BF109 - Can't we just have the gunsight in the middle? [Archive] - Page 2

Lixma

04-23-2011, 12:44 AM

I have experienced it myself in a cockpit replica 1:1 with working REVI once. (109 artisanal replica).

You cannot compare sitting in a replica for an actual aircraft under field conditions. Under field conditions, in war, the Revi will be adjusted to suit whoever is flying the particular aircraft.

I am 173cm tall. Imagine I jump into a 109, fine-tune the gunsight so I get a clear image in my right eye as I look forward (just as the makers intended), and then jump out again.

Now imagine someone else hops in straight after, perhaps 190cm tall. He will be forced to stoop, bend over or lean in order to see the reticle. Because it was not adjusted for him.

So, he adjusts the sight to his preference and jumps out.

Now I jump back in and now I can't see the reticle without moving/leaning/Shift-F1ing myself into position.

If I get into a BMW-3 straight after a 150cm tall man has just got out, I will probably bash my knees on the wheel or fascia if I do not adjust the seat. But it would be wrong to claim that bruising one's knees is a known feature of the BMW-3 series. In a similar vein, if I go to the museum and jump in to the nearest 109 on display I would undoubtedly have to manoeuver my head in order to get a clear image of the reticle....because the Revi isn't adjusted for me. It's adjusted for someone else (probably no-one in particular).

OK, just a couple more things before the caffeine wears off.....:grin:

You mentioned the cramped nature of the cockpit. It's safe to say the 109's cockpit dimensions are legendarily claustrophobic. Therefore can you think of a worse idea than to install a gunsight into this aircraft that requires the pilot to start shifting about? I can't.

What possible advantage is it to install a gunsight in a high performance aircraft that requires the pilot to start leaning over just to be able to see the gun-sight? I can think of no advantages at all. None.

Wolf_Rider

04-23-2011, 12:56 AM

Well better that than try and conquer the world ;)

I don't remember them trying to do that...I know there was some real estate "issues"...they Acquired some land and there was a dispute as to where the property line ended:shock:

S!

and something else about coal and keeping the trains on time

Space Communist

04-23-2011, 01:19 AM

I would just like to post in disbelief that this thread has grown to 27 pages. Paradoxically I only add to this silliness by posting at all.

LukeFF

04-23-2011, 06:30 AM

A long and good discussion on reflector sights:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=17850

The basic principle of the reflector sight is as follows:

In the base of an upright tubular housing there is a light source. This is directed through an opaque glass plate on which is etched an aiming mark, or graticule. The image of the graticule is projected through the focal plane of a collimated lens, and reflected onto a glass screen mounted 45 degrees to the gunner's eye. This presents an aiming mark, usually a ring with a central dot on the reflector screen, giving the gunner a clear view of the target with the graticule pattern superimposed on it.

KeBrAnTo

04-23-2011, 07:07 AM

I would just like to post in disbelief that this thread has grown to 27 pages. Paradoxically I only add to this silliness by posting at all.

+1

Arcade boy who opened the post should have been ignored by the community straight away.

41Sqn_Stormcrow

04-23-2011, 08:21 AM

Speculum, stop insulting people. Are you a forum troll?

Wolf_Rider

04-23-2011, 01:42 PM

would technical limitations prohibit that though?

all other sights would (I assume) be coded to float within the confines of the centered sight

?

Lixma

04-23-2011, 02:20 PM

would technical limitations prohibit that though?

all other sights would (I assume) be coded to float within the confines of the centered sight

It should not be difficult.

We are simply adjusting the reticles visibility parameters (which are already coded in) into the players line of sight....instead of shifting the players' line of sight to intercept the reticle (which is what Shift-F1 does). It's merely a shift in geometry, not a change in the physics or logic of the display.

Also aesthetically I don't like the sight just hanging there in 2D space.

But i'll guarantee you'd have no problem with a DCS:Apache HUD hanging there in space. Nobody in their right mind would. But when it comes to the Bf-109....it makes us uneasy.

This is exactly why I started the thread suggesting moving the gunsight to the centre of the dash. I thought this would be aesthetically more palatable than a floating reticle (which, if not done carefully could look pretty odd). But as I found out people were threatening to slit their first-borns' throat than suffer any such concessions to realism.

However, no sooner than a realistic solution is presented - concern for realism is quickly sacrificed on the alter of aesthetics!

The floating reticle would, I freely admit, be weird at first. But for no other reason than it has never been done before in a WW2 flight sim (AFAIK). The received tradition has always been to move the players' perspective to line up with the gunsight, or model the gunsight as centrally mounted. If a floating reticle is realistic then let's have one. In a few years people will be wondering what all the fuss was about.

David Hayward

04-23-2011, 03:12 PM

Lixma, you should create a message with charts and graphs and 8x10 glossy photos with circles and arrows and send it to Luthier. Convincing us you are right will not get you very far. You need to convince Luthier.

Personally, I'm fine with a gunsight view that is as close to what the real pilot would experience as possible, even if it looks a little odd.

Lixma

04-23-2011, 03:27 PM

My asthetic issue is the 2-D display. To have the redicle float in space you need to look through it, out to your target. That would mean the cockpit and even the redicle casing (the glass) out of focus. DOF field effects would be an issue because it would have to fixed to the center point of the screen.

That's my aesthetic problem as the whole display is flat and in perfect focus.
Ahh, I see. Understood.

Back onto topic, for me the simplest solution would be an optional keypress pov shift to see the sight in combat. This wouldn't require recoding how the sight functions outside the frame or the issues of 3-D behavior in a 2-D space.
To be honest if it wasn't for the utterly insane version of Shift-F1 we now have in CoD I wouldn't have bothered bringing the subject up in the first place. I can only guess what the programmers had in mind when they designed that view.

klem

04-23-2011, 04:01 PM

You're playing the wrong game mate. This game is about realism. Putting the gunsight in the middle is the most idiotic suggestion made on these boards to date

I've never sat in a 109 with or without a gunsight - has anyone?

Did the LW pilot really lean over to see the gunsight reticle? Somehow I doubt it.

Surely he simply used his right eye, where it was, behind the gunsight that was mounted off-centre in line with his right eye - no head movement at all.

So isn't the correct solution to have the reticle in its correct place in front of the right eye in the off-set gunsight where, if 'gunsight' view is used at all, it just moves you forward? That is, leave the forward view exactly where it 'normally' is and move the reticle to the right to the centre of the sight glass. Yes, that means the aiming point is no longer in the centre of the screen/windshield but it wasn't, was it? And yes that may mean some adjustment to the 109 aiming code. Now surely that's more realistic than leaning over.

BadAim

04-23-2011, 04:02 PM

I'll second that Lixma. The Gunsight view is way to slow, it porks TIR and it just generally doesn't make sense. It's a good thing that I love CloD so much or Luthier and Oleg would be looking down the business end of a hissy fit. Seriously, it's a small thing but it is generally annoying in a dogfight.

Lixma

04-23-2011, 04:26 PM

Yes, that means the aiming point is no longer in the centre of the screen/windshield but it wasn't, was it?

No. Although the physical gun-sight was mounted offset to the right it does not mean that in real life or in CoD the pilot should see an offset reticle.

Try this....

Grab a pen and look straight ahead.

Close your left eye.

Hold the pen in front of your right eye in the centre of your vision as best you can.

Now open your left eye.

With both eyes open will see a 'ghostly' pen directly in front of you. So despite the pen being located directly in front of only the right eye, your brain is combining both eyes' images into one.

Just as the Revi is physically offset to the right, so is your pen. But the brain nevertheless combines the seperate images into one coherent whole and so you get a 'ghostly' looking pen directly in the center of your vision. The same principle is at work with the Revi.

Additionally, with both eyes open you will also notice another 'ghostly' pen a bit further out to the right. This is your left eye's peripheral vision picking this up. Does this mean we should see two 'ghostly' reticles? No, because in the 109, looking straight ahead the left eye would not be able to see the reticle and so only one image of the reticle would appear before the pilot.

klem

04-23-2011, 07:28 PM

No. Although the physical gun-sight was mounted offset to the right it does not mean that in real life or in CoD the pilot should see an offset reticle.

Try this....

Grab a pen and look straight ahead.

Close your left eye.

Hold the pen in front of your right eye in the centre of your vision as best you can.

Now open your left eye.

With both eyes open will see a 'ghostly' pen directly in front of you. So despite the pen being located directly in front of only the right eye, your brain is combining both eyes' images into one.

Just as the Revi is physically offset to the right, so is your pen. But the brain nevertheless combines the seperate images into one coherent whole and so you get a 'ghostly' looking pen directly in the center of your vision. The same principle is at work with the Revi.

Additionally, with both eyes open you will also notice another 'ghostly' pen a bit further out to the right. This is your left eye's peripheral vision picking this up. Does this mean we should see two 'ghostly' reticles? No, because in the 109, looking straight ahead the left eye would not be able to see the reticle and so only one image of the reticle would appear before the pilot.

Hmmm.... I think we may be saying the same thing - almost.

With my left eye closed and the pen in the centre of my right eye vision and then I open my left eye, I don't see a ghostly image directly in front of me, I see the image of the pen in front of my right eye, not centred, and a ghostly pen to the right of that one which is seen by my left eye due to the angle across to it. I think we agree on the right eye image, even if we disagree about a centred ghostly image. Also with the Revis sight I wouldn't see the reticle with my left eye because as you say, it isn't in my left eye's field of vision so all I would see is the image directly in front of my right eye. Again I think we agree. So we could either have the reticle visible and offset or visible and centred although the latter wouldn't represent what is really happening. But we shouldn't have to move our head.

When people say they want realism, what do they mean? The fact that the sight is offset so it must physically look like that? The presumption that the pilot must therefore have had to lean over to use it? Or the fact that it was offset to be directly in front of our right eye with optics to ensure that we only see the reticle with our right eye, without moving our head, and either represent that with a centred view (a poor solution) or a visibly offset glass AND reticle with which to aim without moving the head, because I don't believe fighter pilots would be called upon to lean over to see the reticle. The offset was intended to help them not hinder them.

Lixma

04-23-2011, 08:01 PM

With my left eye closed and the pen in the centre of my right eye vision and then I open my left eye, I don't see a ghostly image directly in front of me, I see the image of the pen in front of my right eye, not centred,
Then you are doing something wrong. You're supposed to be looking straight ahead, not at the pen, but through the pen. Then you'll see the effect.

This might help.....

Pick a spot on the monitor screen as near the centre of the screen as you can (a word, a smiley, a dead fly..etc)....this is your 'target'. Sit comfortably and look straight at this point with both eyes - as normal.

Now, close your left eye and hold the pen about 20cm away from your right eye so it covers your particular target. Do not focus on the pen if possible, keep looking straight ahead as if you were able to see your 'target'.

Now open your left eye and you should see your target and a ghostly pen super-imposed on top of it. Both target and pen appear right in the middle of your field of vision despite the pen, in reality being offset to the right. Such is the principle of the Revi.

...because I don't believe fighter pilots would be called upon to lean over to see the reticle. The offset was intended to help them not hinder them.
If someone can think of a single advantage to requiring a pilot, strapped tightly into a high performance fighter aircraft to start leaning over just to be able to see his gunsight, I have yet to hear it.

JG52Krupi

04-23-2011, 08:25 PM

Then you are doing something wrong. You're supposed to be looking straight ahead, not at the pen, but through the pen. Then you'll see the effect.

This might help.....

Pick a spot on the monitor screen as near the centre of the screen as you can (a word, a smiley, a dead fly..etc)....this is your 'target'. Sit comfortably and look straight at this point with both eyes - as normal.

Now, close your left eye and hold the pen about 20cm away from your right eye so it covers your particular target. Do not focus on the pen if possible, keep looking straight ahead as if you were able to see your 'target'.

Now open your left eye and you should see your target and a ghostly pen super-imposed on top of it. Both target and pen appear right in the middle of your field of vision despite the pen, in reality being offset to the right. Such is the principle of the Revi.

If someone can think of a single advantage to requiring a pilot, strapped tightly into a high performance fighter aircraft to start leaning over just to be able to see his gunsight, I have yet to hear it.

I wish i could see this affect in real life as the major problem i have with it is that the target sight would be very blurred and quite annoying to aim through and your eyes would constantly be adjusting to both the target and the gunsight target.

Lixma

04-23-2011, 08:42 PM

I wish i could see this affect in real life as the major problem i have with it is that the target sight would be very blurred and quite annoying to aim through as your eyes would constantly be adjusting to both the target and the gunsight target.
No, because the reticle (not just the Revi's but all* reflex sights) is focussed at infinity. This means that regardless of whether your visual target is located 10m, 100m, or 1000m away the reticle will remain sharp and in focus for you.

To be sure, some people find a reflex sight unnatural at first. They might try to close an eye, squint or as you mentioned find themselves trying to focus one eye upon the reticle and one eye on the target (migraineville); but it doesn't take long to get used to it.

* I think all.

EDIT: DayGlow beat me to it.....shakes fist....:grin:

JG52Krupi

04-23-2011, 08:45 PM

The sight is focused to infinity so it stays in focus overlaid on your target.

No, because the reticle (not just the Revi's but all* reflex sights) is focussed at infinity. This means that regardless of whether your visual target is located 10m, 100m, or 1000m away the reticle will remain sharp and in focus for you.

To be sure, some people find a reflex sight unnatural at first. They might try to close an eye, squint or as you mentioned find themselves trying to focus one eye upon the reticle and one eye on the target (migraineville); but it doesn't take long to get used to it.

* I think all.

EDIT: DayGlow beat me to it.....shakes fist....:grin:

Ah okay, thanks for the information I wasn't aware of this.

carguy_

04-23-2011, 09:36 PM

I've never sat in a 109 with or without a gunsight - has
Did the LW pilot really lean over to see the gunsight reticle? Somehow I doubt it.

If what Lixma said is right, then to get a view of the full revi gunsight, a pilot must:
1. SITTING STRAIGHT - lean closer to the revi to get the "ghost" effect

or

2. SITTING A BIT TO THE RIGHT - seeing the full glowing crosshair without having to lean closer to it.

In the game we have the pilot sitting slightly to the right, close to the revi. Why?

After reading the FULL thread and generally agreeing with Lixma, I think that the classic IL2 SHIFT+F1 view was more correct, because one doesn`t have to lean close to the revi to see the crosshair, IF HE IS SITTING SLIGHLY TO THE RIGHT.

Hence, the old il2 gunsight view should be restored.

heloguy

04-23-2011, 09:44 PM

The gunsight itself, not just the glass, has no provisions for adjustment either horizontally, or vertically according to any pictures, or museum pieces I've seen.

With that in mind, it should be noted that a reflector sight, or any gunsight for that matter, is adjusted to the actual bore of the weapon, not the user, so it's impossible that the sight be adjusted for each person as they are going to use it. I am in awe of those that say they must adjust their weapon's sight after it's already been zeroed. It only makes sense that someone would have to move their head in order to view the entire sight where it is reflected. The game has this particular instance correct. This ghostly image of the other half of the sight would only occur in a small portion of the range of someone's total range of motion in a cockpit. I don't disagree that it's possible, but I disagree with the overreaction that its omittance is debilitating. I would settle for Track IR support that was as stable, and intuitive as that that's included with the 6DOF mod for IL2.

klem

04-23-2011, 11:18 PM

Then you are doing something wrong. You're supposed to be looking straight ahead, not at the pen, but through the pen. Then you'll see the effect.

This might help.....

Pick a spot on the monitor screen as near the centre of the screen as you can (a word, a smiley, a dead fly..etc)....this is your 'target'. Sit comfortably and look straight at this point with both eyes - as normal.

Now, close your left eye and hold the pen about 20cm away from your right eye so it covers your particular target. Do not focus on the pen if possible, keep looking straight ahead as if you were able to see your 'target'.

Now open your left eye and you should see your target and a ghostly pen super-imposed on top of it. Both target and pen appear right in the middle of your field of vision despite the pen, in reality being offset to the right. Such is the principle of the Revi.

If someone can think of a single advantage to requiring a pilot, strapped tightly into a high performance fighter aircraft to start leaning over just to be able to see his gunsight, I have yet to hear it.

OK I get that Lixma. I still think the reticle should be visible on the gunsight in 'Normal' view, thats what the pilot would have seen (with his right eye of course).

fenrirswrath

04-23-2011, 11:55 PM

Can someone explain how to center the gunsight without trackir and without the zoom of loosen shoulder straps. I've tried holding down the middle and right MB and moving to the right, but that does nothing. I don't see any option in views or camera to adjust it.

Lixma

04-24-2011, 12:13 AM

If what Lixma said is right, then to get a view of the full revi gunsight, a pilot must:
1. SITTING STRAIGHT - lean closer to the revi to get the "ghost" effect.
No. (and if that's what you think i've said i'm beginning to get worried about my communication skills...:))

The pilot sits looking forward, no leaning forward, sideways or craning his neck. The Revi is adjusted to shine a full reticle image into his right eye. That's the whole point of it being offset.

2. SITTING A BIT TO THE RIGHT - seeing the full glowing crosshair without having to lean closer to it.
Again, there's no need to sit a bit to the right (unless the Revi was set-up for someone else). Please remember the view point we see in CoD is not what a two-eyed human would see.

Please have a scan through the thread again, especially the posts/pictures dealing with what a real 109 pilot would see through his left and right eye compared with the Cyclops depicted in CoD.

Lixma

04-24-2011, 12:27 AM

The gunsight itself, not just the glass, has no provisions for adjustment either horizontally, or vertically according to any pictures, or museum pieces I've seen.

The Revi unit was bolted solidly to the airframe. And in some 109 cockpit pictures you'll actually see extra supporting bars in an attempt to keep the unit as steady as possible.

However the reflector's line of sight was adjustable for elevation +/-2.5 degrees horizontally, and +/-3 degrees vertically. How this was done I do not know.

This adjustment was to allow the reticle to be reflected into the eye.....this adjustment didn't actually alter the reticle's position relative to the weapons. It didn't alter the zeroing.

There was also the ability to adjust the aircraft's seat-height. Much quicker and much less fuss. The handle is visible in CoD to the left just by the trim/flaps wheel. Doesn't work, though.

EDIT. I just stumbled across this. There was an additional adjustment available when mounting the sight. Assuming this replica is accurate the Revi unit could be moved closer or farther away from the pilot. This would alter the apparent size of the reticle relative to the edge of the reflector glass.

Which makes sense. The Revi was used on all kinds of different aircraft so the mounting brackets would have to offer some kind of telescopic adjustment for finer tuning.

http://cgi.ebay.com/WW2-German-Gunsight-Mount-Revi-16-B-Me109-RARE-/230530262205

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/2139/revibracket.jpg

Lixma

04-24-2011, 06:47 AM

This is worth posting.

It's a schematic of the FW-190. Look carefully.....

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/2049/190revi1.jpg

Make a note of....

a) the center-line.

b) the sight-line.

c) the position of the reticle

d) the horizontal separation between centre-line and sight-line - 40mm.

Now grab a tape measure, find a mirror and measure the distance from the centre of your nose to the middle of your right pupil.....

Mine is 37mm.

The offset Revi gunsight is installed to sit directly in the right eye's line of sight.

No leaning required.

Here's a link to the full image....I'd post it here but it's a bit big....3mb.

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=w8383ebj6n77up7&thumb=4

41Sqn_Stormcrow

04-24-2011, 07:08 AM

Lixma, as you have the best skills to explain all this and also all the information, including the things you just posted about the revi adjustments and the FW190 thing: could you assemble all this into one fluid text/document and provide this to luthier?

Perhaps open a new thread in the FM section with an appropriate title (just an illustration for what I mean - you surely will find a better one than me: "Pilot with two eyes and revi sights: How it should be") and put all the explanations and pictures in it. And send the link to luthier.

Lixma

04-24-2011, 07:19 AM

I probably will at some point....although the thought of going through all this again is a little daunting.

In the meantime i'll just repost the FW-190 thing for the new page, so it will get seen. This picture does a phenomenal job of illustrating the issue at hand. I only wish I had found it 25 pages ago.....sigh.

This is worth posting.

It's a schematic of the FW-190. Look carefully.....

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/2049/190revi1.jpg

Make a note of....

a) the center-line.

b) the sight-line.

c) the position of the reticle

d) the horizontal separation between centre-line and sight-line - 40mm.

Now grab a tape measure, find a mirror and measure the distance from the centre of your nose to the middle of your right pupil.....

Mine is 37mm.

The offset Revi gunsight is installed to sit directly in the right eye's line of sight.

No leaning required.

Here's a link to the full image....I'd post it here but it's a bit big....3mb.

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=w8383ebj6n77up7&thumb=4

heloguy

04-24-2011, 08:04 AM

I guess if it ever came to fruition, it would be a big help to those that don't use Track IR, as their head would be held (aside from the headshake affect) directly in the middle. If you lean at all to the left, though, it should not be very far before the image would disappear. The effect could also be used on the Spitfire and Hurricane, if someone is leaning to the left or right of their sights.

The mount you showed does seem to have a telescoping piece, but I wonder exactly what it would be for. It's certainly not made for making fine adjustments and then being fixed in place. It looks like it only adjusts from one extreme to another.

carguy_

04-24-2011, 08:10 AM

Please have a scan through the thread again, especially the posts/pictures dealing with what a real 109 pilot would see through his left and right eye compared with the Cyclops depicted in CoD.

You missed this :

After reading the FULL thread and generally agreeing with Lixma, I think that the classic IL2 SHIFT+F1 view was more correct, because one doesn`t have to lean close to the revi to see the crosshair, IF HE IS SITTING SLIGHLY TO THE RIGHT.

Hence, the old il2 gunsight view should be restored.

So it is easily visible I don`t agree with you 100%. Only thing is that I figured that currently the crosshair view in the game sets the pilot leaned in, and slighly to the right when only one of those should be performed to see the crosshair. That is why I prefer the classic il2 - gunsight view - over the new view. In that view, the pilot is set slightly to the right without the need to lean in closer to the revi (which means narrowing the field of view).

jf1981

04-24-2011, 08:23 AM

Seriously.

Over a decade of faffing about with Shift-F1, leaning over, loosening straps or whatever...i'm weary of it. Just place the damned thing in the centre of the dash! Is anyone really going to be put out by such a minor concession to usability?

Realism be hanged in this instance.

And please, put glass cockpit, it's worth for getting a better view.

Seriously ! It's meant to be realistic, you can go in front of it by setting the key to position related to fastening belt. Then you'll find yourself in front of the sight.

klem

04-24-2011, 09:13 AM

...............That is why I prefer the classic il2 - gunsight view - over the new view. In that view, the pilot is set slightly to the right without the need to lean in closer to the revi (which means narrowing the field of view).

I think you're still missing the point. In the "IL-2" view, and in CoD, the pilot is "moved" to "sit to the right" of the centre line but it is only a crude attempt to make it feel like you're using your right eye.

Look at the diagram Lixma posted. The Revi sight is immediately in front of the pilots right eye without him having to move. MG just need to show the reticle in the offset gunsight of the 'normal' view. An offset of 40mm from centre would have made virtually no real difference to the aiming point in RL although MG may need to look at the aiming code for CoD.

I'd go further and say I don't see a need for a shifted 'gunsight' view at all. With the reticle visible in 'normal' view there is no need for an offset view and IMHO no need for a shifted 'gunsight' view in any aircraft, just an FOV change if you want to narrow/zoom the view.

The "shifted pilot view" is not realistic at all. It never existed. We've simply come to think it must be right because its always been there in IL-2.

Lixma

04-24-2011, 01:36 PM

If you lean at all to the left, though, it should not be very far before the image would disappear.
Yeah, the reticle should still appear/disappear due to G-forces on the pilot during manoeuvring.

The mount you showed does seem to have a telescoping piece, but I wonder exactly what it would be for. It's certainly not made for making fine adjustments and then being fixed in place. It looks like it only adjusts from one extreme to another.
That sounds reasonable. I'd never actually seen one before I found those pictures so I'm not certain how it was used. On the other hand the ability to adjust, even crudely, the range of the gunsight from the pilots' eyes would be very useful.

Blackdog_kt

04-26-2011, 10:24 PM

Sorry to bump this but i found a workaround. I don't know if it has been mentioned (i didn't read the entire thread), so apologies if it has been already mentioned.

For starters and obviously enough, if you're using a head tracking device you can set your center position to be offset and get rid of this issue: just move you head left, press your centering key and when you move back into your usual center position your view will be shifted to the right, giving you a nice view of the gunsight.

However. even if you don't have a head tracking device there is a solution to this. Turn off the mouse cursor to get the mouse to work as a camera controller (default key for this is F10), keep the right mouse button pressed and move the mouse around: you will see that you can move the camera forward/backward/left/right.

Alternatively, you can keep the mouse cursor on and follow the same routine but with the middle mouse button also pressed: middle mouse button acts as a temporary "over-ride" that disables the mouse cursor and enables camera control for as long as it's pressed, so that you don't have to keep switching between clickable cockpit and camera control all the time.

This way you can set your default viewpoint to be aligned with the gunsight. I think that pressing the "center view" key (default is keypad 5) will not reset your view changes as it only applies to the pitch/roll/yaw axis of head movement (it even over-rides freetrack in that respect, if i move my view to the right it stays there until i manually move it back with the mouse, i don't know how it works with trackIR though).

This way you can fly with the 109 gunsight centered no matter if you use a head tracker or not, it's like setting up your viewpoint to have a permanent lean to the right ;)

Wolf_Rider

04-27-2011, 01:42 AM

Lixma

04-27-2011, 02:12 AM

Have to be careful though, because as Lixma keeps pointing out; the sim views is set for a single point of vision (perspective), not a two point perspective, which is natural eyesight. It is this which 1C attempted to overcome with the SHIFT F1 gunsight view.

physically moving the single perspective to right would throw targeting off?
No, because the Revi's reticle image is focussed at infinity. As long as you can see the reticle you can be safe in the knowledge that you are seeing the true aim-point (assuming the guns are zeroed...etc)

I know what you're getting at...it seems as if the sight-line would diverge off to the diagonal left pretty soon due to the Revi's right offset. And if the Revi was replaced by a simple wire 'ring' sight in the same position then, yes, we'd be in trouble. We'd need at least a further sighting aid (a bead further down the sight-line) to help us align our sight. Reflex/reflector sights do away with this necessity.

Blackdog_kt

04-27-2011, 02:58 AM

+1 to what Lixma said. I shoot from the non-centered view a lot of times as during certain maneuvers you are pushed in your seat due to the G-force and the entire sight becomes visible, other times only half of it is visible but it's enough for me to estimate where the center is.

For example, i might see the top and left bars and the center, as long as i can see or estimate where the center is i don't use the shift-F1 view. In all of these cases the rounds stream directly to the aim point.

So, if you just use the mouse to move your viewpoint to the right a bit you're good to go, plus i think it stays there for the duration of the flight and is not affected by centering your views, either by the keypad or via your trackIR/freetrack/etc.

Once again, the how-to:

a) With the clickable cockpit/mouse cursor disabled: Press and hold the right mouse button, move mouse to the right until you can see the gunsight, release button.

b) With the click-pit/cursor enabled: Either press F10 to disable it and do as per point a), or click and hold both the middle and right mouse button, move the mouse to the right until the gunsight is visible and release both buttons.

F10 toggles the click-pit on/off. The middle mouse button is a temporary click-pit override, as long as you keep it pressed you can manipulate the camera, when you release it you get your cursor back to click on the instruments.

These are both the sim's default settings so if you have remapped them to something else you might want to save your controls, revert to defaults to see how the functions are named (as they are a bit non-intuitive) and then load back your controls.

I hope this saves you some trouble until/if a better solution is applied.

Wolf_Rider

04-27-2011, 05:00 AM

No, because the Revi's reticle image is focussed at infinity. As long as you can see the reticle you can be safe in the knowledge that you are seeing the true aim-point (assuming the guns are zeroed...etc)

in real life, yes, I would agree 100%

I know what you're getting at...it seems as if the sight-line would diverge off to the diagonal left pretty soon due to the Revi's right offset.

yes... in game

And if the Revi was replaced by a simple wire 'ring' sight in the same position then, yes, we'd be in trouble. We'd need at least a further sighting aid (a bead further down the sight-line) to help us align our sight.

again... yes, in game

Reflex/reflector sights do away with this necessity.

in real life, yes... but ingame that is regarded to the single source (cyclops) viewpoint - see second point addressed ?

MadBlaster

04-27-2011, 05:15 AM

Same/similar to Blackdog. I'm using freetrack and single point.

Basically, create a custom profile for the 109 with a custom center. Once you create this profile, your done. No need to use Shift-F1 ever again for the 109.

To create custom center in Freetrack, you map key to custom center "set" function (e.g., space key) on the controls tab. Now start up the game, sit in 109 at dead center (pitch/yaw/roll/x,y,z=0) and move your head to the right along the X lateral axis until the sight is centered on the glass. Press the spacebar key (tip, it might be easier to turn off some uneeded axis like roll/z when you do this so you can get it lined up good when you press the space bar key.). Okay, now go back to controls tab and un-map that spacebar key. This to prevent losing your custom center in the future. Now save the profile and use it whenever you fly the 109. The parameters are listed in that custom profile and look like this:

[CustomCenter]
Yaw=
Pitch=
Roll=
X=
Y=
Z=

sigur_ros

04-29-2011, 03:58 AM

Once I set FreeTrack custom center I never have to worry about it again.

Seeker

04-29-2011, 03:41 PM

_ITAF_Gianpaolo

04-29-2011, 03:45 PM

All I'm seeing here are workarounds for the fake realism.

Certainly, in my own case, owing to the very peculiar implementation of 6 DOF, I can move my head to the extreme side of the cockpit and hold a full width gun sight in non-shift F1 view; something that IL-2's "inferior" realism wouldn't allow.

It's like the stupid start up sequence. It may be real, but any one with any sense has already reduced it to a single programmed joystick button press.

People: We need to get beyond the rivet counting and re examine why any one would buy this.

I postulate that people buy PC games to have fun with, not to count rivets.

Rivet counting _may_ help a sim, but left unchecked, it can bugger up a good game.

We're already losing dedicated IL-2 players. How many new players do you think we'll attract if the game isn't identified as fun?

Right!

The only realism I like in a Sim is FM, Aircraft Limits(G's, Overspeed's) engine management (prop,mix,temps), balistics and damage models but all the rest is useless if you want to have fun in a game...

otherwise it's like going in a emergency simulator... ask real pilots if they like it...

Qpassa

04-29-2011, 03:47 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ
Use Freetrack/Track Ir

Sven

04-29-2011, 04:11 PM

All I'm seeing here are workarounds for the fake realism.

Certainly, in my own case, owing to the very peculiar implementation of 6 DOF, I can move my head to the extreme side of the cockpit and hold a full width gun sight in non-shift F1 view; something that IL-2's "inferior" realism wouldn't allow.

It's like the stupid start up sequence. It may be real, but any one with any sense has already reduced it to a single programmed joystick button press.

People: We need to get beyond the rivet counting and re examine why any one would buy this.

I postulate that people buy PC games to have fun with, not to count rivets.

Rivet counting _may_ help a sim, but left unchecked, it can bugger up a good game.

We're already losing dedicated IL-2 players. How many new players do you think we'll attract if the game isn't identified as fun?

A simulator has to get closest to the real thing as possible and optionally dumbed down via realism settings, so your one press start button is not an unreasonable request, and should be added as a realism option. Personally I've long waited for sims with click able cockpits and now we finally have one for WW2 combat, my last nerd-wish to come true is owning a huge touch-screen to make proper use of it.

I do not believe we've lost anyone because 5 mouse clicks were too much though.

Seeker

04-29-2011, 04:41 PM

Sven

04-30-2011, 11:08 AM

I think you'd have more fun spending the money on extra controls.

I understand the wish for click pits, but for serious simmers, a better implementation of UDP speed would have been more useful.

I think it's fair to recognise that most of us spend far, far more than the £30 game price on extra equipment to experience the game.

I'd much rather see development effort used to support some of the fantastic hardware that's about these days rather than adding functions to a mouse; which not even an Airbus 380 cockpit uses.

If you got your touch screen, where would you enable it in Conf.ini?

I've no idea how it would be enabled, but Ive seen it before in other flight sims, and I didn't think they were designed for that either, must be some mod.

What hardware can't be used then? I use a throttle joystick and rudders and they work just fine, are you talking about setting up a complete cockpit with notches and dials and all?

Widow17

04-30-2011, 12:43 PM

otherwise it's like going in a emergency simulator... ask real pilots if they like it...

I like it, its my sparetime and i love to have my simulatior as realistic as possible. Though if someone would stand behind me ready to say ive lost my job if i fail, well ...thats no fun and i think this is the difference here, because this is stress. For me its just fun.

klem

04-30-2011, 02:49 PM

I think you'd have more fun spending the money on extra controls.

I understand the wish for click pits, but for serious simmers, a better implementation of UDP speed would have been more useful.

I think it's fair to recognise that most of us spend far, far more than the £30 game price on extra equipment to experience the game.

I'd much rather see development effort used to support some of the fantastic hardware that's about these days rather than adding functions to a mouse; which not even an Airbus 380 cockpit uses.

If you got your touch screen, where would you enable it in Conf.ini?

"Enabling" may lie in the touch screen itself which would simply report 'mouseclick' on the screen area you touch. I guess TouchScreen=1 may be required and perhaps some interface code unless Windows has the capability to recognise it? They've been in use for years on simulator instructor's consoles and the like.

Blackdog_kt

04-30-2011, 05:20 PM

It's simple. Extra features require extra controls because there's only so much you can map to a keyboard or even HOTAS without forgetting what you need to push, extra controls require money, so it ends being a choice between

a) enabling a cheaper, universal control device that every PC comes equipped with (mouse) for people that don't have the spare cash, while still being possible to use dedicated controls at the same time for those who want to buy expensive peripherals or build their own custom ones

b) not including new, realism enhancing features because some players are averse to the interface choice (even though there's clearly more than one choice and probably everyone can tune their controls to their preference) or

c) making a sim that only people with $1500 worth of extra peripherals can fly properly.

I'll let you all decide for yourselves which is better for the community and also the potential sales of the sim. It's "everyone can play this by using the right realism settings and controls" VS "only a small percentage can use this properly" VS "let's make it all easy mode because the mouse is not an ideal interfacing option", it's not even a valid dilemma.

I also think there's a part of the community that just wants to cruise around on WEP all day long without having to monitor anything (like in IL2:1946) and think to themselves that it's how it was done in real life, rather than have to face the fact that their preferred gameplay style does not qualify as full switch anymore. There's nothing wrong flying at reduced difficulty settings as long as i'm having fun, that is unless i fly for bragging rights and not fun :rolleyes:

It's perfectly fine making the difficult things optional. What's wrong is making the easy way mandatory.

Seeker

04-30-2011, 07:30 PM

Cheap, universal gaming device.

Such as the latest Nvidea quad card set up and the best chip set money can buy?

Please.

You know why they left out SLI? For the children... that's why, think of the children.

617Squadron

04-30-2011, 07:46 PM

ATAG_Doc

05-03-2011, 03:24 PM

Wow this topic has legs. There is a solution. Fly birds of prey. Their sights are centered. That would be a great fix for anyone wanting centered sights.

617Squadron

05-03-2011, 05:59 PM

I'm sorry, but there are people in here arguing about the ME 109's gunsight as if they are the sniper in the bell tower in the film Saving Private Ryan, or are Jude Law and Ed Harris in Enemy At The Gates. You simply don't get that level of luxury to pick a shot in a real air battle.

In a dogfight, you barely have a second or two to get a burst of fire off at an enemy aircraft and your tracers, along with the nose of the aircraft, are your best guide in this situation.

flyingblind

05-03-2011, 07:23 PM

Can I march into the land of the fanbois and point something out...?

[Captain Obvious on]
Why do you think you add tracers to the loadout in the ammo belts? If you get close enough in and are in the same horizontal plane (no matter what the angle relative to the horizon), your tracers will tell you if you are on the target or not. You can do that by eye alone.

Fanbois, eh? Sheesh....
[Captain Obvious off]

Yes, but you are in danger of wasting precious ammunition just to check if you are on target. The gunsight will give you a good chance of being close if not dead on, the tracers will allow you to make the small final adjustment if necessary or keep you on target or stop firing if your aiming is clearly out.

617Squadron

05-03-2011, 08:25 PM

Peering through the gunsight as you describe won't help you at all if you are not directly on the target's six and you need to get a deflection shot off, ahead of the target, especially in a turning battle as you simply won't have the time. You'd see nothing but sky through the gunsight.

It may work on bombers but not on fighters, especially against an experienced pilot. It's better to get a 'feel' through experience as to where the shots will go by line-of-sight and the plane of the aircraft, as that's more instinctive and intuitive, but that's just my opinion.

Flying in a straight line for more than two seconds whilst in a furball is likely to get you shot down and you may be doing just that, while you are picking your shot.

flyingblind

05-03-2011, 08:26 PM

I haven't read all this post but I am with Lixma on this and he is right in saying you cannot replicate the way a 109 Revi sight works in real life on a flat computer screen and his solution of the sight ring floating outside the glass screen is probably the closest you can get.
To get an idea of the effect make a 3 inch square from card or paper. Draw a large gunsight ring and cross hair to fill the square. Sit in front of your monitor and holding the card in your right hand keep looking at the screen with both eyes open and move the card in from the right a few inches from your nose untile the centre of the cross is straight in front. You will see the cross and the computer screen in line and in front of you. Close you right eye and you will see the screen then close your left eye and your view will be obscured by the card. You can see that it would work much better if the card was clear glass or plastic, the sight was illuminated and it was given the correct focus for your eye.
Also, in real life it wasn't a case of peering through the gunsight or lining up as the optics of the sight meant the cross hairs or ring was floating in front of you eyes in the correct position regardless of head movement, all you needed to do was keep the glass screen between your eyes or eye and the target and manoever the plan to get in position. Those utube vids posted earlier in this thread show the way it worked. And sure, an experienced pilot could pull off all sorts of snap shots and the like but he was probably no more relying on tracers than taking careful aim.

617Squadron

05-03-2011, 08:31 PM

Exactly, this is why experience and the centre line of the aircraft are more likely to help you as you gain more confidence with dogfighting, particularly with deflection shooting.

esmiol

05-03-2011, 08:40 PM

people want to have the gunsight in front of them? why don't you use SHIFT F1?

or put the cockpit view out...

you can't pretend play in full reaity and be assist!

stop whining... the gunsight is realistic... then or you lower the realistic setting...or buy a trak IR or ajust your position with the mouse! you can drag left or right by pressing the scroll button and the right or left click!

what will be the other post? add dammage done by ammo becaue kill a plane is too hard? please.... set the realistic setting lower and train to fly and shoot...later you put setting more and more realist.

or a good idea... go to WOP and enjoy arcade game!

ATAG_Doc

05-04-2011, 01:21 AM

No let it stay as it is now! I like it! With Track ir 5 its ok!

Yep works nicely.

AlleyViper

05-04-2011, 02:59 PM

+1 for the return of the old and non zoomed shif+f1 lean for non Track IR users. Zoom would be controlled separately then, and there isn't a need to have the whole cross hair visible on that newer shift+f1 position if that's need to keep the pilot straight, just a compromise between centered seating and completely leaning left so you can still aim.
Btw, I guess things were pretty decent on 1946 as they were.

klem

06-10-2011, 11:33 AM

Why not?

1: You're sat in a 109.

2: Looking straight ahead.

3: Both eyes open.

4: Revi offset to project the reticle image directly into your right eye only.

I submit your view would be more or less like this..... (paintshop skills notwithstanding)

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4853/109kb.jpg

What would you see?

What Lixma is trying to say is that the right eye reticle image combines with the left eye no-reticle image and the brain interprets a centralised combined view. See the attached sketch. There is no way to simulate this on a 2D flat screen. Even moving your eye to the right in CoD isn't an optically realistic view, it is a fudge to 'simulate' putting the combined central view onto the screen.

Another problem is that the gunsight is not presented properly. It should be square on to the right eye and angled to the left eye. That binocular view can't be simluated either and IMHO it favours the 'left eye' view, so the angle off and the amount you have to move your head is too great even if we accept the fact that we have to move our head at all. Its too far off centre to represent what the pilot really had to do.

The real situation is that the head did not have to be moved much at all, if any. What kind of stupid obstacle would that have been to give a man fighting for his life? Lean way to the right and try to pick up the reticle while losing all other SA? They were a lot smarter than that.

flyingblind

06-10-2011, 03:25 PM

Perhaps the binocular view seen through the sights as suggested by Lixma could be created as a mod rather than hope the developers would produce it as an option. I would certainly use it as I think it is the best representation of the way the sight would work IRL that can be got on a computer screen.
In fact there are a number of contentious issues that might be solved by creating mods, an obvious one being the correct rev counter with the bouncy needle versus the steadier but incorrect electrical variant.

335th_GRAthos

06-10-2011, 03:45 PM

+1 give us our old IL2FB gunsight view and stop this kind of sadistic experiments!

I use TrackIR 3 without 6DOF, if my problem is solved by buying TR5 (or my installing 6DOF) then this is crap, just fix the frigging thing and do not make me go to the computer shop to buy hardware in order to fix my problem...

~S~

41Sqn_Stormcrow

06-10-2011, 05:50 PM

Yes, they should fix it. They did so many things correctly but unfortunately not this one.

My fear is that they fear that if they implemented the gunsight as Lixma presented which would be correct, many people would not understand why it has to be this way and then spam the forum with their complaints about "unrealistic" gunsight even though it would be more realistic than what we have :evil:

Ivan Fooker

06-10-2011, 07:41 PM

But at the end it is a game, which is considered to be a simulation.
That means a game like this should try to hit the thin line between a real simulation and a game...at the end we all playing this for fun.

If players, me aswell having trouble to get a target correctly into the revi, and start getting frustzrated about it,...and i guess that point is already reached for some...,a game dev should really seriously think about to add an option like we had in Il2-1946 (shift+F1).
Add it to the "Realism Option" or whatever but pls dont make the players suffer under it.
TrackIR is a great software/hardware,but it shouldnt be a requirement to fly that game properly.

The seatbelt option is just useless, as u cant follow your oponent and it is by very far unrealistic.

So yes, pls add or substitute the classic shift+F1 (Il2-1946') gunsight view.

MD_Titus

06-12-2011, 11:10 AM

Seriously.

Over a decade of faffing about with Shift-F1, leaning over, loosening straps or whatever...i'm weary of it. Just place the damned thing in the centre of the dash! Is anyone really going to be put out by such a minor concession to usability?

Realism be hanged in this instance.
yes.
A much more sensible concession would be to simply make the default center view for the 109 (and pretty much all other German aircraft for that matter) line up with the gun-sight.
this is the better option, or the "loosen shoulder straps" view leans you to the right. pretty much how gunsight view worked in 1946 in fact.

335th_GRAthos

06-12-2011, 01:03 PM

You only need to have the "head movement restriction" while in gunsight mode REMOVED
It makes the gunsight view just like in the original IL2FB.

Rememeber please, if you are interested in this thing happening, to post your request ("remove head movement restriction while in gunsight mode") in the "bucket list"
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=23405

~S~

Sokol1

07-03-2011, 06:38 PM

Non TrackIR users, NewView center Bf109 gunsight without using "loosing straps".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tBcu_3Hn9IA

Sokol1

335th_GRAthos

07-03-2011, 08:24 PM

Non TrackIR users, NewView center Bf109 gunsight without using "loosing straps".

Sokol1

Thanks for the video Sokol, wow!!!!!

Hmm, is there a manual in English? I foud the manual of version v33 but it is in Russian (looks Greek to me...:( )

~S~

Sokol1

07-04-2011, 03:02 AM

AFAIK - No english manual - NewView has always been overlooked in Western forums. For non TrackIR users NewView is very usefull to improve IL-2 Pan View, but do more things, like a key/button mapper.

Notice that NewView work together with head track devices too, like TrackIr, Freetrack, Cam2Pan,URgear (?). Look at "Helmet" tab.

To CloD you need NewView version 37X - find in link below.

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=67864
This thread in Sukhoi forum is about use in CloD (BoB for then), and have some samples of how configure key to center gunsight in 109.

Use some online translator and PM Hruks (the developer), they answer in english.

The best I understand (with Google :P ):

After initial NewView config (language, CloD location...), set a UView (User view) to 109 gunsight:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4269/52935774.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/52935774.jpg/)

1. Open NewVew and then minimize
2. Run CloD (BoB), go Single Mission, run mission Cross country in Bf-109, that start in cockpit at Springfield.
3. Leave sights by default. Press a key, which is responsible for German sight (I sample NunPad 0)
4. Hit Windows key and go to desktop.
5. Go to NewView Advance Settings > UView coordinates tab, check 6DOF box,
highlights UView #1 (that is key for 109 sight, and control this Uview No1, in sample is used NumPad 0) and click in 6DOF Setup.
6. UView 6DOF Setup windows open: look for section "Translation (Camera Position)" X. .., Y. .., Z. ..
Check box for all these axes, and box for Instantly and Freeze.
In drop menu in front axis select "One touch".

In the box with Up/Down keys put these values:
X = "-700"
Y = "-1600"
Z= "20"

Close "UView 6DOF Setup" window
Click in "Apply"

And now press the number 7 (not NumPad!).
This key is used in this sample to the function "Read settings from INI file (for tuning settings)". See in Assignments tab > Other.

By pressing this key (7 or some that you assign) you upload to New View the changes made in CloD profile (.INI).

Go back to CLod.
Hit "NumPad 0" and see gunsight cross centering in screen.

For different german planes you need different values for X, Y, Z - so create a UView #2, #3...

Notice that you can configure up to 30 UViews (user views), so you can configure one key to instantly look at tachometer, another to prop pitch clock, another for temp... etc.

FYI - I dont test this UView feature, if dont work, dont blame me. :)

Sokol1

335th_GRAthos

07-04-2011, 07:40 AM

Notice that NewView work together with head track devices too, like TrackIr...

THANK YOU!!!!
You answered the question I did not dare to ask (actually I had deducted from v.33 that it does not) :)

FYI - I dont test this UView feature, if dont work, dont blame me.
Too late ;)

Honestly, thanks a million,

~S~

Ataros

07-04-2011, 09:42 AM

335th_GRAthos

07-04-2011, 10:37 AM

I use TrackIR without NewView and do not use Gunsight View at all, just centre the TrackIR accordingly to have Revi in front of me. I assume you can do the same with FreeTrack if you do not want to learn using NewView.

You already mentioned it some time ago, thanks for the comments Ataros, let me check some things next time I fire-up my game PC and I will come back to you.
You see, I tried that last time and it does not work for me:
With TRACK IR on, I cannot move the screen.
I have to disable TRACKIR to move with the mouse and center the screen around the gunsight.
As soon as I re-enable TRACKIR, it jumps to the normal centered mode :(
I must be missing something stupidly obvious...

(I do not have 6DOF, if that is the prohibiting reason, I do not know. Well I do have the hardware but it is somewhere among dozens of cartos in a warehouse and we have 43 degrees C outside so, not highly motivating to go search for it...)

~S~

Ataros

07-04-2011, 10:59 AM

I use 6dof because left-to-right movement is assigned to x axis I believe which you do not have in 3dof. Without 6dof NewView is the solution I think.

With 6dof you lean left, press TIR center button, get back to vertical posture and this does the trick. The response is not 100% symmetrical in this case but it is hardly noticeable when you adjust response curves to your preference.

Try Freetrack if you have time it should support 6dof I think.

RE77ACTION

07-04-2011, 11:19 AM

Please leave the gun sight where it is now! I like to have as much of the handicaps a real pilot was faced with. With trackIR I just like to train my abs and have fun the same time. Makes it all a little less passive and thus more realistic.

Lixma

07-04-2011, 12:19 PM

335th_GRAthos

07-04-2011, 12:25 PM

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/9594/picardfacepalmck.jpg

ROFL !!!!!!
excellent one!

Yes, this is how I feel when I hear "famous last words" like the one before....

So how on earth do you know this RE77ACTION? You have been flying so much the real Bf109 that you know what the real thing is...
Sorry for becoming personal.

OK, this overspilled the glass.

I am a bit busy for the next hours, I will post some photos of how the gunsight looked like in front of the pilot's face in order to get this "reality" thing in place :-D

~S~

Lixma

07-04-2011, 12:30 PM

Can't be arsed going through it all again so i'll just repeat myself the easy way....

This is worth posting.

It's a schematic of the FW-190. Look carefully.....

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/2049/190revi1.jpg

Make a note of....

a) the center-line.

b) the sight-line.

c) the position of the reticle

d) the horizontal separation between centre-line and sight-line - 40mm.

Now grab a tape measure, find a mirror and measure the distance from the centre of your nose to the middle of your right pupil.....

Mine is 37mm.

The offset Revi gunsight is installed to sit directly in the right eye's line of sight.

No leaning required.

Here's a link to the full image....I'd post it here but it's a bit big....3mb.

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=w8383ebj6n77up7&thumb=4

flyingblind

07-04-2011, 03:25 PM

Don't forget as well that to see things more as a 109 pilot would see them you need to be in 30deg FOV so that the sight appears at the correct size and not the postage stamp size seen in 70deg or 90deg FOV. But I doubt anyone flys using 30deg FOV even those claiming they only want complete realism. When the chips are down everyone will compromise.

RE77ACTION

07-04-2011, 03:46 PM

Blackdog_kt

07-04-2011, 04:07 PM

Custom centering hotkey: lean to the side (either with 6DOF headtracking or with the mouse), press the hotkey and your centered point of view now defaults to the new position.

That's all that's needed to be honest, not eliminating the view restrictions.

The reason we can't turn around much in gunsight view is that it corresponds to tightened shoulder straps. Judging by the now famous videos of the RAF pilot giving an appraisal on the 109 and Spitfire cockpits, it seems that having your shoulders tightly bolted on to the seat would severely limit a pilot's ability to look around: we only move our heads (at least those of us with hedtrackers) because we are using accelerated input/output curves in the relevant interface, but in reality to look back one needs to turn the torso around as well.

Anyone who's driven a car and had to reverse at some point or parallel park knows this, to look back you need to turn the entire upper half of your body around and not just your head.

This is what the gunsight view simulates first and foremost, with the straps tightened there is less headshake at the cost of reduced ability to turn the our virtual body around, with loosened straps we can look back easier but there's more headshake.

That's why i am firmly against eliminating this feature:
1) It's realistic.
2) The gunsight troubles are a side effect that can easily be fixed.

How? By making the reticule visible from the normal centered position (to simulate the fact that in reality our right eye would be able to see it) or giving us the ability to set a custom center viewpoint.

There's no need to do away with a realistic feature just because of an easy to fix side-effect, it would be like disabling the mixture controls on RAF aircraft because they are reversed: "this is confusing, let's completely delete it instead of properly fixing it", it's a throw the baby out with the bath water approach :-P

Lixma

07-04-2011, 04:15 PM

Ok, guys, my bad... But you can't expect me to read through more than 30 pages of rubbish small talk to find out where the initial discussion ended.

EDIT: I assumed that the current gunsight was correct because I've read a lot of posts stating that. Maybe I could have done more research, but I didn't find any indication to do so.

The gunsight is correctly modelled....it's just that our in-game pilot only has one central eye so only half the reticle is visible. The Shift-F1 view in CoD (and IL-2 classic) is a workaround; an attempt to compensate for the inability to accurately simulate binocular vision on a 2D display.

Type 'Cyclops' into the 'search this thread' thingy and you'll find the relevant posts.

Lixma

07-04-2011, 04:29 PM

Anyone who's driven a car and had to reverse at some point or parallel park knows this, to look back you need to turn the entire upper half of your body around and not just your head.
Fair point, but be careful.

My head can only rotate roughly 90 degrees left to right. Nevertheless I can still see behind me fairly well without moving my torso. It's not terribly comfortable, and because my nose gets in the way i'm only seeing through one eye...but I can still see.

The limits of in-game visibility should be tied to what the eyes can see, rather than how far our head can rotate.

Strike

07-04-2011, 04:53 PM

This is what the gunsight view simulates first and foremost, with the straps tightened there is less headshake at the cost of reduced ability to turn the our virtual body around, with loosened straps we can look back easier but there's more headshake.

Hey blackdog! I am also one of those who fully support the authentic positioning of the gunsight in axis fighters, but I believe the entire feature is implemented wrong in the game. I've written my honest opinion on this mechanic in a different thread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=305483&postcount=133 .

What I think would be correct is to completely eliminate the feature as a "static" view, but make the game so that when you "tighten straps" you sit upright against the seat and can only look forwards and to the sides, relying on peripheral vision to see what's behind you. When you select "loosen straps" you get the "normal" viewmode where you can lean, shift sideways, move forwards etc and also twist your upper body to look outside an open canopy or try to see what's behind you. Then you can also move your head directly infront of the gunsight. This would be the ideal takeoff/flight/scouting position to fully see what's going on. And when entering combat you would lean backwards, tighten the straps so you won't be tossed around and then fight. You should still be able to lean just enough sideways to be able to see the sight properly, since we cannot simulate human eyesight in CloD. (IRL I prefer firing weapons without squinting my left eye. This way I'll see normally, but the right eye will be staring down the ironsights, kindof superimposing the sight over my entire view.) It's fully possible to do, and is what the axis design sought out to do!

335th_GRAthos

07-04-2011, 07:21 PM

Oh c'mon guys, are you not ashamed at all!? :(

You were supposed to wait for me :-D

No prob RE77ACTION, sorry for been a bit rough, this Revi things annoys me because I am lazy (do not want to go looking for my 6DOF kit when it is damn hot outside) and stubborn (I could claim this comes with age, but it is not :-D).

Nice picture Lixma it adds the scientific part which I was missing.I from my side I can contribute a picture from the practical side.
This is a scan from the A4 size picture of the Revi of the FW190 (do not ask me why we can find more pictures of the FW190 than of the Bf109) from the Book "Klassische Jagdflugzeuge" from HEEL Verlag 2000
It is a picture shot from the propeller, while the pilot is sitting inside the cockpit.
It is almost centered. Actually if you look better at the Rudder, the tip in the middle at the top of the cockpit frame and the small U-shaped thing on the top of the engine cowling, the photographer was sitting slightly to the right, which actually means the real situation of the pilots eyes and the Revi would be even better than the pictures show.
The quality is excellent on the book but I am not good with scanning and making pictures smaller (as my other posts have already proven) but I hope the result is clear enough:
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/FW190_Revi1.jpg

And a zoom in of the picture showing clearly how well the Revi is in front of the right eye of the pilot (as Lixma unshamefully dared to mention before me):
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/FW190_Revi2.jpg

I highlighted the Revi on this picture, just in case:
http://www.stoimenos.com/temp/CoD/FW190_Revi3.jpg

So, more than half the pilot's face (maybe this pilot has a remarkably big nose) is in front of the Revi.

I think it like shooting with a pistol: If you keep both eyes open the pistol's gunsight is not centered. If you close your left eye however, the gunsight is straight in front of your right eye.

CoD is showing us the view from both eyes and for obvious reasons, we can not close our left eye and fix the problem as it was in real life...

Anyway, we are turning circles here, it is just a frigging fix, for 10 years it was not a problem, now we got stuck with this bull... (pardon my French) and Luthier got a deaf ear :(

At least with these pictures we may stop this "Historic reality so it is correct" crap because I have heard this too often in the forum and it turns my stomach (no offence RE77ACTION you were the trigger but not the reason).

~S~

PS. And maybe somebody with some Russian knowledge could post something to Luthier because patience has also limits...

Strike

07-04-2011, 08:01 PM

GRAthos, actually the pilot is leaning slightly to his right (you can tell by the head position in the cockpit + the head-cushion on the seat. Also since the photographer is slightly to the planes LEFT side when shooting the photograph, it doesn't clearly show how much he is leaning to his right. It also doesn't show 100% how easy it is for him to look through his sight! I think the game is good as it is.

I don't have to lean very far at all to see through the revi on the 109. and actually the tracers serve as a good indication (if you use tracers) as to where you're aiming. And you have like 1000 bullets :P

335th_GRAthos

07-04-2011, 08:13 PM

Oops, you are right!

Sorry guys, never looked at this picture so intensively.

So I have to be thankfull to Lixma for his scientific picture after all :)

~S~

RE77ACTION

07-04-2011, 08:49 PM

@335th_GRAthos: No problem, it's okay. I understand it gets annoying when you have to explain this thing for 100th time. At least I would get annoyed from it... ;)

Nice reading though!

klem

07-04-2011, 10:16 PM

GRAthos

I think the photo is misleading because you are assuming he is aiming at a target. I think he is just leaning to the right or perhaps 'aiming' at the camera (which is a little to his left).

I have marked the pilot's eye position behind the sight and then projected the MG17 and aircraft centrelines onto the photo and placed the sightline pro-rata in position according to Lixma's FW190 drawing. You can see that the sight line passes to the right of the pilot's eye - or the left of it from the pilot's point of view (see thumbnail).

Then I enlarged the pilots face and placed a box around his eyes. I then placed a red box of the same width, offset to the right by the amount the aiming eye is off the sight line (I added the eye position too) plus it's centreline. You can see that the red eyes box centreline is in the centre of the cockpit frame give or take a pixel (second thumbnail).

So it all lines up with Lixma's drawing and the pilot does not lean when aiming.

Unless of course we have a RL WWII 109 pilot on the forum who knows better.

335th_GRAthos

07-04-2011, 10:26 PM

Nice work Klem, a bit too difficult for me, Lixma's drawing is a straight explanation, better than my picture.

I admit looking at the picture in front of me (A4 size) it is so high quality that I am drawn by the eyes of the pilot looking straight at me that I did not notice the headreast behind.

What however grasped my attention is the size of the Revi glass because it covers more than half his face.

Wolf_Rider

07-05-2011, 06:50 AM

GRAthos, actually the pilot is leaning slightly to his right (you can tell by the head position in the cockpit + the head-cushion on the seat. Also since the photographer is slightly to the planes LEFT side when shooting the photograph, it doesn't clearly show how much he is leaning to his right. It also doesn't show 100% how easy it is for him to look through his sight! I think the game is good as it is.

http://inscale.org/pub/index.php?action=media%3Bsa=media%3Bin=1691%3Bprev iew

http://i1100.photobucket.com/albums/g403/wateratty/bf109_cockpit_photo2.jpg

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=13417.0

vnvv_stea

07-07-2011, 01:31 PM

HI All,

I'm wondering if someone can tell me if we have possibility to set up a weapons sight in 109 as in old IL2!

drewpee

07-07-2011, 02:49 PM

As it is ATM it's real easy to loose track of the sight after maneuvering. If it was that hard IRL wouldn't they have changed to the English stile sight?

SQB

07-15-2011, 02:06 PM

The sight can be viewed with the right eye whilst the left eye can see out the windshield.

currently in CloD our eye position is in the exact MIDDLE of the cockpit, this is incorrect.

Solution: 1) Run the game in 3d (I have tried this, it went okay but the fps dropped fairly low on my system)
2) Shift the default eye position to the right (so that the gunsight is always visible... this is ok I guess but it defeats the purpose of have both a clear line of sight and a gunsight at all times)

on a side note:
I think we can also all agree that the head movement from g's is too much, head movement should be mostly tracking the horizon (as in DCS).
The cockpit view has the pilots head too far forward, especially with loosened seatbelt.

klem

07-15-2011, 04:50 PM

........currently in CloD our eye position is in the exact MIDDLE of the cockpit, this is incorrect. ...........The cockpit view has the pilots head too far forward, especially with loosened seatbelt.

Yes and Yes.

In CloD you only have one eye - right in the middle of your forehead (as it was in IL-2).

As I've said many times, the 'gunsight' view would be ok if it didn't bang your eye right up to the sight glass but left it at your default distance.

All we need for gunsight view is a shift sideways as in IL-2 and forget the seat belt/head forward nonsense.

If you are fortunate enough to have TrackIR, do what I do and just lean a little to the right. As long as you can see the centre of the cross-hair you can judge the rest ok. Leaning further will get you the whole cross-hair.

SEE

07-15-2011, 05:14 PM

Ze-Jamz

07-15-2011, 05:30 PM

I managed to get up to the cockpit of a Bf109E-3 last weekend. I read they were tight but I have to say I was suprised at just how tight!

Looking inside it (from no more than a foot away) my perception was that I would hardly have to move my head to see through the sight. The BF's are extremely nice up close and the first time I have seen them in flight - super ac and one I must fly (in game) more regularly.

I was very close to some diff variants at Duxford last weekend and i do agree with you... Spits are graceful in flight and have an awesome sound from that Merlin but the 109 looks like a fighter and sounds just as nice as the Merlin due to its supercharger...Shame i didnt see the Fw-190, now thats one mean looking aircraft that just looks the buisness

Laurwin

09-21-2013, 03:41 AM

Shouldn't you simply be able to adjust this setting ( glancing through the gunsight ) , from trackIR settings yourself?

Maybe it's possible to adjust the axis curves in your settings, choose the axis which deals with "leaning your neckl".

And put up much higher acceleration/or-some-kind-of-crazy-curve (but only for that "leaning neck" axis?). Also, if possible, make it into an asymmetric axis curve, so you have strong acceleration to the right side (you always lean towards right into the gunsight, for shooting opportunity), but maybe not so much acceleration towards the left side.

x axis, in trackIR, should be axis for this "leaning neck"- motion, sideways,

y axis should be basically, when you sit in more upright posture, or slouch down into your seat.

z axis is when you move your face front or back.

Yaw axis is head turning sideways, and pitch axis is nodding your head up or down.

roll axis is turning (rolling?) your neck towards your shoulder basically (more or less limited motion, inside small bf-109 canopy)

For me, the problem in IL-2 1946 has been mostly the slowness, when you lean your head into the gunsight, it somehow takes maybe one second or slightly more for the gunsight to settle into it's its full picture (maybe it's a practicing issue though)

And like it was said, you can also try to adjust center point of your trackIR, so that it will settle down into the "roughly center" area of the gunsight picture (while you are engaged in the "non-centered gunsight mode")

problem with this simpler method is that you need to re-center it always in this special way, when flying bf-109.

Laurwin

09-22-2013, 12:27 AM

I'm too tired to repeat myself tonight so i'll limit myself to this....

No it doesn't.

CoD's default view is what a Cyclops would see; a being with one eye looking straight down the centre-line of the aircraft. To my knowledge no Cyclops ever flew for the Luftwaffe....although I confess I have no hard data on the issue.

for the record there was atleast one cyclopean Luftwaffw pilot as you would put it. He lost his eye in earlier combat, but he returned to duty, he fought until 1945. It's kind of embarrasinf that I forgot his name, but he most likely served in one of the staffels of JG26. He was an older veteran ace compared to the raw recruits that provided bulk of pilot reserve.

Although he did get a little bit assistance from his wingman, during landings (because with only one eye he couldnt tell depth so easily). Probably wingman landed alongsode him oer in front of him.

Then on japanese side there was saburo sakai who became cyclops ( or a pirate if youd prefer that lol)

Do you guys know idf saka was able to bag any kills over americans after he got wounded?