cockpit labels barely readably

[ironhard]

I have to agree here folks. The weathering on the Tomcat is WAY exaggerated. A real pilot probably has to pass a vision test to be certified and thus not a problem reading weathered panels, even if they are that weathered irl, which i doubt. Hobbist like myself, past 50, with a vision already long past its prime, it is an unnecessary burden.

Edited May 4, 2023 by ironhard

[Temetre]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb lunaticfringe:

Who can detail the difference between the operational handling and working environment of a USAF aircraft versus a US Navy one?  Anyone?  Anyone? 

Similarly, the USAF Museum collection is a rather poor starting point of comparison, given the material access they grant themselves to NOS in the supply network, as well as material from off of other aircraft at other museums.  If Dayton wants a replacement panel to a better standard and another museum has it, they're going to get it, per the service artifact loan terms.

By the same token, many of the last jets off cruise that were saved from the jaws at AMARC were getting the best gear to put on display.  The jet formerly at the QAM, that a couple years back was moved down to the US Naval Academy, had a stunning cockpit based around a number of donor jets, and had the benefit of being with the Reapers for years leading up to it- thus not dealing with the day to day environment at sea.  Meanwhile, get jets that come off cruise and go right to the museum, such as the B at Akron-Canton, and it was even rougher than what we have exampled in the HB model when it arrived, pre-demil.

To be honest, I dont really get whats your point? I havent questioned if the F-14B cockpit is realistic, that it couldve flown that way. 

But it sounds like youre argueing that literally every example of a plan looking better and with more readable text is just fake, misleading or not realistic? That seems a bit ridiculous. I cannot give you a perfect and sourced example, sure, but I dont think anyone can do that.

Like, look at this A-7 Skyraider cockpit below, do you really think this is the best sustained kit they couldve thrown together? I dont even know why it would matter if its from different aircraft, assuming all if them were in service. Despite all the wear, the text survived all of the torture.

Its a pretty big elephant in the room that a) almost no aircraft anywhere has text this badly worn, and b) no aircraft in DCS comes close, not carrier either. So logically it seems to imply our F-4 cockpit is one of the worst ever been in service this way. Which again, theres nothing wrong with that. I just want people to see/agree that our F-14 is an extremely worn example, or prove me wrong, thats fine too.

Personally, the only place where I got problems reading stuff is the gauges though. The altitude and speed gauge especially are hard to read, but idk if its a screen/render-thing or too low contrast. Might be a video game thing that cant really be fixed.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Temetre

[Despayre]

8 hours ago, Temetre said:

 

Personally, the only place where I got problems reading stuff is the gauges though. The altitude and speed gauge especially are hard to read, but idk if its a screen/render-thing or too low contrast. Might be a video game thing that cant really be fixed.

 

I'm also over 50, and new (sorta) to DCS/sims, and while I don't have any major issue with the readability of the switches (After a couple weeks at most, I had almost everything I need mapped to the HOTAS, or I just knew where it was at that point), I will say that I wouldn't hate it if the altitude gauge was more readable for sure... and for the speed gauge, basically, I learn where the arrow needs to point, to be at the speed I need it to be, and go by that, which, while workable, feels less than optimal... but also probably explains why there weren't many F-14 pilots in their mid-50's in the first place.  

[Temetre]

vor 59 Minuten schrieb Despayre:

I'm also over 50, and new (sorta) to DCS/sims, and while I don't have any major issue with the readability of the switches (After a couple weeks at most, I had almost everything I need mapped to the HOTAS, or I just knew where it was at that point), I will say that I wouldn't hate it if the altitude gauge was more readable for sure... and for the speed gauge, basically, I learn where the arrow needs to point, to be at the speed I need it to be, and go by that, which, while workable, feels less than optimal... but also probably explains why there weren't many F-14 pilots in their mid-50's in the first place.  

My vision is good and it still a bit rough^^

Weird that its at least a bit easier in the A4-Skyhawk.

[draconus]

9 hours ago, Despayre said:

I will say that I wouldn't hate it if the altitude gauge was more readable for sure

That one is a bug.

[Temetre]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb draconus:

That one is a bug.

Oh, please explain? What about the altitude gauge is bugged?

[draconus]

4 hours ago, Temetre said:

Oh, please explain? What about the altitude gauge is bugged?

White digits on black drums (thousands of feet) are smaller than they should be. They are sized the same as 7 and 8 digits from the left side of the gauge in HB/DCS. Should be same sized as 9 and 0-6 digits on the RL gauge. They also seem to be dimmer (should be same brightness of white) but that might be just an effect of the size.

Edited May 5, 2023 by draconus

[Temetre]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb draconus:

Drum digits are smaller than they should be. They are sized as 7 and 8 from the gauge in HB/DCS. Should be same sized as 9 and 0-6 IRL. They also seem to be dimmer (should be same brightness of white) but that might be just an effect of the size.

I agree about the dimness. That might not be a mistake, but purely a result of how the game is rendered. Like the black being too reflective in light and the white not being reflective enough, especially in the dark. But especially then Id hope HB can take a look if they can improve readiability, considering how much easier to read it is IRL, or even in those blurry tiny IRL pictures. 

About the scales, mind that theres at least two different scales in your picture. Noticeable by the 3 being low in one, and high in the other. 

Doing some primitive pixel measuring in pics with similar angle, there is a difference, but I dont think they used the 8/7 for scale. Measuring pixels, the 8 in the real picture (with low 3) is ~8% of the guages height, while the zero is 12%. In our image the gauge is 10%.

So if my estimation is right, the letter should be 20-25% larger (in height)? Assuming HB didnt have a cockpit with an even smaller gauge, in which case Id prefer if we just switch to the more readable one. Gauges being this hard to read isnt really a realistic experience, even if its partially a technical problem.

Has someone from Heatblur talked about this? 

Edited May 5, 2023 by Temetre

[draconus]

16 minutes ago, Temetre said:

About the scales, mind that theres at least two different scales in your picture. Noticeable by the 3 being low in one, and high in the other. 

...

Has someone from Heatblur talked about this? 

They ignored my earlier mentions (correct as is). And yes, there are 3 drums there. I meant the white digits on black drums (thousands of feet). These should be bigger.

@IronMike @Silhou Can we have this reported or investigated once again?

Edited May 5, 2023 by draconus

[Temetre]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb draconus:

They ignored my earlier mentions. And yes, there are 3 drums there. I meant the white digits on black drums (thousands of feet). These should be bigger.

Oh you mean the rolling indicator numbers. Absolutely right with those. But I think the normal 0-9 numbers are also a bit too small.

Hm, maybe part of the normal 0-9 issue is scaling? Theres a lot of empty black space around the edge of the indicator, which isnt really there on real pictures:

The only alternative I can think off is that there is yet another (and worse) altitude indicator model we have no pictures of.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Temetre

[Despayre]

3 hours ago, Temetre said:

No one's gonna talk about this Tomcat at 99,750ft huh? I want *that* plane!

[Temetre]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Despayre:

No one's gonna talk about this Tomcat at 99,750ft huh? I want *that* plane!

I think thats pretty close to the F-15C altitude record ^^

[Silhou]

Hey. Tracked this as DCSF14-434. Thank you!

[draconus]

1 minute ago, Silhou said:

Tracked this as DCSF14-434.

You mean the altimeter?

[Xtorris]

44 minutes ago, draconus said:

You mean the altimeter?

[Temetre]

vor 55 Minuten schrieb Silhou:

Hey. Tracked this as DCSF14-434. Thank you!

Thank you! Tho can you please tell what specific problem is tracked there?

Ive thought about making a report on my own to report specific problems, but its a bit hard to tell whats even an actual issue and what not for me.^^

Edited May 8, 2023 by Temetre

[IronMike]

20 hours ago, Temetre said:

Thank you! Tho can you please tell what specific problem is tracked there?

Ive thought about making a report on my own to report specific problems, but its a bit hard to tell whats even an actual issue and what not for me.^^

 

Altimeter numbering being too small. We will investigate that more. For the time being we have no intention on changing the cockpit labels or weathering though - I am putting it like that to not create false hope. I would still like to see your list though, we're always open to discuss/ rethink, and your feedback will help greatly. Thank you!

[eatthis]

On 5/5/2023 at 9:57 AM, draconus said:

White digits on black drums (thousands of feet) are smaller than they should be. They are sized the same as 7 and 8 digits from the left side of the gauge in HB/DCS. Should be same sized as 9 and 0-6 digits on the RL gauge. They also seem to be dimmer (should be same brightness of white) but that might be just an effect of the size.

 

i was today years old when i realised 9-6 are a different size to 7-8 lol