AndyJWest

Nope - refraction raises the effective viewpoint of the pilot.

If you think this is a 'lengthy debate' you should probably look at the ones on the IL-2 forums. They went on for years. Hopefully someone can come up with some hard facts (i.e. a photograph showing the actual view through the windscreen) and avoid the same here. As to whether it actually matters, anything that allows you just a couple more degrees downward visibility may sometimes be significant - it can make the difference between getting a deflection shot in, and not actually being able to see the target. Anyway, the video was a brief alpha/beta shot, and as yet we don't even know if there is any real problem.

Poly methyl methacrylate (perspex) has a refractive index of 1.4914 at 587.6 nm, compared to glass at around 1.5 - 1.6. It isn't going to make a great deal of difference.

Shifting the image might prove costly, GPU processing wise. It might be simpler to tweak the model geometry to move the top of the engine cowling down - or at a pinch, to just move the pilot and gunsight up.

Look it up for yourself...

Bongodriver, the windscreen is a constant thickness. A beam of light is refracted by a certain angle as it enters, and back by the same angle as it exits. It ends up going in the same direction as it was before, but displaced sideways.

Nope - the offset is constant, regardless of the distance.

Yup. off target by 30mm. You think this matters? (Actually, I've worked it out, and I make it about 42mm, assuming the glass has a refractive index of 1.55, is 75mm thick, and angled at 25° to the horizontal).

Edit - wrong answer. I've got my angles mixed up. :(

I think you need to look at the drawing again - the front of the glass is projecting below the fuselage in the drawing. As for refraction, this is simple optics. All we need to know is the incident angle of the sight line, the thickness of the glass, and the refractive index. I see no reason why we shouldn't assume that the drawing is accurate enough to provide the first two. I'll see if I can find any information on refractive indexes.

The reason it isn't 'visible in real life' is made clear by the enlarged side view here: Refraction through the thick armoured glass causes the 'line of sight' forwards to move upwards. It is only about 1.5 cm or so, but it is enough to remove the 'bar'. And yes, the drawing shows that the bottom of the glass actually sits inside the fuselage - photo's won't show this, because of the refraction.

Unmodded Il-2 '46 4.12 has a flyable Pe-8.

World's biggest? Not any more, at least according to Wikipedia - the Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C is bigger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA96-C Some nice photos of a 10-cylinder version here: http://web.archive.org/web/20100716202400/http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/index.html.o

Has there been any official statement from DCS regarding the Corsica video? Is it a true representation of what we can expect from gaming software, or is it actually EDGE as seen running on the professional flight simulator platforms it has also been ported to? Incidentally, to clarify - my earlier post wasn't intended to suggest that I wasn't going to back the Kickstarter - I'm sure I will (as soon as I decide how much of the money I can't afford I will be spending anyway...). Instead, I was suggesting that further efforts needed to be made to attract more support.

There are about 2000 (so far) who have (a) registered at the BoS forum, (b) per-purchased BoS, and © activated their keys. Given that most forums attract many people that read but don't post, I'd not be surprised if the actual BoS pre-purchases were a lot higher - there is after all no point in activating now if you don't intend to post on the forum - all you get right now is a shiny gold/silver icon. As to how many of those who have pre-ordered BoS that would also be interested in the DCS:WW2 Kickstarter, I'd have to suggest that the numbers rather speak for themselves - anyone looking at the BoS forum recently will probably have seen the thread on the Kickstarter, and it has been mentioned on many other air combat sim forums. No doubt some haven't seen it yet, but I suspect that most of the 'community' will be aware of it by now. The response we've seen has to be taken as evidence that not everyone in 'the community' is as enthusiastic as might be hoped - perhaps because us flight-simmers are a cynical and grumpy old lot, and probably aren't the best bet for new-fangled ideas like Kickstarter. Which rather puts the onus on Luthier to inspire us a little more...

What colour do the Russians paint their landing gear?

Maybe it is just because Russians like pastel colours?

At minimum, he'd have to give them to anyone who'd backed at all - even the $1 backers. I can't see it happening anyway - it would look like indecision, which could hurt the project.

It is too late for Luthier to change his mind on the 'free-to-play' aspects. Kickstarter doesn't allow rewards to be revised once backers have started pledging...

Heavy? I'd say so...

True - but they aren't DCS WWII work in progress...

Not Normandy. Not remotely...

From Luthier: "Normandy is about 100x160km." http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=109847&page=103 To my mind, that is rather small - for comparison, the BoS map is 360 x 230 km - though admittedly likely to be less detailed. http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?do=findComment&comment=4610 From memory, the CloD map is a little larger that the BoS one - though of course much of it is water. I'm surprised there hasn't been more comment on this.

Unless I've misread something, the Dora isn't included in free content - what isn't clear is whether the backers who put in enough cash to earn an extra flyable can select the Dora or the P-51D. I suspect not.

Am I reading this right: to to start with, flyable P-51D, P-47 & Spitfire versus Bf 109 & Fw 190 D? And later (depending on Kickstart) flyable B-17, P-38 & Mosquito versus Me.262?