2 things seem slightly out

[Dave317]

Let me first start by saying I really can't wait for this module and I'm not having a moan. 2 things I've noticed when looking at photos of real av8b's is the shape off the dash and the hud. The dash looks a lot squarer on the corners and the hud is a lot taller than the real thing. Is this something you are aware of?

[Zeus67]

Let me first start by saying I really can't wait for this module and I'm not having a moan. 2 things I've noticed when looking at photos of real av8b's is the shape off the dash and the hud. The dash looks a lot squarer on the corners and the hud is a lot taller than the real thing. Is this something you are aware of?

 

The problem are the differences between the two cameras.

 

The RL camera is using a wide type of lens, while the DCS in-game view camera is using a narrow type.

 

I can assure you that all cockpit elements have their true dimensions.

[Dave317]

Ah, ok. Thank you for quick responce. I didn't think you would be modelling it wrong.

[Goldsmack]

This dose bring up a common problem that often dose not usually get a second thought when comparing photos (I am guilty of this myself), what is really there and what the camera sees. Case in point the exhaust flames on aircraft or heat in general, most cameras can see further into the IR then the human eye can, just point your tv remote at your cell phone and you will see the IR "lights" up. I do love post like these tho keeps the devs on there game :thumbup:

[nrgized]

The problem are the differences between the two cameras.

 

The RL camera is using a wide type of lens, while the DCS in-game view camera is using a narrow type.

 

I can assure you that all cockpit elements have their true dimensions.

 

While the difference in focal length between two pictures can lead to confusion. I wouldn't immediately dismiss the areas of interest Dave brought up.

 

In particular the glare shield is what I noticed immediately. The RAZBAM Harrier glare shield juts straight out. It does appear the bottom half does have some flare outwards though.

 

Pictures referenced around the internet show a very distinct bowing inwards on the top half. The lower half has a flare outwards.

 

Also the transition from the top lip to the bottom does not appear to be as abrupt.

 

There are enough examples available that one can rule out focal length differences as being a false flag.

 

All images and videos of the RAZBAM Harrier show that the top of the glare shield is level. It would not be level if it had the features mentioned. Regardless of focal length.

 

The second reference image is a great example of the top half having a pronounced inward direction.

 

 

 

[Deadpoetic6]

Indeed, the front panel corners radius looks a lot smaller than it is in real life.

[Zeus67]

 

 

This is a GR.7 instruments panel. You can identify it because of the two gun safety switches above the Master Arm switch.

So in this case, the glare shield probably does not have the same shape as in the AV-8B NA/Plus.

 

This is a Plus cockpit but that is not a problem because the NA and the Plus share the same cockpit except for the radar controls in the center console.

Unfortunately the angle makes it very difficult to compare the glare shield´s shape with the DCS model.

[Vatikus]

Since there is already texturing in progress, I would like to, again, ask to make sure that pilot-plane is in proper scale ... the way it is now, it looks like default DCS pilot/ejection seat which is completely out of porpotions with regards to av8... this in the end also reflects to the canopy bar where modeller tried to match pilot head with it and thus creating totally wrong shape of it...

Edited May 9, 2017 by Vatikus

[Robert31178]

+1.....Harrier is a teeny tiny jet and it becomes apparent immediately when you see someone in it, next to it, or on top of it.

[Torso]

Another +1 on pilot model scale. This seems to be an issue in several modules. They all seem to use very small pilots. With VR it is very easy to see as you can position your arms in exact location and then peak or switch back and forth and it always looks like the pilots are a 5'3" or so woman's frame.

 

 

Seems to be a great time to address right away vs some off post release date :)

 

 

Another question. One of the things about the Harrier is the amazing view the cockpit provides. Due to the VTOL aspects of it, it needs it. I have seen many real life pics where from the side, the jstick actually is taller than the side of cockpit canopy frame(In fact pics above show that) and the downward slope of it(the side of the cockpit canopy frame) makes it at pretty much almost elbow level and slopes further down forward. Is that accurate or are the pics I see misleading? Does my question make sense?

 

 

I ask because I am really looking forward to flying this in VR and am expecting an incredible view and if not scaled correctly I am curious if that will affect that. Perhaps it is a stupid question, but I ask it anyways.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Torso

[asla36]

Another +1 on pilot model scale. This seems to be an issue in several modules. They all seem to use very small pilots. With VR it is very easy to see as you can position your arms in exact location and then peak or switch back and forth and it always looks like the pilots are a 5'3" or so woman's frame.

 

 

Seems to be a great time to address right away vs some off post release date :)

 

 

Another question. One of the things about the Harrier is the amazing view the cockpit provides. Due to the VTOL aspects of it, it needs it. I have seen many real life pics where from the side, the jstick actually is taller than the side of cockpit canopy frame(In fact pics above show that) and the downward slope of it(the side of the cockpit canopy frame) makes it at pretty much almost elbow level and slopes further down forward. Is that accurate or are the pics I see misleading? Does my question make sense?

 

 

I ask because I am really looking forward to flying this in VR and am expecting an incredible view and if not scaled correctly I am curious if that will affect that. Perhaps it is a stupid question, but I ask it anyways.

The more we know, the better!

 

That got me thinking, this bird has better visibility than the Ka-50! Why do the Russians have to build everything like Stronk Stalinium Tonk, and say "пох**!" when it comes to visibility?

 

And the Ka-50 "Stronk Stalinium Tonk" talk got me thinking... With the exception of the Gazelle we have no Western attack helicopter! And the Gazelle isn't even a proper attack helicopter, it's a light-attack/scout helo! :cry:

 

So AH-1 or AH-64 anybody?

Edited May 14, 2017 by asla36
Too many Smilies! Gotta remove Kebab...

[Automan]

Since there is already texturing in progress, I would like to, again, ask to make sure that pilot-plane is in proper scale ... the way it is now, it looks like default DCS pilot/ejection seat which is completely out of porpotions with regards to av8... this in the end also reflects to the canopy bar where modeller tried to match pilot head with it and thus creating totally wrong shape of it...

In addition to the size / position of the pilot, I think that the flir sensor on the nose should be smaller, it ends too near the tip of the nose.

And the frontal section of the canopy should be little longer and less rounded at angle

 

 

I hope there's still room for improve the exterior model:thumbup:

[iLOVEwindmills]

It does indeed seem a little off, though I'm not sure if it might be the nose that seems a little shorter and blunter as well or if it is the sensor housing that is longer? The housing might also be a little bit taller in the 3d model?

 

 

Edited May 14, 2017 by iLOVEwindmills

[mr_mojo97]

I know it's a different company but I'm sure one of the reasons VEAO actually stopped posting WIP shots and comments on their upcoming modules was for reasons like this.

I'm sure Razbam have all the data and dimensions, experience and such like without having to be told by members of this forum that one bit should be smaller or more rounded. Just hope Razbam don't do the same. Just saying

[Automan]

I know it's a different company but I'm sure one of the reasons VEAO actually stopped posting WIP shots and comments on their upcoming modules was for reasons like this.

I'm sure Razbam have all the data and dimensions, experience and such like without having to be told by members of this forum that one bit should be smaller or more rounded. Just hope Razbam don't do the same. Just saying

 

I think that a good company like Razbam is able to accept constructive criticism for sure.

BTW, sometimes the blueprints on which 3D models are based are not free of errors...

[iLOVEwindmills]

I know it's a different company but I'm sure one of the reasons VEAO actually stopped posting WIP shots and comments on their upcoming modules was for reasons like this.

I'm sure Razbam have all the data and dimensions, experience and such like without having to be told by members of this forum that one bit should be smaller or more rounded. Just hope Razbam don't do the same. Just saying

 

 

We're all adults here aren't we? I don't see a problem with pointing out things like this, unless you disagree with the above observations? It's small sure, but it seems there is some merit to it.

 

If you disagree with bringing up points like this simply because they can be seen as 'negative', you'd be discounting any sort of feedback no matter how constructive.

[Zeus67]

We're all adults here aren't we? I don't see a problem with pointing out things like this, unless you disagree with the above observations? It's small sure, but it seems there is some merit to it.

 

If you disagree with bringing up points like this simply because they can be seen as 'negative', you'd be discounting any sort of feedback no matter how constructive.

 

Please play nice, folks. We do accept criticism and reserve the right to either act or ignore them based in our own experience. In that respect we are no different than all the other third party developers in the flight simulation world.

 

When you bring something for our review, we do check on it and fix the item if we believe that the criticism was correct. Other times it takes longer because your observation does not match the data we have and we must put precedence on official documents over a user gut feeling that something is not right. In those cases you must submit proof beyond a visual note for us to fix the item.

[mr_mojo97]

My point was not about constructive criticism but experience with other 3rd parties and hoping it didn't go the same way here. And I don't know enough about AV-8B to make a judgment - were there different upgrades to the flir pod for instance maybe that made Razbam make it different on their model to the variant shown in the photos? I guess they'd had a reason to do this.

[Zeus67]

My point was not about constructive criticism but experience with other 3rd parties and hoping it didn't go the same way here. And I don't know enough about AV-8B to make a judgment - were there different upgrades to the flir pod for instance maybe that made Razbam make it different on their model to the variant shown in the photos? I guess they'd had a reason to do this.

 

All 3D models are done by using blueprints like these (these are examples only):

 

 

So any criticism about the size/shape of an element in the model must be very well documented indeed.

[iLOVEwindmills]

We can try and find photos from the exact same angle I suppose. Is it possible that the nose/sensor housing was changed at any point during production in the real NA?

[nrgized]

Other times it takes longer because your observation does not match the data we have and we must put precedence on official documents over a user gut feeling that something is not right. In those cases you must submit proof beyond a visual note for us to fix the item.

 

I agree with your sentiments although your last statement I have to respectfully disagree.

 

In my line of work I'm often given "gut feeling" and "picture reference" as feedback that something "is off".

 

Good feedback doesn't follow a singular template. For the above scenarios I check my data and if I can not correlate what I was presented I provide the user the data I have.

 

This has resulted in instances where the user realizes why they were getting incorrect results but also in numerous cases resulted in me finding out mine was incorrect.

 

The user while not being able to articulate why things were off was able to formulate a more detailed response when they were given the information I was working off of.

 

Only respecting extremely detailed fact proving feedback will only hurt your quality not improve upon it. Anyone that does something for any length of time eventually learns most often then not the book rarely correct.

 

Take the glare shield issue brought up earlier in this thread. I have been unable to find a single image on the internet or in Harrier documents that look like the RAZBAM glare shield. The only images that show the very abrupt lip are those pictures of RAZBAM and a single plastic toy model.

 

Google link

 

It would have been a great moment to post reference of your source. Should you're reference be correct it would have been a "what do you know" tip of the day that the type of user that posts in these kind of threads would have found interesting.

 

I've been sourcing parts for my UH-1 pit. I know how crazy it can be when it comes to parts. There can often times be very many with slightly varying differences that make them tough to distinguish.

[Automan]

All 3D models are done by using blueprints like these (these are examples only):

 

...

 

So any criticism about the size/shape of an element in the model must be very well documented indeed.

 

One thing that came in mind is that the technical drawings you're using have a depiction of flir sensor housing found in gr.7 instead of N/A:

 

I know that camera lens angle and distortion make nearly impossible to compare perfectly two images, but I think this is a good comparison.

 

In the end, Gr.7 the nose is longer, and flir housing sensor is longer too with a more inclined glass.

 

I hope to help...

 

PS.:some years ago, I've called a designer for correcting his drawings of a Tornado ADV, since... it was reporting the Mauser cannon on the wrong side, ehehe :P we are humans

[Fox One]

I have been unable to find a single image on the internet or in Harrier documents that look like the RAZBAM glare shield.

 

The explanation is simple: RAZBAM cockpit is correct and all the pictures on the internet are wrong :D

[comie1]

Think that's why Zeus said (examples only)

[Zeus67]

I won't go any further in this line of discussion. I will monitor this so it remains civil.