[REPORTED] Fw 190 Cockpit Bar! (answer Post #173)

[bongodriver]

Who gives a flying chrome ball? :doh:

 

Really nobody should, but this is a legendary debate in the flight sim world, for some the inclusion of the bar is like burning a Qur'an.

 

@hakjar.......is do see your point and agree the glass certainly refracted, but who actually knows how well that refraction accounted for the bar?

[gavagai]

Still don't see what you are on about.

 

In the video it looks like their is a 3-4cm tall bit of metal running along the bottom of the forward canopy.

 

This is an important issue because it's been done incorrectly in the past.

[AndyJWest]

But Krupi, if the 3d model of the cockpit is of accurate dimensions and the players eye height is set correctly and the 'bar' is visible then it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume it was visible in real life, in order to make that bar disappear the bottom of the armoured glass would probably have to sit inside the fuselage, I can see no feature of the aircraft that suggests that is the case.

 

The reason it isn't 'visible in real life' is made clear by the enlarged side view here:

Refraction through the thick armoured glass causes the 'line of sight' forwards to move upwards. It is only about 1.5 cm or so, but it is enough to remove the 'bar'. And yes, the drawing shows that the bottom of the glass actually sits inside the fuselage - photo's won't show this, because of the refraction.

[Kodoss]

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Sigh. I'm tempted to pull my funding if they pull this kind of thing again.

[Krupi]

Really nobody should, but this is a legendary debate in the flight sim world, for some the inclusion of the bar is like burning a Qur'an.

 

@hakjar.......is do see your point and agree the glass certainly refracted, but who actually knows how well that refraction accounted for the bar?

 

 

I hope you don't take this offensively Bongo old chum but if you do not care about this issue then please do not bother with this thread, you will not add anything to this discussion.

[Nate--IRL--]

Sigh. I'm tempted to pull my funding if they pull this kind of thing again.

 

Pull funding from who?

 

Nate

[Feuerfalke]

Who gives a flying chrome ball? :doh:

 

Sorry, but that's pretty ignorant.

 

If you model a gunsight and block 1/3 of it, because you just can't do it right, that's not something to just forget about.

 

That's a critical inaccuracity and a one that directly impacts the usability of that plane.

It's like modelling the F-15C just with STT or the Su33 without EO-targeting, because these need programming, thought and adjustments you just didn't want to do.

[bongodriver]

No, no offence, I will respectfully continue with a reasoned debate.

 

@AndyJ the glass extends into the cockpit area but does not project into the fuselage on the outside edge, the frame of the glass quite clearly physically sits above the bottom aperture of the sight, while the drawing goes some way to explain the path of refracted light it still seems to be a bit of an impression rather than a technically accurate illustration.

 

What sources are there to give exact quantitative data on how much refraction happened and did the gunsights account for this too?

[Krupi]

Sigh. I'm tempted to pull my funding if they pull this kind of thing again.

 

Come on squirrel there is no need for these kind of "threats", we are all hoping this to be the next biggest thing in ww2 aircraft simulation and these guys need all the help they can get.

 

I am sure that if we can prove that something is incorrect they will ensure that it is corrected :thumbup:

[bongodriver]

Pull funding from who?

 

Nate

 

it's a hissy fit saying he will withdraw from the kickstarter funding unless the bar is removed.

[Nate--IRL--]

it's a hissy fit saying he will withdraw from the kickstarter funding unless the bar is removed.

 

But its an ED product not RRGs.

 

Nate

[Krupi]

Can a mod then please put this thread in the correct ED area please.

 

Thanks

[159th_Falcon]

Ok from what i can see and read there indeed seems to be an inaccuracy to some extend.

 

Now the question becomes, how much exactly, and how should it be correct/is it best corrected.

 

Does "The Fighter Collection" have an FW 190? Would make it easier to fix now that the team knows what to look for.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Come on squirrel there is no need for these kind of "threats", we are all hoping this to be the next biggest thing in ww2 aircraft simulation and these guys need all the help they can get.

 

I am sure that if we can prove that something is incorrect they will ensure that it is corrected :thumbup:

 

Yes, but we all want it to be realistic. Noone wants any partisan nonsense influencing the final product.

[AndyJWest]

No, no offence, I will respectfully continue with a reasoned debate.

 

@AndyJ the glass extends into the cockpit area but does not project into the fuselage on the outside edge, the frame of the glass quite clearly physically sits above the bottom aperture of the sight, while the drawing goes some way to explain the path of refracted light it still seems to be a bit of an impression rather than a technically accurate illustration.

 

What sources are there to give exact quantitative data on how much refraction happened and did the gunsights account for this too?

 

I think you need to look at the drawing again - the front of the glass is projecting below the fuselage in the drawing. As for refraction, this is simple optics. All we need to know is the incident angle of the sight line, the thickness of the glass, and the refractive index. I see no reason why we shouldn't assume that the drawing is accurate enough to provide the first two. I'll see if I can find any information on refractive indexes.

[Kodoss]

see #29

 

angle 5°35'0"

[bongodriver]

But Andy, the armoured glass frame has a hinge that must sit outside of the fuselage so the winscreen can fold forward.

[Gooseneck]

This vid comes really close to showing it......but not quite. :D

 

[Krupi]

Yes, but we all want it to be realistic. Noone wants any partisan nonsense influencing the final product.

 

Agreed, but this is an old argument that has been proven correct many times.

 

If they can show that what they have is 100% correct then I am willing to accept this but all evidence has previously pointed to the opposite, the bar is simply incorrect.

[IvanK]

The refraction argument is a Red Herring imo Look at this D9 image Check the alignment of the hangar frames both outside the canopy frame and then those behind the armour glass .... not much refraction going on there.

 

 

Regardless we have images of the inside of the Coaming Armour glass junction ... all you have is a thin raised sealing bead no Bar !

[bongodriver]

see #29

 

angle 5°35'0"

 

Saw that but something doesn't make sense with that picture, id the glass bent the image 5deg down then my earlier point about the nose of the aircraft would be an even bigger problem.

[Krupi]

But Andy, the armoured glass frame has a hinge that must sit outside of the fuselage so the winscreen can fold forward.

 

The hinge is for the engine/gun cover not the cockpit.

 

 

Found a correct photo ;)

Edited September 28, 2013 by Krupi

[bongodriver]

The hinge is for the engine/gun cover not the cockpit.

 

I have a sore neck from all the head tilting but yeah I do see it. note......was looking at IvanK's photos before I saw your model :)

[Kodoss]

Saw that but something doesn't make sense with that picture, id the glass bent the image 5deg down then my earlier point about the nose of the aircraft would be an even bigger problem.

 

Sorry, you are right. It's the angle between the revi sight line and the engine cowling.:doh::music_whistling: