Dirty canopy glass?

[Rlaxoxo]

This looks great, thank you

[DieHard]

+1

 

Me, too >>> Thanks!

[The Black Swan]

Pretty sure these are scratches, which would light up when the sun hits them just right...

[J-1775]

sometimes artists do not consider that model serves some purpose

Well, for ME the purpose is a cutting edge IMMERSION into the combat life of a WWII pilot and the current Spitfire canopy certainly helps a lot with that. Even more so in VR, when your eyes' focus usually is far beyond the perplex! No matter how clean a canopy was, after a few months it would have many micro scratches. In fact I think the beautiful screenshot you supplied reflects more that than dirt.

BTW, to my understanding, in today's 3D gaming environments the reflections that your screenshot shows are only to a small amount bound to the texture(s), but rather a result of how the 3D material is defined and how its attributes (e.g. reflection, specular, transparency) are set.

I'm glad someone submitted a "clean" canopy as an option, thus everyone can be happy! :)

[Sokol1_br]

Clean canopy PDF Spitfire windscreen.rar

Edited January 18, 2017 by Sokol1_br

[TWC_SLAG]

I d/l the file, and the canopy looks much better. In certain light conditions, you will see scratches, which is just the way it should be.

 

Good job.

 

Thanks

[Rogue Trooper]

Is there a kind graphics artist out there that can clean up the sliding hood perspex please?

 

I could be very wrong but I was under the impression from my reading of historical accounts that particularly the ground team for an aircraft/pilot in the RAF made a solid attempt to keep the glass as clean and clear as possible before every flight as during wartime specks and dirt on the canopy could = someone getting shot down because a distant contact was obscured or even ignored because it was thought just dirt. I find it makes it even harder than usual to keep track of contacts at a distance because of the dirt. I'd fix it myself if I knew how.

 

Thanks,

Stonehouse

 

I would say he did not clean it today and what of it?

 

It would be superb if glass clarity took some what of a random effect when it came to race.

 

German number 1 me guesses!

 

where is the spit I wonder?

[TWC_SLAG]

I would say he did not clean it today and what of it?

 

It would be superb if glass clarity took some what of a random effect when it came to race.

 

German number 1 me guesses!

 

where is the spit I wonder?

 

Sorry. I have no idea what you wrote means.

[klem]

There is a fundamental flaw in creating canopy textures 'as seen' or 'as photograped' because the viewer's focus is on the canopy itself. In RL you do not focus on the canopy, you look through it with eyes focused on a distant object/aircraft. Therefore the dirt and scratches are out of focus, far less noticeable and this should be taken into account when modelling the canopy as we have only one 2D viewing option.

 

Also, we can propose the 'current real' circumstances and decide that the ground crew are doing the job they were always praised for and polishing the canopies with their Clairol to a high finish. Also we can decide that the ground support organisation ensures replacement canopies are available. Would they really have sent the majority of young men up in the majority of cases with canopies that would impair one of the most critical aspects of air fighting - visibility? We currently have only one canopy option. Surely that should reflect the most likely situation rather than a 'what if' or 'wouldn't it be interesting if' scenario?

 

IMHO clean polished canopies would be the norm for most combat aircraft in which young men are sent to risk their lives. The DCS norm should be clean canopies with an option of dirty, poorly maintained canopies for the more sadistic mission builders.

[Talisman_VR]

There is a fundamental flaw in creating canopy textures 'as seen' or 'as photograped' because the viewer's focus is on the canopy itself. In RL you do not focus on the canopy, you look through it with eyes focused on a distant object/aircraft. Therefore the dirt and scratches are out of focus, far less noticeable and this should be taken into account when modelling the canopy as we have only one 2D viewing option.

 

Also, we can propose the 'current real' circumstances and decide that the ground crew are doing the job they were always praised for and polishing the canopies with their Clairol to a high finish. Also we can decide that the ground support organisation ensures replacement canopies are available. Would they really have sent the majority of young men up in the majority of cases with canopies that would impair one of the most critical aspects of air fighting - visibility? We currently have only one canopy option. Surely that should reflect the most likely situation rather than a 'what if' or 'wouldn't it be interesting if' scenario?

 

IMHO clean polished canopies would be the norm for most combat aircraft in which young men are sent to risk their lives. The DCS norm should be clean canopies with an option of dirty, poorly maintained canopies for the more sadistic mission builders.

 

I very much agree with what you have said Klem. Very sensible, very reasonable and very logical. Salute and reputation points added to you from me.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[ATAG_Snapper]

Great post, Klem. :thumbup:

[mkiii]

A litle bit of dirt is acceptable, I can accept that it may have "just got there", but the crackles (which some call scratches) make this look like 30 year old perspex. As an ex groundcrew, who has spent an inordinate amount of time polishing out scratches on canopies, I think they look very pretty, but totally unrealistic & too heavy. If I had one that bad, I would have had to replace it.

 

I guess the problem is that textures and computer monitors are nowhere near as hightresolution as real life.

[Basco1]

I too agree with Klem,look how clear and polished this 'Erk' (RAF ground crewman) has got this Spit's canopy to look.

 

As Klem mentioned,clean canopies would've been the norm,surely,no way would you send a pilot up to combat with a grubby canopy.I knew I had this picture hiding in one of my books and this thread made me go searching for it.

 

 

[klem]

Thanks for the photo Basco1.

 

An interesting point is that the aircraft is clearly much used, weathered and in need of a paint job. Not critical of course and yet the canopy is maintained in pristine condition.

 

Incidentally the Squadron letters MT were used on Spitfires by 122 Sqdn from 1941, re-equipping with the MkIX in October 1942 operating over France until January 1944. After that they flew Mustangs including in Normandy so this photo is from before Overlord, not that it matters.

Edited January 27, 2017 by klem

[Reflected]

Our Spitfire canopy looks cool for movies, but it's highly unrealistic. It would be great if it was corrected to match the canopy of the Mustang or the 109.

[BSS_Sniper]

I think it should be left alone. It's rare that canopies are spotless, even if they are cleaned on the ground before flight. I hate it when people want to make things "gamey" because they don't like the dirt.

[BSS_Sniper]

Our Spitfire canopy looks cool for movies, but it's highly unrealistic. It would be great if it was corrected to match the canopy of the Mustang or the 109.

 

Unrealistic? What are you basing this on, games/sims or actual flying?

[DieHard]

Be realistic, how many of us have chased a distant bogie for ten minutes, never getting any closer to it, then realize it is a loose dust speck that can easily be wiped off our monitor?

 

LOL!

[klem]

I think it should be left alone. It's rare that canopies are spotless, even if they are cleaned on the ground before flight. I hate it when people want to make things "gamey" because they don't like the dirt.

 

I don't want it gamey. I want it historical.

[Enduro14]

ya and i imagine we want historical ok how about taking off on a very dusty and dirty grass field like they did im sure it wasnt all that clean after takeoff. Dont really notice the spots in vr as your depth is better.

Sure wipe it a bit

[Davee]

I don't want it gamey. I want it historical.

 

 

In support of your previous posing on this, it is a matter of optical physics. We do not look at the glass, as it would be drawn dirty in a 2D world - but in reality we look through it and the dirt is not in focus.

 

Looking at the dirt the way it is now drawn would be the same as sitting in the cockpit and focusing on the glass - everything else (the world) is out of focus. Can't fly that way.

 

We are not looking at a static model airplane, but rather a simulation - you can't see dirty glass looking through it. Also, do you really want pilots chasing a dirty spec on the glass thinking it is a bandit?

 

A mistake many times done by graphic artists is to assume reality is like painting a scene and sometimes forget the reality of what we actually "see" until reminded. Interpretation of reality is in the eye of the beholder. :)

 

Do you see the floaters in your eye all the time? Most of us have them and some a lot.

[Kirk66]

Have to jump in on this one.

 

Anyone who thinks it's "historical" to have a filthy canopy on a fighter plane is disrespecting all the crew chiefs who really owned those planes! Not only would you not see such a disgusting canopy on a plane being prepared for a combat (not training) mission, unless you were under immediate attack no fighter pilot would take it that way! If my canopy was damaged, I would insist that it be replaced, or if necessary fix and clean it myself!

 

These were not old planes - most were only a few months old, so while the paint may have been scratched up, the canopies would still have been in good condition - no stress cracks, yellowing, etc.

 

As far as keeping a canopy clean - my 30 year old glider (LS6) has a huge single piece canopy, and with proper care, it is still optically flawless. Not hard to do.

 

PS - yes, I have seen guys BFM a bug on their canopy - lots of laughs in that debrief!

 

Now, what would be realistic is starting off with spotless windscreen and canopy, and as the mission proceeds (especially at low level) start adding bug splats on the windscreen - and perhaps a little oil from the prop governor. Low altitude over the ocean? Salt spray will fog your windscreen pretty fast if the water is choppy. After landing during refuel, that should be cleaned off.

 

So - Historical? No. Go for the clean canopy, or kick your crew chief's a** until he cleans it!

 

Kirk

Big believer in Plexus tm canopy cleaner!

[Enduro14]

In support of your previous posing on this, it is a matter of optical physics. We do not look at the glass, as it would be drawn dirty in a 2D world - but in reality we look through it and the dirt is not in focus.

 

Looking at the dirt the way it is now drawn would be the same as sitting in the cockpit and focusing on the glass - everything else (the world) is out of focus. Can't fly that way.

 

We are not looking at a static model airplane, but rather a simulation - you can't see dirty glass looking through it. Also, do you really want pilots chasing a dirty spec on the glass thinking it is a bandit?

 

A mistake many times done by graphic artists is to assume reality is like painting a scene and sometimes forget the reality of what we actually "see" until reminded. Interpretation of reality is in the eye of the beholder. :)

 

Do you see the floaters in your eye all the time? Most of us have them and some a lot.

 

Yes well not everyone is still flying in 2d.... so actually what is in the pit looks very well and does not distract you when in a 3d space.

[klem]

Yes well not everyone is still flying in 2d.... so actually what is in the pit looks very well and does not distract you when in a 3d space.

 

But most of us are and many will for years to come.

[Focha]

I thought I saw an option to set it like this:

 

- New;

- Used Clean;

- Used Dirt;

- Phase out.

 

That would change the textures of the aircraft, accordingly.

 

No?!