correct as-is Remove obstruction in front of RWR

[Smoked]

1 minute ago, WobblyFlops said:

It really is quite simple. Panther knows more about the F-16 than any of us, she is an actual SME, not a random guy that sat in a Viper and doesn't remember what he actually saw. So if in the real jet the RWR, the MFDs and the HUD are visible perfectly from a comfortable position the same thing should be replicated in the game. It doesn't really matter what reality is though, if they indeed modelled it wrong they sure as hell won't change it at this stage, but for fairness sake I'm really curious to know what Panther will say about this once she gets the chance to check it again. I would be incredibly surprised if this was accurate.

 everyone of us have different body mechanics, and FOV based on height and body thickness (pushing us closer or moving us back) adjust your POV and seat height and move on... I do this every time and I have not issues seeing the RWR or the HUD...  

 

I have talked with several SME and actual active pilots who have said the modeling of the pit is spot on... So take the my SME verse your SME argument with a grain of salt, sitting in the jet is going to be subjective... Be it a crew chief or a WP holder...

 

ED has chimed in on this and have said they are not changing anything, please carry on though.. 

[Archduke]

Just make the jump to VR and this perceived problem will go poof.

 

As was quite often spelled out in this thread these cockpits are faithful copies of the real three dimensional thing. First time I flew in VR really was an epiphany, suddenly the ergonomics of the pit made sense. They never did that before.

 

So either accept the good advice in this thread an change your POV or go VR. Both will solve your problem.

[Черный Дракул]

1 hour ago, Smoked said:

 Its simple... re-center view position when you get in the pit... and/or adjust seat up and down..

After you've done it 10-20 000 times you'll notice it was actually not that simple. Workflow should always be as streamlined as possible because it piles up with repetition very quickly. 

 

1 hour ago, Smoked said:

the proof they provide is multiple pictures using multiple FOV lenses

FOV is irrelevant in this matter since it's the position that matters. With correct geometry, changing the FOV will change angular sizes of details, but how these details relate to each other (in this case, obscured/unobscured) remains the same no matter the FOV. 

 

14 minutes ago, Smoked said:

I have talked with several SME and actual active pilots who have said the modeling of the pit is spot on

It may well be. Try asking them again about default head position in the cockpit and see their point on visibility of several obscured items in the cockpit -- their opinion on this may differ. 

1 minute ago, Archduke said:

So either accept the good advice in this thread an change your POV or go VR. Both will solve your problem.

Just be rich and have everyone will repeat the same instruction. Simple solutions never stop to amaze. 

[Archduke]

2 minutes ago, Черный Дракул said:

Just be rich and have everyone will repeat the same instruction. Simple solutions never stop to amaze. 

 

I'm sorry, I've waited quite some time before I could afford my VR rig and stuff. I understand that not everybody can or wants to spend so much money.

 

But then it comes down to a matter of compromise. The cockpit is correctly modeled, this becomes clear as soon as you use VR. POV is the problem, that means mapping a 3D object onto a 2D surface. Of course there will be some things that are covered. But the solution to this POV problem isn't "distort the correct geometry of the cockpit".

[Smoked]

19 minutes ago, Черный Дракул said:

After you've done it 10-20 000 times you'll notice it was actually not that simple. Workflow should always be as streamlined as possible because it piles up with repetition very quickly. 

Pushing a button is not that hard... if it is, you are in the wrong sim... after I have done it 10-20 times I have found out that I do not even think about it..   Want to streamline things?  give me a DTC...   I give 2 craps about a subjective FOV that will change with EVERY player.. 

Quote

FOV is irrelevant in this matter since it's the position that matters. With correct geometry, changing the FOV will change angular sizes of details, but how these details relate to each other (in this case, obscured/unobscured) remains the same no matter the FOV. 

Do they adjust the seat up or down based on helmet clearance to the canopy trying to get the best view outside or do they set that for clear RWR viewing ??  you do understand that based on body mechanics not one FOV is going to be the same as another right?   Why is this?   The F-16 seat can only adjust up and down, that's it, until they make it adjusting foreword and backwards nothing will change that.   Physical body makeup will change that as well...  a 155 pound pilot is going to sit further back that a 220 pound who will be pushed foreword... 

 

Quote

It may well be. Try asking them again about default head position in the cockpit and see their point on visibility of several obscured items in the cockpit -- their opinion on this may differ. 

What do you think I asked them... LOL... They all said ED got the modeling and physics of the cockpit pretty damn spot on...  performance and systems... MEH...   its still a WIP though...   Once again the my SME verse your SME.. please though... lets wait for another SME and we can get a SME to counter that SME based on SME swag.. 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2021 by Smoked

[WobblyFlops]

36 minutes ago, Smoked said:

ED has chimed in on this and have said they are not changing anything, please carry on though.. 

I agree with that. After all, the A-10 HUD fix took them years and it's a much easier fix. Even if ED knew for sure that this is wrong, they'd refuse to change it because that would require them to rework the cockpit dimensions and that requires a lot more resources. 

[Черный Дракул]

4 hours ago, Archduke said:

the solution to this POV problem isn't "distort the correct geometry of the cockpit".

As I understand the topic up to date, no one has requested that...

 

4 hours ago, Smoked said:

Pushing a button is not that hard

Pushing a button used as a bandaid when the whole matter can be fixed by developer is harder with every press, you know? 

 

4 hours ago, Smoked said:

Do they adjust the seat up or down

This has nothing to do with FOV. 

 

4 hours ago, Smoked said:

Physical body makeup will change that as well...  a 155 pound pilot is going to sit further back that a 220 pound who will be pushed foreword... 

Physical body makeup for a pilot cannot change that exactly because of how it works. Pilots are med-checked on a regular basis, so no anabolic steroids can be used to produce enough muscle mass to significantly push the spine forward. The only other option is accumulating fat. And while you've got to build an enormous amount of fat on your buttocks to noticeably move your lower body, the upper body has to be pushed by fat built on the upper back, which can never be big enough due to physiology. Also, males tend to build up fat on their belly, not on buttocks -- to get this big even on the lower part, one would have to be way over 200 pounds you mentioned (which will still not move the upper body with point of view). 

With that deducted, we can only watch individual difference in spine thickness and head size, which is minimal among our species. 

So no, different body makeup will not change point of view position far enough to make a difference. 

 

5 hours ago, Smoked said:

What do you think I asked them... LOL... They all said ED got the modeling and physics of the cockpit

I think you asked them exactly what you have recited here. And we're talking not the geometry, but instrument visibility, which changes with POV sliding drastically.

[Baz000]

like I said prior, the same issue exists in VR as it does in Track ir as it does in 2D. Changing the default view doesn’t fix it. It is directly a pilot line of sight issue with the top most half of the RWR azimuth display which makes absolutely no logical nor tactical sense.

 

My video demonstrates this very well, Panther’s comments on the photographs I provided demonstrated this pretty well as she says the photos are accurate to the jet.

 

Apparently on Tuesday she is going to sit inside the jet she has sat inside of hundreds of times and reconfirm. I am going to ask her personally to ask any Viper pilots she runs into about it and see if they can provide some insight to her about RWR azimuth display visibility while in flight because maybe that changes slightly vs on the ground perhaps?

 

I mean, I was always under the impression that Eagle Dynamics as a company in a really niche area of the market prides itself on the level of fidelity and accuracy of their products they produce and are always willing to hear all kinds of feedback from the users who utilize their products. 

 

Here I am, a user... I have been for quite some time and I own alot of various DCS modules and i’m providing feedback on an issue I believe to have found, my wingman I fly with that I explained the problem to even can see it.

 

don't listen to me, fine... I’m no expert on F-16s, I only go off references I can find... I literally went through 20 pages of google image search finding any photo that seems to be situated from a pilot view perspective, furthermore I found images of people sitting in the F-16 ejection seat that shows there is a considerable gap between their heads and the headrest of the seat. Why is that an important detail to understand? Everyone is hung up on the seat being reclined 30 degrees but when talking about pilot line of sight based on eye position you have to understand the pilot eyes location in relation to the cockpit.

 

Anyways, I get for lack of better words lambasted on here... Fine, don’t listen to me? What do I know? Like I said i’m no F-16 expert!

 

But Panther, on the other hand who works on F-16s and has sat inside them hundreds of times? If you read her comments in here she says that there is indeed a problem and that ED needs to fix it. And she also says that the photographs that I did dredge up is an accurate representation of how the RWR azimuth display should look visible and without obstruction.

 

I think that if you don’t want to listen to me that is okay, I mean I can only point out that “this doesn’t seem right or makes reading no sense, etc” and that is purely subjective to my anecdotal experience and observations as well as internet sleuthing. I mean that is all fine and dandy! 

 

But what I really don’t understand is when Panther is echoing the same thing i’m saying or am I echoing her lol?? There seems to be no credence given into her professional opinion or her experience regarding the matter.

 

The thing that really baffles me is instead of analyzing and observing what may be causing the problem ie: is it cockpit 3D geometry needs adjusting? Is it default pilot head position (which is what so many people in this thread have been arguing changing via snapviews)

 

I don’t think it is potentially a default pilot head position issue because of how much scrutiny from so many different people that has received in particular in the development process but again that is merely my opinion.

 

im going to record a short video in VR demonstrating the same issue.

 

I look forward to hearing what Panther says after her work on F-16s on Tuesday, be interesting to see if she says something other that what I have read her say so far in this particular thread 

 

 

 

 

[NineLine]

36 minutes ago, Baz000 said:

like I said prior, the same issue exists in VR as it does in Track ir as it does in 2D. Changing the default view doesn’t fix it. It is directly a pilot line of sight issue with the top most half of the RWR azimuth display which makes absolutely no logical nor tactical sense.

 

My video demonstrates this very well, Panther’s comments on the photographs I provided demonstrated this pretty well as she says the photos are accurate to the jet.

 

Apparently on Tuesday she is going to sit inside the jet she has sat inside of hundreds of times and reconfirm. I am going to ask her personally to ask any Viper pilots she runs into about it and see if they can provide some insight to her about RWR azimuth display visibility while in flight because maybe that changes slightly vs on the ground perhaps?

 

I mean, I was always under the impression that Eagle Dynamics as a company in a really niche area of the market prides itself on the level of fidelity and accuracy of their products they produce and are always willing to hear all kinds of feedback from the users who utilize their products. 

 

Here I am, a user... I have been for quite some time and I own alot of various DCS modules and i’m providing feedback on an issue I believe to have found, my wingman I fly with that I explained the problem to even can see it.

 

don't listen to me, fine... I’m no expert on F-16s, I only go off references I can find... I literally went through 20 pages of google image search finding any photo that seems to be situated from a pilot view perspective, furthermore I found images of people sitting in the F-16 ejection seat that shows there is a considerable gap between their heads and the headrest of the seat. Why is that an important detail to understand? Everyone is hung up on the seat being reclined 30 degrees but when talking about pilot line of sight based on eye position you have to understand the pilot eyes location in relation to the cockpit.

 

Anyways, I get for lack of better words lambasted on here... Fine, don’t listen to me? What do I know? Like I said i’m no F-16 expert!

 

But Panther, on the other hand who works on F-16s and has sat inside them hundreds of times? If you read her comments in here she says that there is indeed a problem and that ED needs to fix it. And she also says that the photographs that I did dredge up is an accurate representation of how the RWR azimuth display should look visible and without obstruction.

 

I think that if you don’t want to listen to me that is okay, I mean I can only point out that “this doesn’t seem right or makes reading no sense, etc” and that is purely subjective to my anecdotal experience and observations as well as internet sleuthing. I mean that is all fine and dandy! 

 

But what I really don’t understand is when Panther is echoing the same thing i’m saying or am I echoing her lol?? There seems to be no credence given into her professional opinion or her experience regarding the matter.

 

The thing that really baffles me is instead of analyzing and observing what may be causing the problem ie: is it cockpit 3D geometry needs adjusting? Is it default pilot head position (which is what so many people in this thread have been arguing changing via snapviews)

 

I don’t think it is potentially a default pilot head position issue because of how much scrutiny from so many different people that has received in particular in the development process but again that is merely my opinion.

 

im going to record a short video in VR demonstrating the same issue.

 

I look forward to hearing what Panther says after her work on F-16s on Tuesday, be interesting to see if she says something other that what I have read her say so far in this particular thread 

 

 

 

 

We have listened to everyone in this thread and we feel it is as it should be. Please don't play the victim here, we took your feedback, we looked into it, and we are happy with where it is at. If you don't have anything new to add though, this is just redundant posting, and we frown upon that in our rules. Thanks.

[NineLine]

7 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

I agree with that. After all, the A-10 HUD fix took them years and it's a much easier fix. Even if ED knew for sure that this is wrong, they'd refuse to change it because that would require them to rework the cockpit dimensions and that requires a lot more resources. 

I like that it took years, and the fix only came a few months after the new cockpit. Lets also note, this thread is NOT about any other module than the F-16, so please stay on topic.

[NineLine]

Dear all, just to be thorough on this subject as it is important to some of you, Wags also took the time to discuss with one of our Viper Pilot SME's again. This SME is an active ANG Viper pilot, vetted by Wags himself, as well as a regular player of DCS World. As with all our SMEs, he is not in the habit of telling us what we want to hear, rather he tells us his exact experiences. In this case, his comments reflected those of our other SMEs, but he felt compelled to share this thoughts.

 

Anyways Wags shared some feedback from this thread and I am allowed to share direct quotes so here we are:

 

"Huh, I see. Well about her statements about pilots not moving the seat in flight. 
 

As a technique, a lot of pilots adjust their seat up until they barely can's see below the housing for the cockpit instruments, which is pretty high. This also gives them the view over the APX antennas like you talked about. This means that part of the HUD is blocked for them and they really have to crane their necks to look down into the HUD.
 

My personal technique is to lower the seat all the way, then raise it just a small amount. My view from doing this is pretty close to the default view in DCS.

As for the eye positioning, if you re-center your view in the DCS cockpit and look straight down you'll see that your eyes are just a bit behind where the reclined portion of the seat meets the base. IRL this is roughly true to most people's natural nugget position. The only time people lean all the way back is in BFM, or if it's hour 6 on a 7 hour CAP sortie."

[schurem]

32 minutes ago, NineLine said:

they really have to crane their necks to look down into the HUD.

Huh, so that explains. I have taken to binding camera slew functions to a shift+hat in order to put my head on the virtual pilot bodies' shoulders, peeking down the headset to see if his shoulders line up with mine. That often leaves gunsights and hud's almost useless without leaning into them. So that's how it is IRL huh? Interesting

Edited July 4, 2021 by schurem

[Baz000]

 

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

Dear all, just to be thorough on this subject as it is important to some of you, Wags also took the time to discuss with one of our Viper Pilot SME's again. This SME is an active ANG Viper pilot, vetted by Wags himself, as well as a regular player of DCS World. As with all our SMEs, he is not in the habit of telling us what we want to hear, rather he tells us his exact experiences. In this case, his comments reflected those of our other SMEs, but he felt compelled to share this thoughts.

 

Anyways Wags shared some feedback from this thread and I am allowed to share direct quotes so here we are:

 

"Huh, I see. Well about her statements about pilots not moving the seat in flight. 
 

As a technique, a lot of pilots adjust their seat up until they barely can's see below the housing for the cockpit instruments, which is pretty high. This also gives them the view over the APX antennas like you talked about. This means that part of the HUD is blocked for them and they really have to crane their necks to look down into the HUD.
 

My personal technique is to lower the seat all the way, then raise it just a small amount. My view from doing this is pretty close to the default view in DCS.

As for the eye positioning, if you re-center your view in the DCS cockpit and look straight down you'll see that your eyes are just a bit behind where the reclined portion of the seat meets the base. IRL this is roughly true to most people's natural nugget position. The only time people lean all the way back is in BFM, or if it's hour 6 on a 7 hour CAP sortie."

That's all fine in regards to pilot head position inside the cockpit Nineline and I appreciate the transparency of sharing anything with us about behind the scenes discussions.

 

But my particular point of concern has to do with forward quarter RWR azimuth display visibility on the non critical outer threat ring / radius.

 

In your statement above, no where do the words RWR, or azimuth display, or anything related to the sort come up. Maybe other people in this thread have spoken about such and in my opinion are doing nothing but muddying the already murky water. Pilot seat position or head position was not really a consideration of mine at all when discussing the problem I observed, if anything... That is the one singular item that has received so much scrutiny both in and out of the development process.

 

No, sir my point is the forward quarter of the RWR azimuth display is obscured from sight. This is not a problem inside the critical threat ring fortunately, however this is a problem on the outer critical band area about a 45 degrees cone in front of the nose.

 

Furthermore, and I certainly am no expert on this... But from what I understand the RWR azimuth display shouldn't have a RWR nails, for lack of better words marching towards the center of the display as you get closer to the radar emissions source. Unless I'm wrong, which certainly is possible... The RWR nails should stay "parked" inside either the non-critical threat ring or the critical threat ring. Western designed RWR display is exactly as named, an azimuth display and provides no reference to estimate ranging... Unlike the signal strength ring that is shown in eastern RWR. Instead, western RWR design shows to the pilot the priority of threat based on how the RWR was programmed and there are a ton of variables that go into that, some reprogramming even done in theater based on threat intelligence.

 

So I'm not entirely 100% sure but my inclination leads me to believe on an azimuth display for radar threats that this is possibly not the correct behavior to have a nails you are flying towards that initially appears in the outer most radius of the non critical threat ring start moving closer and closer in radius towards the  direction of the outer most ring of the critical threat area / the inner ring of the non-critical threat area.

 

Okay, so for example you have 2 nails on your RWR display... (no idea how DCS would display this, haven't tested it) SA-6 and SA-10 and instead of them both being inside the critical threat area, for sake of this example SA-10 is in the critical threat area and SA-6 is outside that in the non critical threat... And let's say they are on the same azimuth and your jet is flying towards them.

 

Alright, so here is my point in this example... The SA-10 is closer to your jet? Right? And thus the SA-6 should be farther away than that SA-10? Not necessarily, and in all likelihood the RWR is conveying to you the SA-10 is a far greater threat to your jet based on how the RWR was programmed. What about that SA-6? Well in reality in this hypothetical example I came up with, your jet is far actually closer in proximity to the SA-6 than the SA-10! If you continue flying in this direction, ultimately you will fly over the SA-6 before you do the SA-10 if neither fires at you. So why is the SA-10 in the critical threat band on the display? Because the RWR is not displaying distance to radar emissions source, it is displaying threat priority based on it identifying what kind of radar equipment it detects based on the emissions hitting the sensors around your jet. The SA-10 system is a far greater threat based on it's capabilities than hypothetically the SA-6 in the example which is far closer in distance and possibly will fly directly over. Also keep in mind, I'm only talking about nails here not spikes... If the SA-6 spikes you, it probably should move from the non critical threat area and join the SA-10 inside the critical threat area on the azimuth display, as now a fire control radar is actively tracking you vs a search radar blindly bouncing off your jet. With a tracking you, the next phase is a missile launched at your jet. Anyways, point is... And my example demonstrates this... The azimuth display is exactly as it sounds, radar emissions source azimuth and detected threat priority and not necessarily distance to emissions source. If it did, you wouldn't need that cheek pod for the HARM, because your own RWR could estimate a range to the emissions source for a targeting solution. From my understanding the HARM HAD sensor pod that mounts to the cheek can actually triangulate the location of the threat radar based on it's emissions, and that provides you a DLZ (dynamic launch zone) to launch your HARMs.

 

Your RWR shouldn't provide ranging or distance, so I don't understand why I see a nails marching down the display as I fly closer to it. And again I could be wrong but I don't think this particular RWR behavior is correct.

Edited July 4, 2021 by Baz000

[NineLine]

In fact, he did confirm that the metal piece does obscure the very top of the RWR scope when at the correct head position. 

 

While we understand why you are asking about this, and why you might think it is incorrect, we have talked with several pilots about this, and all have told us the same thing. We even double-checked again because of this post.

 

On that note, to prevent any drifting to another topic, or going in circles for days and days, I am closing this. If you come up with information that would trump what we have from a number of pilots, you can always PM it to me or BIGNEWY. Thanks.