[REPORTED] Windshield

[Fox One]

Here is the old thread with more pictures:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=127712

 

For me, visual accuracy is very, very important, but I don't think this will ever be corrected. Reason - 99.9% of the owners don't care about it.

[SgtPappy]

Thanks for linking your old thread, Fox. I wish I could say have hope, but I think youre right. Hopefully more people back us up on this though.

[Zeke]

Yea that compass is a pain. Wish it wasn't there. I was hoping someone would mod it but I guess that's not to easy.

[jjohnson241]

Here is the old thread with more pictures:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=127712

 

For me, visual accuracy is very, very important, but I don't think this will ever be corrected. Reason - 99.9% of the owners don't care about it.

 

+1 on the Windshield shape. All pictures confirm that the DCS version is too wide at the top.

+ 1 also on the location of the compass. My gut feeling is that there is no "right" location for a given variant. Common sense however suggests that no pilot would want the compass to interfere with the FOV in combat. I would imagine they would have the crew chief by his neck until he relocated the compass to a location to not interfere with his FOV.

 

Now with all that said, I agree with your assessment on the possibility of correction. This vendor has not impressed me with their support of their beta products. I could be wrong and hope I am.

[SgtPappy]

I'm thinking that if they revised the windshield shape to be skinnier at the top and they put the proper armor plate frame then the compass would interfere less because it would be placed behind said frame. We'd also get a small addition in visibility from the side windows.

[johnv2pt0]

Well, as a sabre fan, I could care less if one of the instruments is in the wrong place and don't want Belsimtek to waist time with that stuff. They really need to fix the rudder and canopy visibility issues and give us a manual. I'm not sure why you would want them spending so much time on switchology when there are so many variants anyway. Just my $0.02

[SgtPappy]

Yes, first and foremost should always be the flight model.

 

However, I don't remember that thread ever concluding that there was actually something wrong with the rudder. Although, yes, intuitively, it feels like it's not doing anything. But was there anything I missed?

 

And yes, it's your opinion that we want them to "waste time", but when it comes down to visibility, and the most realistic F-86F out there in a sim, I personally don't think it's wasting time.

[johnv2pt0]

Yes, first and foremost should always be the flight model.

 

However, I don't remember that thread ever concluding that there was actually something wrong with the rudder. Although, yes, intuitively, it feels like it's not doing anything. But was there anything I missed?

 

And yes, it's your opinion that we want them to "waste time", but when it comes down to visibility, and the most realistic F-86F out there in a sim, I personally don't think it's wasting time.

 

Yeah like I said, just my opinion on the switchology subject.

 

I think that thread you're talking about concluded with someone at belsimtek saying something like, "We hear our customers concerns and are looking into how best to proceed." Something very non-commital like that...which is a shame because I read that as "we'll look into weather or not it's worth the effort to fix it."

 

I only had a semester of aeronautical engineering, but I have flown multiple airframes and know that if you have laminar flow over a cambered surface you create lift. Right now it's very noticeable when you come in for a ground attack run you can jam on the rudder and don't get so much as a wiggle in the nose. It does happen closer to the transonic speed range, so maybe something's going on with the shock wave created by the canopy or something...and I'm always willing to learn...but it sure seems wrong to me.

[SgtPappy]

Yeah like I said, just my opinion on the switchology subject.

 

I think that thread you're talking about concluded with someone at belsimtek saying something like, "We hear our customers concerns and are looking into how best to proceed." Something very non-commital like that...which is a shame because I read that as "we'll look into weather or not it's worth the effort to fix it."

 

I only had a semester of aeronautical engineering, but I have flown multiple airframes and know that if you have laminar flow over a cambered surface you create lift. Right now it's very noticeable when you come in for a ground attack run you can jam on the rudder and don't get so much as a wiggle in the nose. It does happen closer to the transonic speed range, so maybe something's going on with the shock wave created by the canopy or something...and I'm always willing to learn...but it sure seems wrong to me.

 

Well this is true, but the question is, how much lift and how much moment? we all know there is something wrong with the rudder, but none of us have had the time or capability to actually prove it. I'd like to look into it myself, but I really don't think I have the time to delve back into my stability and control text book to find out just yet. I really really hope that thread is making Belsimtek look into the rudder too.

 

EDIT: Perhaps we should get the mods to rename this thread "Windshield, Rudder and lack of Over-G super thread" :P

Edited April 9, 2015 by SgtPappy

[DieHard]

Please see picture 1 below. The problem with the flat windshield on DCS model is that it is too wide in the upper part. Also see how in the pictures of the real thing on the upper part of the flat windshield it is visible how the framing inside the cockpit actually gets even more narrow.

 

In picture 2, on the upper part of the flat windshield the point where the framing inside the cockpit gets narrower than on the outside is clearly visible, giving the characteristic shape. The uppermost part of the flat windshield is like 3 times more narrow than DCS model! Also see that is not only a matter of the shape of the flat windshield, its metal framing is also considerably wider than on DCS model. The combined effect of all the errors – the windshield in DCS as seen from the cockpit practically doesn’t resemble the real thing.

 

I would rather see a completed FULL flight manual, not just the quickie one they gave us.

 

Everything else is just nitpicking trivial stuff.

[UVPMechan]

Please see picture 1 below. The problem with the flat windshield on DCS model is that it is too wide in the upper part. Also see how in the pictures of the real thing on the upper part of the flat windshield it is visible how the framing inside the cockpit actually gets even more narrow.

 

In picture 2, on the upper part of the flat windshield the point where the framing inside the cockpit gets narrower than on the outside is clearly visible, giving the characteristic shape. The uppermost part of the flat windshield is like 3 times more narrow than DCS model! Also see that is not only a matter of the shape of the flat windshield, its metal framing is also considerably wider than on DCS model. The combined effect of all the errors – the windshield in DCS as seen from the cockpit practically doesn’t resemble the real thing.

 

 

I Accept! Windshield is not credible in the DCS. It's not by a real machine. Visibility windshield, as in IL-2 Sturmovik:-(

Edited April 9, 2015 by UVP/Mechan

[Kev2go]

and when will belsimtek come around to adding addtional ordinance for the f86, that it was able to arm?

 

i mean what was the point of adding a block 35 sabre, with labs if there no nuke for it. its impractical for conventional bombs.

 

that and there is addtional conventional ordinance. instead of relying for mods there should be an official content patch for the sabre from belsimtek.

 

a thread regarding ordinace types.

 

apart from a Mark 7 tactical nuke, the sabre doesn't have M-117 750 pound bombs, napalm, or possibly lau rocket pods.

 

I mean this is supposed to have post korean tech at least up to 1956 since it has upgraded avionics to give the ability to actually arm gar8s/ aim9bs heatseakers.

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=139935

Edited July 21, 2015 by Kev2go

[Schmidtfire]

If the shape of the windshield is wrong, why don't make a cockpit mod to correct it?

A bit of dark textures on the default windscreen texture is all that is needed...

 

Here is a quick example of how it can look when finished. I made this in ms paint, but you get the idea :music_whistling:

 

[bkthunder]

Any news on this? In the changelog of the last Open Beta patch there was something about changes in the cockpit 3d model, but nothing that I have noticed in game. Also this was later removed from the changelog of the release version.

I was hoping they corrected the shape...

[Buzzles]

Any news on this? [snipped]

I was hoping they corrected the shape...

 

News on what? There are pictures that support the current windshield shape on a block 35.

 

See the new thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=161774

 

I don't know which is correct or not, but the fact there's at least one block-35 that appears to match suggests that the ingame may be correct in relation to the IRL example that BST modelled. There's also videos on youtube of F-86 with screens like what we have in DCS.

 

The only way to get BST to do something about it would for someone to actually get photos sitting in the seat of a number of block-35 aircraft looking forward or obtain technical drawings/mfg plans as proof.

[Kev2go]

Please see picture 1 below. The problem with the flat windshield on DCS model is that it is too wide in the upper part. Also see how in the pictures of the real thing on the upper part of the flat windshield it is visible how the framing inside the cockpit actually gets even more narrow.

 

In picture 2, on the upper part of the flat windshield the point where the framing inside the cockpit gets narrower than on the outside is clearly visible, giving the characteristic shape. The uppermost part of the flat windshield is like 3 times more narrow than DCS model! Also see that is not only a matter of the shape of the flat windshield, its metal framing is also considerably wider than on DCS model. The combined effect of all the errors – the windshield in DCS as seen from the cockpit practically doesn’t resemble the real thing.

 

Other pictures of the flat windshield with its details more visible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it doesnt say the exact block number from the attached images

 

 

there are many block within the F86F series.

 

The picture you showed looks is for sure pre block 35 you can tell by the different cockpit panels type used and the fact it lacks labs switches.

 

 

It would only be fair to be 100% certain by comparing F86F35 real life cockpit to in game cockpit model.

 

 

 

 

 

 

this is a real F-86F-35 cockpit and looks to about what we have in game

 

the image is not at a good angle so you cant quite see the windscreen thickness ,so anyone providing a shot of the block 35 from the front would be appreicated to confirm that indeed the windscreen is thinner than it should be.

 

Edited March 3, 2016 by Kev2go

[Fox One]

^^^ That small picture from a completely inadequate angle is your "proof" ?

 

And drop your "block numbers" theory. The instruments and panels you see in cockpits in various pictures posted in this thread are completely irrelevant. This is about windshield shape.

 

There are technical manuals and parts catalogue manuals for F-1 to F-40 versions, there is only one type of windshield. The windshield in simulator does not look like the one on the real F-86F (of any subvariant), period end of story.

 

But I invite you to find a picture of F-86 of any variant, not only F from inside the cockpit or from outside that does look like the one in simulator. I'm waiting anxiously

[bkthunder]

I posted pictures of an F-86F 35 in the other thread. The cockpit shape seems wrong.

[Kev2go]

^^^ That small picture from a completely inadequate angle is your "proof" ?

 

And drop your "block numbers" theory. The instruments and panels you see in cockpits in various pictures posted in this thread are completely irrelevant. This is about windshield shape.

 

There are technical manuals and parts catalogue manuals for F-1 to F-40 versions, there is only one type of windshield. The windshield in simulator does not look like the one on the real F-86F (of any subvariant), period end of story.

 

But I invite you to find a picture of F-86 of any variant, not only F from inside the cockpit or from outside that does look like the one in simulator. I'm waiting anxiously

 

reading comprehension m8. its why i said this statement after posting the image.

 

 

 

 

the image is not at a good angle so you cant quite see the windscreen thickness ,so anyone providing a shot of the block 35 from the front would be appreciated to confirm that indeed the windscreen is thinner than it should be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nowhere did i consider it hard proof that says otherwise. I ust wanted to provide a image of an actual F86F35.

 

but i guess some people get thier jimmes rustled easily just because i dared to try to even sugggest an alternate theory. Besides i wasn't the first person in this thread to suggest this theory anyways.

 

considering that original windscreen of the sabre changed from A model to F, i thought it was worth considering maybe it was changed minor again.

 

 

instead of getting angry for most of the post all you really had to say was this to really reinforce that all f sabres had the same windscreen

 

 

There are technical manuals and parts catalogue manuals for F-1 to F-40 versions, there is only one type of windshield. The windshield in simulator does not look like the one on the real F-86F (of any subvariant)

 

but then again someone finding a clear Photo of F block35 sabre would settle the matter once and for all and we would be 100% sure.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Kev2go

[Hummingbird]

Will this get fixed?

[SkateZilla]

Fixed means its incorrect, depending on the source cockpit used for reference the winshield frame is the correct size, what it lacks is the external plating that goes over it it, which depending on sources may or maynot have been removed for better vision.

[Flagrum]

Fixed means its incorrect, depending on the source cockpit used for reference the winshield frame is the correct size, what it lacks is the external plating that goes over it it, which depending on sources may or maynot have been removed for better vision.

Is that now a "yes" or a "no"?:huh:

[Schmidtfire]

Move along. This has already been fixed/corrected: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=161774&page=2

[Hummingbird]

Move along. This has already been fixed/corrected: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=161774&page=2

 

Not the same thing Schmidtfire, this relates to the external model and not the internal cockpit model which has indeed been fixed.

[Hummingbird]

Fixed means its incorrect, depending on the source cockpit used for reference the winshield frame is the correct size, what it lacks is the external plating that goes over it it, which depending on sources may or maynot have been removed for better vision.

 

Seems incorrect to me: