FW 190 D-9 cockpit to get a re-work

[xvii-Dietrich]

According to the newletter posted today, the FW 190 D-9 will get new work done to the cockpit... "that takes advantage of both deferred shading and physically based rendering."

 

 

Ref: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3706594&postcount=170

 

 

Excellent news! That's really cheered me up (as has the lovely screenshots of the upcoming FW 190 A-8 ). :)

Edited December 1, 2018 by xvii-Dietrich
Fixed auto-emoticon :-\

[Vander]

Just curious: What is wrong with the existing cockpit(s)? I know P-51 is getting a bit old, but the others are still pretty no?

[Esac_mirmidon]

Its not optimized, updated to the new 2.5 graphic engine version.

[Burning Bridges]

I don't have the Fw190 but the 109 looks pretty weird compared to other planes like the Mig-15. The shading makes it almost blue and the whole thing has a hand painted look which is not right. Certainly a welcome idea to see how it can be improved.

[Brigg]

Don't get me wrong it is awesome news, I would just prefer to have the mw50 fixed first.

[Marduk879]

And the armored glass fix...

[robban75]

Any chance for a re-worked exterior model? Perhaps use the wing from the new A-8 model? The one on the D-9 model is too thick(very noticable at the wing root) and has too low dihedral. Also, I would love a flat canopy for the D-9 as well! :D

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by robban75

[Scoll]

And Radiator flaps displayed in MultiPlayers

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Any chance for a re-worked exterior model? Perhaps use the wing from the new A-8 model? The one on the D-9 model is too thick(very noticable at the wing root) and has too low dihedral. Also, I would love a flat canopy for the D-9 as well! :D

Yep, I had a runt and "fight" when Dora was released and something was achieved through a painful process of searching lots of info which not always was good enough, I know, or even took into consideration but in the end a small rework of the wings was achieved. Anyhow still external model is quite inaccurate in various aspects, some of which I tried to show back then but sadly they weren't pay attention as the wrong landing gear legs angle. As we're getting a reworked P-51 a reworked D-9 would be highly welcome specially now we can see that gorgeous Anton 3D model and differences pop up so obvious.

 

 

S!

Edited December 9, 2018 by Ala13_ManOWar

[robban75]

Bumping this.

 

I'm dreaming of a detailed external 3D-model for DCS. The DCS D-9 looks very dated. The D-9 screenshot thread is pretty much dead and needs new energy. :)

 

Also, again. I'm lifting the too thick wing and too low dihedral on the DCS D-9.

 

EDITED.

Edited March 23, 2019 by robban75

[msalama]

1) No comparisons between named competitors and DCS on this board AFAIK

2) Too thick a wing and too low a dihedral according to the competition, not necessarily RL - produce docs and data plz

3) Outtahere

[robban75]

I just want to offer suggestions for improvement. I love the flightmodel in DCS. I'm not crazy about the external 3D model. The D-9 has the same dihedral and wing thickness as the other versions of the Fw 190. The new A-8 has the correct dihedral and wing thickness. I suggest they use whatever valid docs they have on the A-8 and apply it on the D-9. People have tried time and time again to show the incorrect wing on the current D-9 3D model. What are valid enough docs anyway?

 

In short. The current wing on the D-9 3D model is wrong. Plain and simple. Pointing this out doesn't mean I don't enjoy the plane.

[msalama]

In short, would you like to supplement a link proving this is wrong please?

[Ala13_ManOWar]

In short, would you like to supplement a link proving this is wrong please?

I also fought this in the past, tried to search everything I could find, but actual pictures depicting the exact detail are really hard to find. They dismissed everything I got. BUT, in the end, without further saying :music_whistling:, they DID change the Dora wing a bit, they corrected the thickness and some minor details, with a far for perfect result but better than nothing.

 

 

 

Anyway that's the better I could achieve without a real Dora at hand to make the pictures myself. Even the most accurate drawings I could find, from well known and proven publishers, aimed to model maker public but perfectly suited for a 3D model IMO, were rejected as a proof of the wrong model. So I had nothing better to fight with, but my naked modeller eye can tell the external 3D model of the Dora is wrong in many aspects, not only the wing.

 

 

Probably most people wouldn't remember, but that first Dora 3D model was really ugly and out of shape, specially with regard to wings but not only. When we get the Fw190A-8 (which depicts the very same wing and apparently from what I have seen is a magnificently detailed 3D model) we would be able to compare with current Dora 3D model and the horror will be unleashed…

 

 

S!

[probad]

there is widely spread incorrect drawings of the 190 both a and d models

[robban75]

I made these comparisons using the drawing from the ED's Fw 190D-9 manual. I have tons of books on the Fw 190 and there are plenty of drawings in these books. In the end I chose to use ED's published drawing.

 

 

GIF below. Notice the red line which shows the angle of incidence. Notice the angle difference. I believe this is one of the biggest reasons to the erroneous wing thickness/dihedral.

 

 

Below, the thick inner part of the wing stands out. The excessive thickness is probably due to the incorrect modelled angle of incidence. Also the difference in dihedral is also noticable.

 

 

 

Not 100%. But absolutely close enough to see the differernce between the drawing and 3D model.

 

[robban75]

but my naked modeller eye can tell the external 3D model of the Dora is wrong in many aspects, not only the wing.

 

^^ This!

 

Same for me. As an artist, as well as being a model builder for almost 40 years has helped train my eyes to see when lines don't come together as they should.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

there is widely spread incorrect drawings of the 190 both a and d models

Yes, there are, that's why I got one of the finest I could get from a modellers' book, to no avail though.

 

 

S!

Edited March 24, 2019 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Ala13_ManOWar]

^^ This. I tried to get the better pictures and drawings possible to depict the obvious nose cowling flaw, as well as the obvious wrong gear legs angles. But I couldn't get any better to prove my point though it's so obvious to my eye used to see bent gear legs in model kits. Gear doors were and are to the day plainly wrong although I can understand back then it was a brand new 3D model and what I pointed meant almost a complete rework from scratch.

 

 

For the wings, so obviously wrong in your gif, well what we have is the correction they performed after my thread, so they are relatively fine. You had to see what the initial model featured for wings…

 

 

S!

Edited March 24, 2019 by Ala13_ManOWar

[robban75]

 

 

For the wings, so obviously wrong in your gif, well what we have is the correction they performed after my thread, so they are relatively fine. You had to see what the initial model featured for wings…

 

 

 

Yeah, pics of the initial model can be found on the web. The initial wing was very bad. They certainly improved it. But unfortunately it is still not representative of a Fw 190 wing.

 

Made some comparisons between gun cam photage and the 3D model. It's an Anton but the Dora had the same wing.

 

 

 

[wolfstriked]

No one seems to be able to model this beauty to exactness huh?

[grafspee]

No one seems to be able to model this beauty to exactness huh?

 

i think drawing showed earlier is wrong the engien couling is too thick even at real photos its crealy visible that couling bulge is very gentle nothing like in drawing posted earlier

i think IL2 D-9 model looks like 90% identical for example landing gear compartment looks like at real photo of the plane but this is only minor thing but DCS's dora wings looks wrong you dont need to have 40 years experience in modeling to see that tho

i think there might be an explenation for difrent engine coulings in fw190 for example 2 difrent manufactures of annular radiators for fw190. it could be anything realy. but difrent wings highly unlikely

Edited March 25, 2019 by grafspee

[LeCuvier]

I suspect that the FW-190 (and the Bf-109) had many "faces". As the end approached, these planes were manufactured in different factories, with increasing shortage of strategic materials, factories were bombed and had to scramble to get some production going. Production used "Fremdarbeiter",deportee slave workers who had no interest in a good product etc.etc. It's a major miracle they could still produce combatworthy airplanes at all. Plus design changes were still coming in. I just don't believe that there was just one "look" of the FW-190 anytime in 1944 and 1945.

[msalama]

I just don't believe that there was just one "look" of the FW-190 anytime in 1944 and 1945.

 

Me neither, although it'd be interesting to know which particular RL model our Dora is based on - if any.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Yeah, there were nothing "standard" with regard to late 44-45 Luftwaffe aircraft, but those differences were usually more cosmetical details than the whole shape of an aircraft, it's a different thing what's being discussed here.

 

 

S!