Fw 190D-9 3D model dihedral?

[NineLine]

Unless you bring factory drawings into this, its hard to question the Dora based on pictures form other sources. Most of the time you can take two pictures from two of these books and they wont match each other. As far as I know, factory drawings were used in modelling what we have now.

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

Difficult to find a perfect front photo but...

 

 

 

 

 

S!

 

 

hey, the dora actually did look quite good!didnt know that

[OnlyforDCS]

hey, the dora actually did look quite good!didnt know that

 

Look at that picture again, even those two planes are very different. Just look at the engine cowling shape, the nozzle, and look at the shape of the wing tips. Drastically different!

 

Im not even sure those are both D models...if there was that much variance between airplanes of the same TYPE, you can't really use photographs to prove anything consistently.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Yes, there was different models, prototypes and so. Those photos just were front ones, not necessarily exact model. But wing shape is clearly there. And yes, she does look quite good :) .

 

S!

[zaelu]

 

And IA Dora back then, not so far from now,

 

 

 

this picture can be very deceiving because the plane is nose up a lot showing a lot of the underside of the wings and the ailerons are commanded at maximum breaking the overall angle perception a lot.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

It's completely wrong mate, perspective, underside, whatever.

 

S!

[msalama]

But wing shape is clearly there.

 

Well, it actually looks as if the 2 RL birds had a different dihedral, TBH. Probably not, I know, but this is exactly why you _can't_ draw any definite conclusions from just eyeballing it.

[Echo38]

I wonder how much wing flex comes into play. Given the location of the landing gear, on the ground probably isn't much of a difference compared to 1G flight, but ...

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

It's completely wrong mate, perspective, underside, whatever.

 

S!

 

If its wrong then prove it, other than that it's all speculation, I'm with Sith on the fact that the ED model was used off of actual factory blueprints. It's like one of those people that claims the illuminati symbol is in every piece of architechture. If you can't prove it, then you my friend are wrong. Plus back then things were always changing and a degree or two here and there along with wingtips and cowlings and even canopies ( what I would give for the full blown bubble that was developed for the D-9 later in 1944). Unfortunately that is what we have and ED has done an amazing job to bring to light a beautiful high fidelity model that we can use from what I can only understand was scraps of information and first hand knowledge,

[Echo38]

If you can't prove it, then you my friend are wrong.

 

Technically, this isn't an accurate statement; inability to prove the model incorrect doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. More generally: { unable to disprove A } /= { A proven true } and also: { unable to prove A } /= { A proven false }

 

Hypothetical example: I claim the moon is made of rock instead of cheese, but fail to make a convincing argument or offer evidence. While those I'm trying to convince (assuming they don't know the moon is rock) are right to doubt me, my failed argument & lack of provided evidence doesn't actually mean that the moon isn't made of rock, or that no such evidence exists. It merely means, in this case, that I suck at proving it, and/or do not have a rational reason to believe my own claim. But it doesn't actually mean that the claim is wrong; in this case, it happens to be correct, as the moon is, in fact, made of rock and not cheese. (Right? Right, guys? [looks around] ...)

 

Silly example, serious point; see? Now, as to the FW 190D-9 dihedral: there has actually been more evidence provided in this thread indicating that there is an error, than evidence indicating that there is no error. In fact, no actual evidence has been provided in this thread to indicate that there is no error.

 

However, burden of proof does appear to be more on those claiming that there is an error, and what little evidence has been provided so far is not convincing. One hand-sketched picture from a book I don't recognize, and a few random photographs from inconsistent angles etc., isn't going to cut the idiomatic mustard. I remain open to being convinced of either possibility. (Not that I'm the one whom anyone should be particularly keen on convincing, given that I'm not one of the testers et al.) It is a legitimate question, and the lack of conclusive proof so far is not grounds to assume either way.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Echo38

[Oydoron]

This might be enlightening:

 

http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/yellow-10-4310601/

 

The wing switch also helped shed light on Focke-Wulf’s construction techniques. When the new wing was flayed open as part of Yellow 10’s current restoration, Goss and his crew were treated to the sound of dozens of shims—slivers of metal jammed in the structure to tighten a shoddy fit—cascading loose. Upon further examination, they also discovered hints of an odd process that may have been used to shear a stringer—a thin aluminum spar that runs along the top of the wing—from its metal stock. It’s apparent that someone bent the metal back and forth until it broke off, rather than go to the trouble of making a clean cut. The grim explanation: Yellow 10 was largely the handiwork of slaves upon whom German industry increasingly relied as the war dragged on. Seen in this light, the sloppiness takes on significance; maybe snapping off the metal was as much an act of defiance as of expediency.

[VO101_MMaister]

Just a little input about this issue.

 

You try to match a 2D blueprint with an in-game screenshot. They will never match. Why?

 

 

Because on blueprints uses othographic projection. It means that these drawings are nonperspective. Objects behind wont look smaller, and objects close wont look bigger. Every point is drawn like they were on the same plane. This is unnatural to our eyes, but this is the method for technical drawings to show correct measurements.

 

Now if you match a drawing like that with perspective picture, you will experience huge differences. (just look at the size of the vertical stabilizers) In addition comes the focus point where the perspective picture was taken. The fish eye effect will further distort what you see.

 

[Echo38]

Mm, yes, that's sort of related to the other issue I was talking about earlier, of trying to match up all four variables (X, Y, distance, FoV). Here's a pair of screenshots I took in a different flight sim/game a long time ago; the two shots were taken at the same time (game paused), from the same deflection angle, but the distance & FoV were different from the first shot to the second. This effect is easily reproducible in DCS and any other sim that has variable zoom/FoV and camera distance, as well as in real life (if you have a variable-zoom camera with a wide enough max FoV).

 

It gets exponentially more difficult to line up a pair of shots when you add the other two dimensions (X & Y camera deflection) to these two (FoV & distance), as the effect is not merely additive, but rather multiplicative. In the case of my screenshot below, it was fairly easy to match up the wingspans, but when you move the camera to the left or right, it makes the wingspan look smaller or larger (in addition to both FoV and distance being independently able to make the wingspan appear to change size on the image).

 

All these reasons (those posted by me and others in this thread) are why I am--although not convinced that the model is free of errors--skeptical of an amateur superimposition between a screenshot and a lone sketch from an unverified source. It isn't as simple as some are making it out to be, and "eyeballing it" is not okay. Any errors (either on the part of the 3D modeller, the 2D sketcher, or even those making the claim that the model is incorrect--or on the part of several of these, or others) are a result of someone trying to eyeball it!

Edited May 11, 2015 by Echo38

[Ala13_ManOWar]

If its wrong then prove it, other than that it's all speculation, I'm with Sith on the fact that the ED model was used off of actual factory blueprints. It's like one of those people that claims the illuminati symbol is in every piece of architechture. If you can't prove it, then you my friend are wrong. Plus back then things were always changing and a degree or two here and there along with wingtips and cowlings and even canopies ( what I would give for the full blown bubble that was developed for the D-9 later in 1944). Unfortunately that is what we have and ED has done an amazing job to bring to light a beautiful high fidelity model that we can use from what I can only understand was scraps of information and first hand knowledge,

I don't have to "prove" anything, forget the drawings, you saw the real deal photos, if you can't see that... :music_whistling:

 

S!

Edited May 12, 2015 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Just a little input about this issue.

 

You try to match a 2D blueprint with an in-game screenshot. They will never match.

True mate, that's just a try. You cannot fully match both screens. BUT, matching or not, can't you just see how DCS model wing has a quite wide root and thins to the tip while real wing is almost parallel? That's not a matching matter, anybody can see it clearly whatever the perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, and I think this is THIRD time I say. It doesn't matters at all if ED don't think to change it in the short (or long) term because they are busy with other stuff.

 

S!

Edited May 12, 2015 by Ala13_ManOWar

[VO101_MMaister]

 

Anyway, and I think this is THIRD time I say. It doesn't matters at all if ED don't think to change it in the short (or long) term because they are busy with other stuff.

 

S!

 

I am not trying to protect ED or to state that the 3D modell is flawless. Just wanted to show why one need to be carefull when making such comparisons.

Edited May 13, 2015 by VO101_MMaister

[Echo38]

can't you just see how DCS model wing has a quite wide root and thins to the tip while real wing is almost parallel? That's not a matching matter, anybody can see it clearly whatever the perspective.

 

I think you are overly confident in your ability (and that of others) to judge by visual estimation. I can not "see it clearly," and it isn't my eyesight that's the problem. It does seem that there might be more dihedral in the photos, after you mentioned it, but this feeling could be fully accounted for by optical illusions & the power of suggestion. If there is an error, it isn't large enough that we are able to clearly see it without some of the "hard evidence" I specified. If there is an error, we are talking about approximately one degree off, which is ~1% of a 90-degree angle. That isn't something that most people can "clearly see" without a side-by-side comparison (and, of course, I mean at the same perspective et al.).

 

To put it into perspective (so to speak): we aren't talking about being able to tell between the difference between 2 o' clock and 3 o' clock (or even between 2:30 and 2:45), but rather the difference between ~2:44 and ~2:46--with the two clocks at different distances and angles, and without any markings on the clock faces. ("Minutes" as in "minutes of time, on a clock face," not minutes of arc.) Those are the actual numbers, using the comparison image you posted, and a superimposed protractor. There's no way that can sanely be described as a clear difference.

 

I am not trying to protect ED or to state that the 3D modell is flawless. Just wanted to show why one need to be cafefull when making such comparisons.

 

This, exactly. I'm not being an Eagle Dynamics apologist; I acknowledge that the accuracy of the model is in some doubt. But, as I've said repeatedly, there isn't yet enough evidence to jump to a conclusion, the way some have done (in both directions, I might add!). Assumption was the cause of any mistake there may be; making another assumption isn't the way to correct it.

 

I hope that someone can come up with some reliably-sourced diagrams, or at least some exactly front-angle photographs, so that the issue can be settled, because, currently, the question has not been decided one way or the other. If the model is wrong, I would like to know, and to see it corrected someday.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Echo38

[Echo38]

Addendum: this is starting to pique, so I went and drew lines through that dubious comparison image, and superimposed a protractor over it. The difference is almost exactly one degree (seven-degree dihedral versus eight). So, yes, we're talking about a difference on a clock face of two minutes (as in time), barring errors in perspective, and assuming that the sketch from that book is accurate. I've updated my previous post with the actual numbers.

 

Note: this one-degree apparent difference between the two superimposed images, is not necessarily a one-degree error, for reasons previously discussed (e.g. perspective). No error in the 3D model's dihedral has yet been ascertained--which, I repeat, doesn't necessarily mean that there is none. Also--for the record--I would consider such a one-degree error in dihedral to be a large one, given that it'd be ~1/7 or 1/8 of the total dihedral.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Echo38

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Not overly at all mate. I know there is people who don't see it at first, people who have to take the pictures, drawings, whatever and check thoroughly every bit until they realize. Others just see it. But don't blame me for that!! May be years looking at planes and making models since I was a child helps a bit. Building aircraft with your hands may make a difference.

 

For instance, I still remember when I was 3, or 4 years old. I thought F-14 and F-15 profiles looked the very same!! It was quite difficult to me to say which were either one (no internet back then, just grandpa's old books with many, many profiles and some photographs). Since that I've grown a bit in every aspect to know DCS external model lacks a few things and has wrong shapes just at first sight :smilewink:.

 

 

I'm not sure it's 1 or 10º, I just know it's wrong, and I don't talk about dihedral, wing shape is quite wrong (front look) so aerofoil is. I just hope 3D has nothing to do with FM (I guess, but don't know). AND, don't forget we are here talking about wing, if we start spot the difference game... :music_whistling: But don't worry, I've better things to do.

 

S!

Edited May 12, 2015 by Ala13_ManOWar

[NineLine]

You guys are funny. Maybe if the model accuracy is so troubling you could ask the creator?

 

http://www.military-meshes.com/forum/showthread.php?7117-Our-6-years-work-for-simulators-)

 

Anyways, I know ED made some big changes to the model already, I am not sure there will be any major ones anytime soon, but I am unsure. And I haven't seen anything in this thread I can really take to ED, if someone has some factory drawings (or at least better than ones scanned out of a book, sheeesh if anyone knew the errors that can come from scans) showing the issues, I am sure I could get ED to look at it.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

You guys are funny. Maybe if the model accuracy is so troubling you could ask the creator?

Was he also Dimitry Linievich? Nice, I can ask him, yes, we have a common friend :thumbup:.

 

 

I wish I could help more Sithspawn, but I don't have any original Dora blueprint, neither had Dimitry :smilewink:. Just I can see the photographs, those showing the real deal, and it's crystal clear to me. Just pitty such a beautiful aircraft have those flaws. But I don't ask for anything, did I?

 

S!