[FIXED] HUD: A picture is worth a thousand words?

how could you be reading those info even in your stereoscopic vision?

I naturally lean forward a bit if needed. In my picture and exact head position a part of hud frame on 1 eye overlaps a part of hud camera on the other eye and masks a little bit of bottom right Stp data, but if I lean a bit forward it's fixed and all readable.

I naturally lean forward a bit if needed. In my picture and exact head position a part of hud frame on 1 eye overlaps a part of hud camera on the other eye and masks a little bit of bottom right Stp data, but if I lean a bit forward it's fixed and all readable.

I’m track ir and also just move my head when I need to see something. Its’ve very natural by now, just like looking down to see the hsi, or aft for a radio. For people really suffering from this, do you have all six degrees of freedom properly mapped in trackir. I.e. can you move your head forward, up, down, left, right?

I naturally lean forward a bit if needed. In my picture and exact head position a part of hud frame on 1 eye overlaps a part of hud camera on the other eye and masks a little bit of bottom right Stp data, but if I lean a bit forward it's fixed and all readable.

Cool thanks!:thumbup:

I deleted the A-10C section out of the SnapViews.lua file and regenerated it by hitting RAlt+Num0 after spawning into the Cold Start mission and before making any head movements (TrackIR disabled).

This is definitely the default head location. And the HUD graphics, same as before this update, don't fit in the glass. Yes, you can move your head around to get the full picture, but is that realistic? Any A-10 pilot or maintenance crew should be able to answer. A photo of the real HUD taken from normal eyeball position would be even better.

The view in the current OB was reviewed and ok'd by Habu and our contact at the 355th. Thanks.

Thx for improving the view angle. HUD is much more readable than pre 2.5.6.55363! :thumbup:

It's not right. This is what it looked like before it was broke.

Another two things I've noted that are definitely issues with the current head orientation:

The gun boresight circle (dotted circle with point in the middle) is clipped in the current HUD plane. Can't see it regardless of where my head is...

Also, in its current state the default view blocks the CICU sctrachpad (ability to type numbers into the UFC). Without TrackIR and/or changing the position, there isn't a way to view what's currently in the scratchpad on the HUD because the HUD camera is blocking it.

Regarding my last post- I think the gun boresight marker being blocked is just a matter of the hud clipping area not being big enough, not head position.

Another two things I've noted that are definitely issues with the current head orientation:

 

The gun boresight circle (dotted circle with point in the middle) is clipped in the current HUD plane. Can't see it regardless of where my head is...

 

Also, in its current state the default view blocks the CICU sctrachpad (ability to type numbers into the UFC). Without TrackIR and/or changing the position, there isn't a way to view what's currently in the scratchpad on the HUD because the HUD camera is blocking it.

Yes I’ve noticed this as well and can confirm it. If you look on wags videos on the A10C II however the gun boresight and compass tape is visible... maybe he's using a different dev build than the OB

minute 3:01

Good catch Snake!

EDIT: Here is what I consider to be proper eyepoint placement in the recent update:

This meets all my view requirements. I can see the top row OSB's for the MFCDs. The bolts on the HUD frame appear to closely match as indicated by other users. The eyepoint is shifted farther back to more closely mimic the head against the headrest. And it complies with the other visual references I tried to deduce in this example:

You can see the HUD elements are still partially obscured, but it is indeed an improvement I think. And Snake has provided good evidence (especially that fully visible water line) that we should expect even more HUD improvements!

I'm still catching up on the last 5 pages of this thread so expect more replies...

another pic I just created for comparison

old pre high res cockpit vs new view point

looks like in the new version you're sitting higher and closer to the panel than before, you notice this cause you can see the upper part of the dashboard and the first row of MFD button is not visible.

The new HUD has also a taller projector which is in the way

Good catch Snake!

 

 

EDIT: Here is what I consider to be proper eyepoint placement in the recent update:

This meets all my view requirements. I can see the top row OSB's for the MFCDs. The bolts on the HUD frame appear to closely match as indicated by other users. The eyepoint is shifted farther back to more closely mimic the head against the headrest. And it complies with the other visual references I tried to deduce in this example:

...

this looks spot on and very similar to the old pre-high res cockpit view point. Ofc the HUD projection needs adjustment but the 3d position of the view point looks better imo

It would also be interesting to check the pitch ladder against the scenery.. i.e. the 5° down line coincides with objects 5° below the horizon.

this looks spot on and very similar to the old pre-high res cockpit view point. Ofc the HUD projection needs adjustment but the 3d position of the view point looks better imo

Comparing Stable to the current Open Beta, I can see in Views.lua for the A-10C that the default head position has indeed been changed:

 

Old:

    [13] = makeSnapView({xyz = {0.157, -0.008,  0.000},ypr = { 0.000,  -19.000, 0.000},FOV = 75}),--default view
   [14] = makeSnapView({xyz = {0.2,   -0.025,  0.000},ypr = { 0.000,  -19.000, 0.000},FOV = 75}),--VR 

New:

    [13] = makeSnapView({xyz = {0.298,  -0.041,  0.000},ypr = { 0.000,  -19.000, 0.000},FOV = 73}),--default view
    [14] = makeSnapView({xyz = {0.298,  -0.041,  0.000},ypr = { 0.000,  -19.000, 0.000},FOV = 73}),--VR 

I don't know how the coordinate axes are laid out here... can anyone shed some light on this?

As a user of the Microsoft franchise, this data is incredibly familiar, and I feel I can make some "educated guesses" about it.

The first 3 numbers relate to the location of the eye position in the aircraft. They should be in relation to the aircraft's datum point, wherever that happens to be defined. As this is a single seat, I assume that the 0.000 value is lateral (axis "z"). Since we've gone forward in the cockpit, my guess is "0.157" and "0.298" is longitudinal (thus "x"), and from "-0.008" to "-0.041" explains our lowering view, thus axis "y" is vertical (and the datum is high in the aircraft).

The next question is units. Microsoft is an American company, and their documentation states these units are feet, so I assume they are meters for a UK/RU group?

"ypr" is pretty obviously Yaw, Pitch, and Roll. And the appropriate values are 0 here.

The subject of cockpit view (in both 2D and 3D) is actually quite old, and my limited knowledge comes from sources such as the Flight Simulation Control Interface Harmonisation Tutorial for MSFS2004:ACOF.

The code and mechanics are obviously completely different, but the concepts are directly related. They even use combat aircraft as the example to better understand the (identical) issues in civilian airliners.

Good analysis. I’m curious why there are two sets though? When is the [13] used vs [14]?

Another problem with the new view, in addition to blocking the view of the top row OSB, is that it blocks several cockpit lights for the pilot/player. GUN READY, STEERING ENGAGED, MARKER BEACON, and CANOPY UNLOCKED. I believe these should be visible to the pilot in the design head position (against the headrest).

I'm going to experiment and see if I can find some "makeSnapView" values that I think will be an improvement.

EDIT: The HUD pitch ladder appears to be correct.

Puma,

check the notes at the end of each line for the explanation

So it is now considered 'correct as is' and no more future changes are to be expected?

I think the point is that real A10 drivers at Davis Monthan OK'ed the change. So they must think it's OK. That's how I read it.

Of course, those guys all use VR so they can just move the head around like in real life. Maye that's the difference?

I think the point is that real A10 drivers at Davis Monthan OK'ed the change. So they must think it's OK. That's how I read it.

 

Of course, those guys all use VR so they can just move the head around like in real life. Maye that's the difference?

Exactly I think the same, that could be the key difference

My guess is that only the VR view has been validated since the 355th will be using a VR training software as part of their agreement with ED as stated in the weekend news

25 September 2020 weekend news

maybe someone from ED can shine some light on the subject?

Good catch, I will investigate if maybe some changes haven't been merged completely for the old A-10C, or if held up by the A-10C II update. Mine looks good in the OG A-10C in OB, but that vid does look a little more tweaked.

thanks NineLine, looking forward to an update on this :thumbup:

I didn't hate the old HUD view (Track IR User) but i'm finding it difficult to find a position where I can see the heading tape AND the top row of MFCD buttons...

Any tips?

Why can't they put the HUD back the way it was before they broke it. I posted two videos showing what it should look like and nobody said anything.

What we have now is horrible.

I'll show it again. Give us this. Video was made Aug 2019

Maybe anyway to use VR head position to trackir users? If VR position is correct we can use it

If you look at the HUD in the video I posted and the HUD in Wags videos they look pretty much the same.

The problem is in Wags version they had to raise the seat to get it. Which blocks buttons and lights. The seat didn't need to be raised. The HUD needed to be fixed.

You can't fix the new HUD by lowering the seat.

This is a deal breaker for me. We look at the HUD too much to have it look as it does now. I'm confused why they can't just go back to the old HUD?

If you look at the HUD in the video I posted and the HUD in Wags videos they look pretty much the same.

 

The problem is in Wags version they had to raise the seat to get it. Which blocks buttons and lights. The seat didn't need to be raised. The HUD needed to be fixed.

 

You can't fix the new HUD by lowering the seat.

 

This is a deal breaker for me. We look at the HUD too much to have it look as it does now. I'm confused why they can't just go back to the old HUD?

I guess because it would mess up the commercial agreement with the Air Force. But that's just a guess on my part.