P-51 Propeller Volumeric effect

IMHO you can't match those pictures as any probe, POV matters and it's quite hard to get the very same.

Anyway I've been checking it cause was sure I've seen it before and I've to say I was mistaken. May be I was remembering some Fw190 or Bf109 look as they have it indeed, but definitely P-51 prop animation is quite poor in volume.

S!

If a real photo isn't good enough, we can take look at an in-game screen of a stopped prop 3D model then - see attachment. If I recall correctly Hamilton Standard goes full fine when there's no oil pressure to push the piston to the prop cylinder dome. So this is the most "thin" the blades can look as seen from the side. It can only go thicker as the pitch lowers. Compare to my previous screens above and draw conclusions.

If a real photo isn't good enough, we can take look at an in-game screen of a stopped prop 3D model then - see attachment. If I recall correctly Hamilton Standard goes full fine when there's no oil pressure to push the piston to the prop cylinder dome. So this is the most "thin" the blades can look as seen from the side. It can only go thicker as the pitch lowers. Compare to my previous screens above and draw conclusions.

Quoting myself here, to add a shot of idling animation with pitch lever fully forward in comparison with stopped engine:

Here is how it looks with engine off and idling:

 

 

Yep Art-J and T}{OR, we'll always find someone who will say, as I said earlier, that it's off because of specific conditions where the screen was taken, as FoV, FPS, wide screen or not, resolution, refresh rate, graphic quality, DCS version, weather, good or bad mood of the engine that day etc etc ...

It really doesn't require to be a rocket scientist to see what's wrong.

Thanks to T}{OR, Art-J and my images, it should be obvious to anyone to see what's wrong.

Will I need to do as I did with the Huey to prove there's really something ? I don't think North American people will be able to answer me this time, and even if they were still on this Earth, it's so obvious the side view effect in current DCS Mustang is off they would probably laugh at me.

Now, it's just a mater of bias. As everything, if you firmly don't want to see the evidence, you will see nothing ( yep the vice versa is also true, but we brought correct proofs )

It is also a matter of priorities. Fixing visual issues on a product that is being supported for what, 3(?) years during a developmental dry spell (other projects binding a lot of ressources) is not going to make a headline on the agenda.

It is also a matter of priorities. Fixing visual issues on a product that is being supported for what, 3(?) years during a developmental dry spell (other projects binding a lot of ressources) is not going to make a headline on the agenda.

S!

The downside to having so many modules out is that you have more to maintain and improve as standards rise I suppose.

From my point of view , there are some differences with this, and DCSW model.

But I'm no expert ...

 

 

 

 

 

From my point of view , there are some differences with this, and DCSW model.

 

But I'm no expert ...

Because as Yo-Yo explained....

DCS models what the eye perceives and not the camera.

Okay, sorry if it sounds harsh or whatever but :

 

- This thread is not a feature request thread

- It only talks about ... the title of the thread. It's not about IL-2, nor the DCS damage model nor the homing adapter... not even engine sounds :lol:

 

Now, the P-51D has, like Crumpp said, several propellers along it's service life. I'm not a Mustang expert at all, but am a propeller one. AFAIK, it mainly uses the Hamilton Standard paddle four bladed, constant speed, Hydromatic propeller.

 

- Cuffed ( with blade shank " housing ", like both the DCS one and in the photograph above )

 

- Or the standard one, the prop we commonly see nowadays on airshow's Mustangs : http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/7/9/1464975.jpg

 

But both pics I uploaded in the Original Post talks about the same prop.

 

Yo-Yo, the screenshot is not from me I took it from a member here. But taking it at any altitude or power setting doesn't matter. Yes it will change the appearance ( width ) because of actual blade pitch angle at the time of the screenshot/photograph, but the fact is, even in finest pitch, the visual we should have is closer to the real photo than the screen I posted.

 

Just compare both.

 

We could enter in long useless debates talking it can't be compared because it's not same FoV, same RPM, FPS, density altitude, variant model or anything, but theres no point.

 

The current DCS P-51D prop disc is just way off. The question now is, will it be re-done in the future ? Or, can we, the community, can have easy access on the particular file that generate the 3D appearance of prop according to RPM, blade pitch, side view angle etc.

 

That's all :thumbup:

Your "standard" looks like the Aeroproducts propeller and not one of the several Hamilton Standard designs used on the P-51 series.

Because as Yo-Yo explained....

 

DCS models what the eye perceives and not the camera.

Sure thing. Prop looks very realistic (i.e. perfect!) from pilots perspective - without reproducing how the camera captures it. Side / volumetric view, is a whole different matter though. No better than old '46 lol. Even more so when you take a look at how other props are visually modeled, from two other prop jobs to e.g. Huey.

Side / volumetric view, is a whole different matter though. No better than old '46 lol.

Maybe...maybe not...I do not know and unless your flying formation or operating a Mustang paying particular attention to this detail...nobody else does either.

:smilewink:

What is a fact is only photographic evidence has been presented to illustrate that. What camera perceives and what the eye perceives are not the same.

Yo-Yo strikes me as a detail guy and someone who is pretty passionate about getting those details right. I am sure he will check it out and fix it if it is not correct.

If you know of a better way of presenting evidence other than photographic way I am all ears. ;)

Seriously though, even though I do not operate or fly a real Mustang I did see 4 of them taxiing past me in very close vicinity earlier this year at Duxford, and the prop looks nothing like we have in-game now. I am referring to the side / volumetric view. The rest is spot on.

Very nice posts guys there is research and nice ideas behind this. You're absolutely true about the fact that our eyes do not perceive things like a camera.

But we're not talking about the stroboscopic effect or such, just the side view.

I never had the chance to fly a P-51, nor in formation, but did close forms on several light GA planes ( including Cap 10 ) and the side view is thick, just because the pitch of the blade is there.

Take an example :

Remove the cover of your living room fan, take a look at what the prop looks like from 90° side, fan stopped

Then switch it on, and look now what you see.

You see exactly the same thing, obviously lighter and a bit transparent, but the shape of the blades when looked from side are stil the same.

There's no magic here, just common sense.

I don't have my Sim PC right here but please guys have a look at current BF-109 or FW side prop view, it's done correctly.

I start to lack any arguments or examples here because all were given. I may have the language barrier here but it's a real fact, you can check that with any real world plane/helicopter you want.

And by the way, what I saw in real world close formation was exactly the same as the real P-51 pict I posted earlier, as long as your in the plane of rotation of it, it DOES look the same.

What was different was the prop disc effect ( from behind/front slight angles )

In sim, pictures, photographs etc we see this :

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Republic_P-47N_Thunderbolt_in_flight.jpg

In real world wee see this :

http://cdn1.findthebest.com/sites/default/files/1617/media/images/Cirrus_Aircraft_SR22_306381.jpg

Because as Yo-Yo explained....

 

DCS models what the eye perceives and not the camera.

In the videos different recordings, a 29 fps (human eye) are observed and others

The last video ... what do you think? ...

Once again, this as NOTHING to do with a camera, an eye, or related to frame per second, speed, aperture etc

Yes Yo-Yo, you are true with all your stated above

I just said that, in a SIDE VIEW, it does change NOTHING

Try to reproduce that little experiment with the fan.

The shape of the volumeric prop will be lighter and more transparent as RPM increases, but the shape won't change ! That's not like looking at a prop from front or behind ( here, yes, photographic parameters will clearly affect the render )

But not from side

No, take a look at the Mustang - as we see some stroboscopic effects it affects to the side view as a periodic shape changing or density changing.

Absolutely it does, as it follow the prop whole disc " rotation "

The shape is the same ( if you set the shot-speed to the sweet spot that make the prop disc frozen )

But I'm not sure where we are going in that way... the superposition of real/DCS shot show it all, as well as previous T}{OR thread : on his, the spinning prop from side should look the same as the static one on ground. Pitch on Low Pitch Stops so no change in width, just the same shape

Maybe I got this thread all wrong ... but after some initial confusion the one prominent thing I noticed on Hueyman's pictures is not the blur or other camera related effects ... but simply the width of the prop blades. I think, this is what Hueyman is really talking about? Assuming a similar prop pitch setting, the DCS representation of the prop blades appears much thinner than the real one (looking at 90 deg.).

Yes Flagrum and Mike that's what I'm trying to Say from the very first post...

;-)

In addition to pictures posted here in this thread, take a look at these videos (preset to start at the moment prop is visible from 90° side):

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• http://youtu.be/-RPZ0aORvYw?t=33s
  
• 
  

Now compare all this with what we have in-game, already posted here and clearly visible in post #28.

No matter the camera shutter speed or ISO settings, who ever saw a P-51 up close on an airshow can tell you the side 90° view the prop looks ridiculously thin. Even with a fine pitch, engine idling.