Very small point = cosmetic

[derelor]

Fully agree. This should serve as a model:

Hm, I don't think it should serve as a reference - at least not for textures.

 

Look for example at this image:

Langeam -> Langsam

bie -> bis

über auf -> Überlauf

Edited September 8, 2014 by derelor

[VIMANAMAN]

Hm, I don't think it should serve as a reference - at least not for textures.

 

Look for example at this image:

Langeam -> Langsam

bie -> bis

über auf -> Überlauf

 

I think what Fox and I mean is just for the canopy A-frame: Yellow 10 is a good reference - the all metal A-frame construction - Specifically: from the cockpit perspective.

 

Not for any other part of the model, which is already nice :)

Edited September 8, 2014 by VIMANAMAN

[Fox One]

Hm, I don't think it should serve as a reference - at least not for textures.

 

Look for example at this image:

Langeam -> Langsam

bie -> bis

über auf -> Überlauf

 

:doh:

 

This entire thread is about a specific part of the plane, not about the plane's exterior textures. I deliberately posted a link to a certain picture (showing the windshield's A-frame), not a link to the entire album.

[derelor]

I think what Fox and I mean is just for the canopy A-frame: Yellow 10 is a good reference - the all metal A-frame construction - Specifically: from the cockpit perspective.

 

Not for any other part of the model, which is already nice :)

 

:doh:

 

This entire thread is about a specific part of the plane, not about the plane's exterior textures. I deliberately posted a link to a certain picture (showing the windshield's A-frame), not a link to the entire album.

Sorry guys, didn't read everything.

[VIMANAMAN]

Sorry guys, didn't read everything.

 

No worries :)

 

Could you / ED have a look at this issue and see whether you agree, because I think the A-frame is not right at the moment?

 

It has the wooden plate, when it should be metal.

 

Hope you can help - cheers

[derelor]

No worries :)

 

Could you / ED have a look at this issue and see whether you agree, because I think the A-frame is not right at the moment?

 

It has the wooden plate, when it should be metal.

 

Hope you can help - cheers

OK, after reading the whole thread I now know what this is all about ;)

 

I am the wrong guy for this job and don't know much about WWII aircraft, but I will bring it up to those who are in the know. Thanks for reporting

[Fox One]

If I understand what you call "lft line bar" is the upper one in the canopy center, right? AFAIK that "line" is a hinge indeed,

 

 

 

The thing is as canopy rails in 190 go back they get narrower so canopy needs a centre hinge to bend itself without breaking. The example is from FHC A-5 but I think applies to Dora the same.

 

S!

 

The canopy hinge was fitted only to Fw 190 early-type “straight” canopy. In DCS we have a late-type, so called “blown” canopy. This doesn’t have a hinge, only the forward canopy framing is split. Here I explained how it works and you can also see a canopy drawing from a D-9 technical manual:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1750432&postcount=347

Related to this thread – you can see the canopy forward framing has a “pin” in its upper part, that when canopy is closed, it enters the central hole in the A-frame.

 

Here are hi-res pictures of a late-type canopy, the plane is an F-8 but it doesn’t matter, D-9 canopy is completely identical:

 

To my knowledge, on this F-8 is the only original late-type Fw 190 canopy remaining in the world! On D-13 “yellow 10” the canopy is a replica, but it is a decent one, unlike D-9 W.Nr. 601088.

[Fox One]

OK, after reading the whole thread I now know what this is all about ;)

 

I am the wrong guy for this job and don't know much about WWII aircraft, but I will bring it up to those who are in the know. Thanks for reporting

 

:thumbup:

[derelor]

Issue now reported to ED devs (ticket #27844). Let's see what happens.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Talking about "cosmetics". Nobody noticed gear down lateral angle is way too short? IMO it's the ugliest mistake in 3D right now... I clearly see gear legs are too vertical to wing, and I don't know but, wouldn't gear position on ground affects taxi FM a bit?

 

 

Don't know about the rest of you, but I see gear legs angle mistaken (doors aparts...),

 

 

 

 

S!

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ala13_ManOWar

[VIMANAMAN]

Issue now reported to ED devs (ticket #27844). Let's see what happens.

 

Many thanks Derelor - that's all we can ask for - Really appreciate your help :)

[Altflieger]

Talking about "cosmetics". Nobody noticed gear down lateral angle is way too short? IMO it's the ugliest mistake in 3D right now... I clearly see gear legs are too vertical to wing, and I don't know but, wouldn't gear position on ground affects taxi FM a bit?

 

 

Don't know about the rest of you, but I see gear legs angle mistaken (doors aparts...),

 

 

 

 

S!

Good spot. This would explain the somewhat wild takeoff effects and that sudden leap into the air when the wheels lift. The real one sits much squatter on the ground, see how much nearer the prop is to the ground. There are also noticable differences between the respective rudders and aerials as well. Someones going to be busy sorting this out. :thumbup:

[Mainstay]

A frame should indeed be steel only

[VIMANAMAN]

Just want say thanks to Fox One for spotting this - half the points I made, Fox had already made, and i'd missed them - but hopefully emphasised them some more :) Anyway nice one Fox!

 

Rep inbound your pos ATT :)

Edited September 9, 2014 by VIMANAMAN

[rrohde]

I have to say that the DCS Dora (right) is pretty darn accurate. See side-by-side comparison. It depends a lot on the camera angle for an accurate comparison and judgement.

 

Edited September 9, 2014 by rrohde

[rrohde]

In addition, if you section up the 3D model with the real 190, you can see that the proportions are accurate, however, it seems as if the DCS model seems to have either a shorter propeller than the real Dora shown in comparison, and/or the strut is a tad too tall on the DCS model.

 

[Art-J]

More of the latter I'd say. Check the angle of the ramp and the horizon on both shots above.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I have to say that the DCS Dora (right) is pretty darn accurate. See side-by-side comparison. It depends a lot on the camera angle for an accurate comparison and judgement.

Emmmmm, well, if you call that "pretty damn accurate" but even in your screen I clearly see legs way too vertical to wings. Don't look at the (wrong) fairings, look the leg angle :music_whistling:. I saw it the very first day and still several versions since IA release it's still wrong. Of course that makes the aircraft higher and the propeller clear longer to ground. Don't to mention it's disgustingly ugly... I know what I mean, it's a model kits detail many modellers miss. That's why I have Dora pretty clear in my eye. May be a couple degrees, but I see it and makes a difference...

 

 

Altflieger, no, even if has something to do with ground stability still Dora is like that, I explained in "how to take-off thread" to others. Just you have to master it.

 

S!

[Fox One]

I decided to make my own comparison. I think Ala13_ManOWar is right – the main gear legs should be tilted forward more. I did an approximate angle measurement – from current DCS angle, they should be tilted forward about 4.5 deg more – WOW, didn’t expected the difference to be that big!

[Ala13_ManOWar]

That's it, thank you mate ;). Yeah, 4.5º is a lot more than I thought.

 

Anyway I don't blame you people don't seeing that, you have to know the aircraft a lot and have an eye for such a thing. Problem is probably that isn't just aesthetic, it changes 3D model moving animation of retracting gear, and the whole aircraft ground position... So may be a bit of big work to solve it.

 

 

Now we are talking... Also in your screen is clearly seen another thing that kills me... Nose radiator cowling curve should be more parabolic than just a cylinder, DCS one is way too cylindrical and it makes nose look a bit awkward. It's the same mistake occidental 1/48 T-6 model (cylinder) has compared to real T-6 cowling (parabolic)... :music_whistling::music_whistling: You have to be very geek since your childhood to see that kind of things, I know... :D :D :D :D

 

 

Wish I were a 3D modeller, I wouldn't mistake that kind of things.

 

S!

 

Edit: and now with Fox One magnific screenshot, wing light isn't correctly positioned... :music_whistling:

Edited September 10, 2014 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Mainstay]

Temp fix for A frame :

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=129915

[Fox One]

There are several minor cockpit inaccuracies, but there is only one that actually annoys me each time I see it. See the image below.

 

The red line is at the lower edge of the auxiliary instrument panel. See how the two indicators are actually only slightly too high in relation to the line. Moving the indicators, oxygen valve and flare gun port lower the correct amount won’t make this area accurate, because the problem unfortunately is a much more serious one. From the image it is very obvious the entire area is actually too tall. It’s definitely not a matter of the instruments being too small, I investigated that.

 

I understand making major geometry changes in the cockpit at this stage must be a firm “NO GO” from ED. While I’m no 3d modeler, I was thinking maybe moving lower the 4 items won’t be an enormously difficult thing to do. Modifying the auxiliary instrument panel texture is something simple, even I could do.

 

To make this area look more accurate without major geometry changes in the cockpit would require IMO to make a little compromise. Move the 4 items deliberately a bit lower than they should be in relation to the red line. Oxygen valve should be lower than oxygen pressure indicator. The idea would be to make that space appear less huge, and at the same time not make another huge empty space appear above them instead. Anyway that space above is a lot less visible. A clever compromise is needed to make the area appear more accurate.

[rrohde]

I do believe that each issue identified in this thread should have its own topic for ED to work with... Otherwise things might get lost in the clutter. :)

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Should we post every detail we see in bugs threads? I know this is not the thread, but...

 

S!

[VIMANAMAN]

I do believe that each issue identified in this thread should have its own topic for ED to work with... Otherwise things might get lost in the clutter. :)

 

Yeah I'd agree with that, if we think they're important enough, they should be highlighted with a separate thread, like you say they'll get lost otherwise :)

 

We ought to be respectful and not encourage 'rivet counting', but yeah if we think something's important, and not right, we should highlight it, and do it as methodically as pos, whilst in it's in open beta anyways... I think that's what ED want?

 

Sounds like the gear issue perhaps ought to have a thread, although not looked at this closely myself. And the point Fox made could be opened as a cockpit issues thread...

 

Sounds like a good idea, to me.

 

@ ManOWar sorry didn't get a chance to reply to a couple of your direct Q's had my hands full with work AND this :)