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

Be prepared

From what I have seen, the Fw 190 cockpit looks very good. However, if users do not see the effects of refraction in the front windscreen, or an adequate work-around for its absence, then be prepared for a real poop-storm.

If you're not sure what this is about, the short version is like this: a perfect 3D model of the Fw 190 canopy will not yield an accurate representation of what it is like to look out from it. Similar to viewing a stick above and below the surface of water, the armored windscreen bends light. Consequently, from inside the apparent thickness of the canopy framing is reduced because of the refraction of light.

Oh, and lastly, because this is DCS, yes, we do expect it to be as accurate as possible.

:smartass:

Well, judging by screenshots we've seen so far, it will be pretty much spot-on.:thumbup:

Said as much to the VEAO guys when I met them at duxford. Thing is no matter what people will complain about SOMETHING. I'd love to see refraction though. On all modules thst could be effected!

Judging by screenshots we are not going to get yet another submarine. :pilotfly:

Yep looks like DCS can't model defraction so they've gone the workaround of making the canopy frame be thinner in appearance than it actually would be. This should keep people appeased (at least in relation to this one point).

Well since ED have at least one Dora pilot helping out I am sure they would have gotten there view of the cockpit :)

There seems to be a language barrier in that post. I'm not clear on what the 3d modeler believes or what we should expect.

Surely, after all this time, someone, somewhere in the world either lives near an airfield or knows someone who does where work is being carried out on a live restoration of an FW. All it would take is polite letter asking permission to take a series of measured photos while sitting in the cockpit.

The person taking the photos would need to take note of their own height, sit on the pilots seat with something that can replicate the thickness of the parachute pack of the day and take some photos making sure they're at eye height and with the same FOV as they see it without the camera.

Just a thought.

This:

:book:

They are connected. The refraction of light makes the apparent size of the frame bars smaller if you are sitting in the cockpit.

Many other threads that were going in cyrcles have been locked long ago... :)

Just saying, but I guess this particular undead can´t be killed even by a bullet to the head.

I find it hard to undestand why so many people feel the need to repeatedly point ED´s attention to this rather insignificant detail, even if they have more than proven that they adhere to the highest standards possible for their modules?

After bringing the issue up for the first time, don´t you think they would have checked this for themselves if they hadn´t already done so at that point? I really don´t get how sketchy drawings, stills from helmet cam videos and countless photos from a million different angles are going to change or help with anything after the artist has explained his conclusions and pointed out his sources almost a year ago?

No offense to anyone, but enthusiasm is one thing, this here is just "slightly" obessive. ;)

Challenge accepted! :D

When I get my Spit IX I hope all you 190 pilots will be staring at your cockpit frames wondering if size matters ;)

Hopefully we're zooming around in 109s by the time you get your awful british aircraft. :music_whistling:

Awful, really? Does the taunting have to start now? ;)

Fair enough, maybe its language barrier that results in me not understanding the big huff everyone gets in over this issue ;)

3D artists often do not understand such issues well. Producers too. They usually pull the blueprints card and declare that geometry is correct, however there are more things than geometry to consider here. In this case, the refraction, which changes how that correct geometry looks. Unfortunately, even if explained extensively such things are often brushed off as minor issues.

These issues might look minor at first, but once you get a descent opponent, they begin imposing obvious limits on how you do the combat. FW does not have much luxury to get on the tails of more maneuverable Spitfires or Soviet fighters, and do steady G shooting. In fact, it is dangerous for FW to do that, as it might cost too much energy. Instead, FW's workhorse are high speed, high angle slashing attacks. FW is kinda built for that: good control response at high speeds, heavy armament. However, one must predict the trajectory of target pretty well, and his success depends heavily on how well he can track the target. Let target slip into blindspot and it easily ruins whole attack. Issues with framing and the "bar" unrealistically add even more blindspots, and people hate that, because the way they have to fight is affected directly.

Lots of people get big huff, because the "bar" issue has something like a decade long history. There was a "bar", which obstructed lower part of view through Revi in old IL2. People went on crusade explaining this to devs, then went on crusade for getting a fix, but it was only fixed past the peak of sim by mods and TD team. Some veterans even have PTSD, and have ugly flashbacks when they hear about the "bar" now.

Unfortunately, history likes to repeat itself. Lots of people had pretty painful facepalm as they got the "bar" in IL2: Battle of Stalingrad last week (http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_07_2014/post-7693-0-29729100-1406287299.jpg). It is understandable after decade long crusades. It is also understandable they they feel anxious when they see any hints about getting it wrong in DCS too.

Hopefully we're zooming around in 109s by the time you get your awful british aircraft. :music_whistling:

Spit looks like a Mazda Miata, which is a girl's car.:megalol:

It's the bar and the canopy frame bars on each side. The former shouldn't obstruct the gun sight and the latter should not appear as thick as it would otherwise do. I guess the impact of making it look right on the inside is that the 3D exterior model won't look fully right. Unless refraction is actually modelled it's one or the other really and seeing as we spend most of our time in the cockpit would seem to make sense to simulate refraction.