I've encountered in 20+ years of reading flight sim forums and newsgroups.

Nice work, gentlemen. :)

@Pizzicato: You never attended the "banana" forum back in the days then ;)

Welcome to the world of long and glorious debates regarding WWII birds!

It's not so much the problem that the glass frame is there (as shown in the model). The main problem is that we don't have the optical distortion, which reduces the visibility of the frame.

This can be either solved by changing the 3d model or add the optical distortion for armored glass to the render engine.

The question is which will be used...

It would be quite easy to do if they leave a portion of the frame a separate object and use a Visibility Argbase to make it go away in cockpit view.

The down side is 6-DOF

Hello, I'm the creator FW-190 pit. Actually, all the evidence the lack of visibility bottom of bulletproof glass, posted here, really do not belong to FW-190D. I built the front of the pit frame guided by the factory drawings, in which everything is exactly as you see on the 3D model. If you look at pictures of a real FW-190D, you will see that the "bar" is there. I actually believed that other versions FW have a different design of bulletproof glass and front part canopy as seen in the pictures.

Actually, the pit frame do not occludes gunsight, it is a perspective distortion caused a game engine.

From the point of view of the correct 3D model, everything accurately. The sight sitting at that height as the original. If developers decided that the issue of obstruction of gunsight really exists, the gunsight can be easyly raised up to 5mm. But it is a matter of DCS.

PS photo FW with EZ, for general reference only, due to different canopy design.

Just for general reference, this is factory drawing of Ta152 with gyrosight and "bar" :)

Thank you very much for your response and your stellar work.

To me it seems your pictures tells us that our concern about

the frame blocking the Revi is unfounded and I'm happy with

that.

Best regards.

Agree if the bar doesn't block the Gun sight its not a big deal from a gunnery point of view.

In the TA152 drawing where does the top of the Instrument coaming lie ?

Here is a D9 image of the aircraft in the USAF museum in Dayton little restoration work has been done in this area. The extent of the bar can be made out as a black rectangle sitting atop the coaming. It wouldnt be too hard to actually figure out the exact amount the "bar" extends above the coaming from this image.

Another image of the D13 taken from the other side from the colour image in post 173. this is a restored D13.

This image from WWII of a D9 wreck that clearly illustrates the structure in the area and relationship of the various coaming panels.