wip Dark, dirty glass and canopy reflection

[Derbysieger]

11 minutes ago, Art-J said:

fix should affect both modes I reckon

Yes, thankfully the flickering is fixed. It wasn't too bad in 2D but in VR it was  headache inducing.

[peachmonkey]

10 hours ago, Derbysieger said:

You can not compare reflections viewed from the outside with what the pilot would perceive. It's even visible in some of your pics with an open cockpit were there are very strong reflections on the outside but you can clearly see through the glass on the inside. Reflections are much less pronounced when looking through a material from a relatively unlit place (like a cockpit, even on a bright day) into a well lit environment. Plenty of modules have reflections on the inside of the cockpit but the only module where it's a big issue is the Anton. The main problem is that the view out the back is completely obscured by a very strong reflection that shouldn't even be there in the first place and an almost opaque rear cockpit that doesnt let you see out the back. Something that is clearly wrong as in the pictures you posted the canopy is very clear all around.

maybe you can produce a picture from inside a real ac cockpit looking backwards? It doesn't need to be from A8, but from any other ww2 bird with a similar plastic canopy material. The D9 picture you posted earlier looks as if there is no cockpit glass at all, which isn't exactly realistic either. So, everything you're saying right now is pretty much a hearsay.

[Doughguy]

Pictures from inside are rather rare. Iirc i have one or 2 in my japo books onnthe dora.

Whilest my posted pics do not show this, they clearly show how reflective and transparent the canopy material should be. And it also doesnt matter if its viewed from the inside or outside. The material remains the same.

Only projections of reflected objects will differ.

In the case of the anton i guess ed simply reused the front of the plate as a back plate to save pixelspace on the texture.

Hence you can see it on the anton but not in the d9, cause everything from the plate forward is identical in both a8 and d9.

What makes things sour for me are not reglections per se... but that only one module is affected rendering it basically useless.... so axis has effectively 2 capable planes... allied have 5.

Why wasnt the glass of the other planes changed aswell then?

Such adjustments should be done across the board... perspex will be perspex and will  ot be different on a 109 or a 51....

Edited December 26, 2024 by Doughguy

[Derbysieger]

The problem is that there aren't really many light sources inside the cockpit unless you put the cockpit lights on bright during dawn or dusk. IRL you would have reflections but as long as the light source on the outside is dominant, the reflections will not nearly be as bad as shown in those pictures and the human brain is amazing at filtering out 'irrelevant' information. Right now my room is lit and outside is dark. There is a very strong reflection of my room on the window glass yet I am still able to focus on the silhouettes outside. This is impossible with the way reflections are done in the Anton. I am completely blind looking out the back. Where these reflections would be problematic is with a low sun close to sunrise or sunset, but with the sun pretty high in the sky they should be a non issue safe for a few angles. What we have in the Anton are reflections that are way overdone for the most part in addition to reflections that are projected in completely wrong locations.

[Doughguy]

Materials are simply setupn wrong on the antons canopy.

[Doughguy]

Only pics of inside a fw190 i could excavate. Bit of a dud.

However, compare pics of inside a f16.

Reflections are crisp, basically only reflect the brightest parts of the surroundings and still are transparent.

Canopy geometry is quite similar towards the rear in a f16 and fw190.

Its all murky in the anton....

Edited December 27, 2024 by Doughguy

[peachmonkey]

18 minutes ago, Derbysieger said:

The problem is that there aren't really many light sources inside the cockpit unless you put the cockpit lights on bright during dawn or dusk. IRL you would have reflections but as long as the light source on the outside is dominant, the reflections will not nearly be as bad as shown in those pictures and the human brain is amazing at filtering out 'irrelevant' information. Right now my room is lit and outside is dark. There is a very strong reflection of my room on the window glass yet I am still able to focus on the silhouettes outside. This is impossible with the way reflections are done in the Anton. I am completely blind looking out the back. Where these reflections would be problematic is with a low sun close to sunrise or sunset, but with the sun pretty high in the sky they should be a non issue safe for a few angles. What we have in the Anton are reflections that are way overdone for the most part in addition to reflections that are projected in completely wrong locations.

the material on the inside is painted with light grey, ie it will reflect plenty of light back at the canopy. The canopy material will cause the light to scatter (plastic)  thus reducing its transparency when viewed from a highly obtuse angle, i.e. the pilots head. I'd think it's a bit obvious, no? It's not just the red tag picture reflection, but the overall light reflection back out.

Just now, Doughguy said:

Only pics of inside a fw190 i could excavate. Bit og a dud.

However, compare pics of inside an f16.

Reglectipns are crisp, basically only reflect the brightest parts of the surroundings and still are transparent.

Canopy geometry is quite similar towards the rear in a f16 and fw190.

Its all murky in the anton....

 

for reals, can you drop the pictures of the canopies made using contemporary materials/processes. Also, the above picture doesn't necessarily show if there is any canopy at all...

[Doughguy]

Canopies are present in above pictures..

I can tell by the shape of the frame of the 190.

Most ww2 pics will be taken from outside.

But if you compare eg contemporary inside/outside pics, you can draw conclusions looking at ww2 stuff, which tbf, isnt too different clarity wise.

Also, german cockpits werent painted light grey but darker medium grey rlm66. That wouldnt reflect.

Edited December 27, 2024 by Doughguy

[Derbysieger]

10 minutes ago, peachmonkey said:

the material on the inside is painted with light grey, ie it will reflect plenty of light back at the canopy. The canopy material will cause the light to scatter (plastic)  thus reducing its transparency when viewed from a highly obtuse angle, i.e. the pilots head. I'd think it's a bit obvious, no? It's not just the red tag picture reflection, but the overall light reflection back out.

Yeah of course. However it wouldn't be so strong as to completely block the view out back, which it does in the DCS Anton. I can go to my window at a very shallow angle with extremely dominant reflections and still see plenty of details outside. Look at the pictures of F-16 cockpits and even there with those reflections you are able to make out details on the outside and the human eye/brain is much better at looking through those reflections and focus on what's outside than a camera.

Edited December 26, 2024 by Derbysieger

[peachmonkey]

21 minutes ago, Doughguy said:

Canopies are present in a pictures.

I can tell by the shape of the frame.

Most contemporary pics will be taken from outside.

But if you compare eg contemporary inside/outside pics, you can draw conclusions looking at ww2 stuff, which tbf, isnt too different clarity wise.

Also, german cockpits werent painted light grey but darker medium grey rlm66. That wouldnt reflect.

you're sure full of statements you can't back up.

[peachmonkey]

32 minutes ago, Derbysieger said:

Yeah of course. However it wouldn't be so strong as to completely block the view out back, which it does in the DCS Anton. I can go to my window at a very shallow angle with extremely dominant reflections and still see plenty of details outside. Look at the pictures of F-16 cockpits and even there with those reflections you are able to make out details on the outside and the human eye/brain is much better at looking through those reflections and focus on what's outside than a camera.

I wouldn't look at F16 pictures. The F16 acrylic glass has been created using a modern process that ensures a unified solid material that is then polished to provide a surface without any impurities. The process for acrylic glass production in the 1940's was substantially different, or different enough that comparing the results of its mass production vs our current era will introduce a large margin for error.

In all, ED has access to the warbirds in Nick's garage, I think. So they can take rear-looking pictures from inside the canopy, and I assume they can do it in all lighting conditions to observe the variance in reflections. Since DCS can't model a refractive index, or real-time reflections in this cockpit I feel they may have picked a 'middle' ground and ran with it. You've already got a permanent snap-to-6 crutch where you can sit and look backwards forever in these birds, so asking for a super-duper clear view of the rear as to not impede this crutch makes me want to ask you if you actually appreciate the realism DCS strives for.

Edited December 26, 2024 by peachmonkey

[Doughguy]

45 minutes ago, peachmonkey said:

I wouldn't look at F16 pictures. The F16 acrylic glass has been created using a modern process that ensures a unified solid material that is then polished to provide a surface without any impurities. The process for acrylic glass production in the 1940's was substantially different, or different enough that comparing the results of its mass production vs our current era will introduce a large margin for error.

In all, ED has access to the warbirds in Nick's garage, I think. So they can take rear-looking pictures from inside the canopy, and I assume they can do it in all lighting conditions to observe the variance in reflections. Since DCS can't model a refractive index, or real-time reflections in this cockpit I feel they may have picked a 'middle' ground and ran with it. You've already got a permanent snap-to-6 crutch where you can sit and look backwards forever in these birds, so asking for a super-duper clear view of the rear as to not impede this crutch makes me want to ask you if you actually appreciate the realism DCS strives for.

I bet those warbirds still have wartime perspex installed.... hence bein totally accurate... also while he has a 190.. but all other warbirds do not.

Please keep your snide remarks to yourself if you cannot be polite....

Also you didnt seem to understand an analogy nor can you produce any counter proof, yet you ask for evidence....

But as we're at it, why dont you show me nick grey in his 190 a8 or d9? So we can "assume" where they got it from.... and if murky is correct we change it on all the warbirds yes?

Edited December 27, 2024 by Doughguy

[Derbysieger]

12 minutes ago, peachmonkey said:

You've already got a permanent snap-to-6 crutch where you can sit and look backwards forever in these birds, so asking for a super-duper clear view of the rear as to not impede this crutch makes me want to ask you if you actually appreciate the realism DCS strives for.

I fly in VR without the necksaver mod, so no, I can't just look out the back indefinitely...

I am in no way advocating for removing reflections completely but just from everyday experience you can draw some conclusions. Even if the F-16 cockpit is way less reflective and more transparent than these old plexi glass cockpits I am convinced it still wouldn't be this bad. You're basically permantly blind when looking out back and there's no way that is realistic unless you have some severe surface degradation of the glass. The cockpits look very clear in the pictures posted earlier and there's no way it would look as bad as in this post for example, even ignoring the red reflection which is physically impossible to be in that place:

The only situation I could see it being this bad is when dealing with a low sun or when it's dark outside and you have the cockpit lights on full strength.

[peachmonkey]

1 hour ago, Doughguy said:

I bet those warbirds still have wartime perspex installed.... hence bein totally accurate... also while he has a 190.. but all other warbirds do not.

Please keep your snide remarks to yourself if you cannot be polite....

Also you didnt seem to understand an analogy nor can you produce any counter proof, yet you ask for evidence....

But as we're at it, why dont you show me nick grey in his 190 a8 or d9? So we can "assume" where they got it from.... and if murky is correct we change it on all the warbirds yes?

my apologies, but I interpreted your baseless claims for snide remarks as well. So, I feel we are even.

[peachmonkey]

41 minutes ago, Derbysieger said:

I fly in VR without the necksaver mod, so no, I can't just look out the back indefinitely...

I am in no way advocating for removing reflections completely but just from everyday experience you can draw some conclusions. Even if the F-16 cockpit is way less reflective and more transparent than these old plexi glass cockpits I am convinced it still wouldn't be this bad. You're basically permantly blind when looking out back and there's no way that is realistic unless you have some severe surface degradation of the glass. The cockpits look very clear in the pictures posted earlier and there's no way it would look as bad as in this post for example, even ignoring the red reflection which is physically impossible to be in that place:

The only situation I could see it being this bad is when dealing with a low sun or when it's dark outside and you have the cockpit lights on full strength.

there was a technique the ww2 fighters used when traversing the combat zone:  weaving. And they did it continuously.

Anyway, I've beaten this horse to death, at least I have. My point is, ED never paid attention to any inferred evidence when talking about a specific technicality. Your claims lack some basic evidence, i.e. a reference material from the appropriate timeframe, or represented by the appropriate timeframe materials presented within the current timeframe. If you don't have those then it's very difficult to get everyone on board with your ideas, especially ED.

Happy flying!

[Scoll]

@Doughguy

Note that all these pics are taken from a camera generally placed on the dashboard, therefore well in front of what the pilot actually sees.

[Doughguy]

That doesnt change the overall factual reflectiveness of a material, or to determine, how said material should reflect.

There is a huge difference in the quality of reflections the DCS anton displays, and any of the other warbirds.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Got rid of the red glare on the canopy by enabling global illumination in cockpit. Without it the red reflection is still there. The windscreen and canopy are dirty as heck, not only on Anton. Easiest solution would be to have clean glass on every plane as they were cleaned thoroughly by ground crew before flight. No need to model something negative when we have factory fresh planes within paper specs after all. 

[Michal]

Any news?

[Flanker35M]

S!

This seems to be so odd. Sometimes the canopy is clear without reflections as set it to 0. Next game launch the red glare and smeary windows are back. There is no consistency in the settings sticking or not...

[Art-J]

^ Hasn't the transparency option been implemented in handful of modules only? F-16 being the first one. I don't know if any of the warbirds is fully suported yet.