New patch Revi gun sight vs old

[PolishEagle1939]

New patch revi sight vs old

[Friedric]

I like the old gunsight revi

[smink1701]

What I really want is for either version to be about 30% smaller which I think is more realistic according to photos I've seen.

AND ANOTHER THING!!! I like the old version in 1946 of the gunsight when in WW view, ie without the cockpit on. The simple crosshairs, not what we have now which is the crosshairs with the little round thing bouncing around.:grin:

[CWMV]

I'm not sure, but my question is the shape of the reticle correct?
I've found a few pics of Revi C 12D gunsites and they all look like this
http://i512.photobucket.com/albums/t322/dotson_kc/IL2/Open-Revi-2.jpg
As for a sharper reticle, I'm all for it. See above photo.

[ZaltysZ]

If you compare what is in game vs various photos, please take these things into account:

1) Reticle will get smaller in relation to glass, if observer moves closer; and reticle gets larger, if observer moves back.
2) Reticle is focused at infinity. Almost all photos were taken when focused to close range. If they were not, cockpit would be out of focus, and not the reticle.

[CWMV]

If you compare what is in game vs various photos, please take these things into account:

1) Reticle will get smaller in relation to glass, if observer moves closer; and reticle gets larger, if observer moves back.
2) Reticle is focused at infinity. Almost all photos were taken when focused to close range. If they were not, cockpit would be out of focus, and not the reticle.


Exactly!
Allow me to demonstrate
the same picture I posted above, notice it is focused on the reticle and the rest of the sight is out of focus.
http://i512.photobucket.com/albums/t322/dotson_kc/IL2/Open-Revi-2.jpg

Same sight, but focus is on the sight itself, not the reticle
http://i512.photobucket.com/albums/t322/dotson_kc/IL2/Open-Revi.jpg

[Friedric]

@Devs can you make this sticky ?

And again i hate the new Revi :(

[Qpassa]

bump

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

But most importantly we need binocular view for non-centred gunsights ...

[CWMV]

@Devs can you make this sticky ?

And again i hate the new Revi :(

So what exactly do you want, something that is factually incorrect, but pretty?

[Sternjaeger II]

1) Reticle will get smaller in relation to glass, if observer moves closer; and reticle gets larger, if observer moves back.


Are you sure about this?

[JG52Krupi]

Yeah works when leaning forward not using three forward views.

[Sternjaeger II]

no, I mean in real life the size of the reticle doesn't actually change.

[Codex]

no, I mean in real life the size of the reticle doesn't actually change.

Yes, I can't access YouTube from work but there are a few videos floating around that demonstrates this from actual working Revi gun sights.

The actual reticule size is fixed and as you move closer to the sight the reticule "appears" to get smaller. This is how aiming was actual done, the pilot would lean forward to aim, in some cases (Bf-109 pilots) they would rest their face against the sight when aiming, hence the padding on the sight.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Yes, I can't access YouTube from work but there are a few videos floating around that demonstrates this from actual working Revi gun sights.

The actual reticule size is fixed and as you move closer to the sight the reticule "appears" to get smaller. This is how aiming was actual done, the pilot would lean forward to aim, in some cases (Bf-109 pilots) they would rest their face against the sight when aiming, hence the padding on the sight.

And obviously they hence could not lean to the right side even if they had to (their nose would have been in their way) - which they did not. This again shows clearly why we need binocular view for revi sights (particularly for those gunsights that are off centre) and not monocular as we have now.

See this thread:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=270278#post270278

This is how it should look like. The explanation is a bit misleading. Actually as the right eye fully gets the image of the whole circle (when looking with the right eye throught the sight) the brain just superimposes the image seen by the right eye to that seen by the left side. So even if only the right eye looks through the gunsight the pilot still would see the whole circle and not half of what we have now. (it's not that suddenly by looking with one eye only through the gunsight the left side of the right eye would have gone blind ...)

[von Pilsner]

Yes, I can't access YouTube from work but there are a few videos floating around that demonstrates this from actual working Revi gun sights.

The actual reticule size is fixed and as you move closer to the sight the reticule "appears" to get smaller. This is how aiming was actual done, the pilot would lean forward to aim, in some cases (Bf-109 pilots) they would rest their face against the sight when aiming, hence the padding on the sight.

I thought the glass reflector appears larger (since you are closer) but the superimposed gunsight remains the same size (allowing you to dial in enemy a/c wingspan).

EDIT: What I'm trying to say is I don't think sizes change other than in relation to the distance from your eyes (closer = bigger, farther = smaller).

[Codex]

And obviously they hence could not lean to the right side even if they had to (their nose would have been in their way) - which they did not. This again shows clearly why we need binocular view for revi sights (particularly for those gunsights that are off centre) and not monocular as we have now.

See this thread:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=270278#post270278

This is how it should look like. The explanation is a bit misleading. Actually as the right eye fully gets the image of the whole circle (when looking with the right eye throught the sight) the brain just superimposes the image seen by the right eye to that seen by the left side. So even if only the right eye looks through the gunsight the pilot still would see the whole circle and not half of what we have now. (it's not that suddenly by looking with one eye only through the gunsight the left side of the right eye would have gone blind ...)

Thats why the German sights were predominantly off centre so the pilot could steady himself more, well that's what I've read.

But the problem we have here is that we're flying a simulator based on a 2D image (i.e. the screen image). To get same effect you would need to go to the lengths of building an actual cockpit or get those stereoscopic glasses.

[Codex]

I thought the glass reflector appears larger (since you are closer) but the superimposed gunsight remains the same size (allowing you to dial in enemy a/c wingspan).

EDIT: What I'm trying to say is I don't think sizes change other than in relation to the distance from your eyes (closer = bigger, farther = smaller).

Yes your right, I think my explination was off. The point though was that the reticule remains the same size relative to the focal point (i.e. infinity). When your sitting back, it appears to overflow from the the sight glass, and when you move in closer, the glass fills your vision but the reticule is now completely visible.

[Redroach]

Without further looking, I voted "the new one". Just out of principle, in order to annoy the graphX whiners who made us pay so dearly in this game...

Same goes for any future polls on graphics - I'll vote "keep", no matter what, until the important issues are fixed.

P.S.: And, judging from the results, you won't get your way right now. Hehe. The good thing about polls is: You can vote only once, whereas you are free to to open x threads like "omfgz0r, the texture on the leather cushion in the Me109 is too lime-brown!!!!111" (The real cushions had the usual german quality assurance sticker: 'Leather is a natural material. Any deviation from a given shade of brown is not a sign of a faulty product. Reports on this WILL result in an investigation by the GeStaPo').

[Sternjaeger II]

guys, guys, hang on a second... here are two videos I found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXsVg8F91t8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=EayasHQYEGM

the curious thing is that when moving the camera back the reticle will look to increase in size, but when zooming out it will stay the same size..

I wonder if it's a camera thing then.. Last time I lit up the GGS gunsight I have to show it to a friend I vividly remember how the perception of the gunsight reticle was the same, the only thing changing was the clearance around it. It's like saying to watch the same image through a camera diaphragm that opens up when you move closer and gets narrower when you move back, but the reticle size stays the same. I will try my other RAF gunsight at home over the weekend and will let you know (and possibly make a video too!)


Uh and the pads were not meant to allow pilots to put their face on it, they were just crash pads.

[GraveyardJimmy]

Just a note on the German sights- if you find the reticule too bright, make sure you dont toggle illumination, but instead increase it. Unlike the British planes (iirc) there is a slider, so you can have brightness at about 5% at night, for example.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Thats why the German sights were predominantly off centre so the pilot could steady himself more, well that's what I've read.

But the problem we have here is that we're flying a simulator based on a 2D image (i.e. the screen image). To get same effect you would need to go to the lengths of building an actual cockpit or get those stereoscopic glasses.

Actually I think Lixma's proposed solution would be not too far off what a German pilot would have seen. For convenience I repost it here. Remember: When looking through the recticle with the right eye the right eye will see the full image of the circle (the right eye won't suddenly turn blind on its left side just because if looks through a recticle). The left eye being open will see what the left eye will see. The brain always superimposes both images and merges it to one so that as a consequence a German pilot would see the full circle over the point at which he looks with both eyes. So I think Lixma's image is quite right and would be anyway much more realistic that what we have now so implementing this would be moving in the right direction.

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

[CWMV]

That just looks funky. Honestly I don't have any problem with the current Revi. Just lean over.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Well a lot of ppl have problems with the revi. Particularly because it is unrealistic.
You consider it funky because in daily life you do not have experience with a revi. But for pilots it was not funky. And only because you do not have this experience (with all respect here dont get me wrong) it does not mean that it is wrong. It is in fact just a matter of understanding and seeing the truthfulness in it and then get used to it.

As it is currently it is
- unrealistic
- for others maybe acceptable
- for many difficult


With proposed solution it would be
- realistic
- for the many no longer difficult and still acceptable for the others as functionality would remain and even improve
- it may though look funky to some who have some difficulties understanding the concept of binocular view.

So summa summarum new proposed solution offers more advantages AND is more realistic.

[TomcatViP]

My guess is that instead of making some kircky request we shld instead wait for devs to complete the game following their own idea. This will prevent from having a patchwork for game with some feature à la IL2 1946 and some in the path of CoD high reality standards.

Let them do what they think first.

Storm the image you posted does not fit what i see in RL. Both left and right eyes has some overlapping due to facial geo.

Where is Raaid, our expert in that field ?

[CWMV]

Dude, it looks like garbage.

Above all else this is a game.
Do what you will, have all sorts of great sounds, simulated controls, even simulated feeling with something like a buttkicker and trackIR, its still a simulation. trying to take the complexities of something like human vision and make it absolutely realistic is impossible, and if you try to hard it looks just like that, your trying to hard.

Oh and spare me your holier than thou attitude. You post around here like your excrement doesn't reek. "Not understanding binocular vision" buddy, I've got many, MANY years of working with optical sights for everything from pistols and rifles to mortars, Abrams and Brad's, and if you really tried to model the way it looks to the eye it would look like utter garbage in game. its getting closer and closer to asking for a solid dot in the center of the screen that never moves and is 100% accurate like the old shooters.

Trust this, I understand binocular vision, professor, I just think it will look like crap in game.

Everything in this game is a compromise to bring the real, 3d-6-senses world onto a relatively small 2d monitor. Its impossible to model everything, more than that it is folly.

The revi sits off center-as it did in the real bird.
The reticle is there, all you have to do is lean to the left, or use the gunsite view. That's what its there for.

if you are REALLY so put out by something as really truly minor as this minutiae then perhaps a sim like FSX is more up your ally?

You, and all the color gripers, are complaining about the scratches on the head of a rivet in the prop spinner when the aircraft is missing the whole tail section.

For now, if you want a centered gunsite, fly a freakin' Spitfire! :-P
Whatever, I'm out.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

:grin: someone got really upset.

And please do not lecture me where my priorities are with respect to the game - I know them better than you - trust me.

Now you may refuse to have something that is to your eyes garbage - for others it may just look not as garbage.

Fact is current solution is not realistic and more difficult to use.

But if you have a better solution that is more realistic and easy to use just make it known to everybody. But please spare us with this "just lean to the right" I have enough experience with this "leaning to the right" that I know that it cannot be the solution. Until you bring up a more suitable solution you just sound with your negative attitude like those guys some centuries ago that also thought that the image of an Earth being actually round was looking garbage.

[TomcatViP]

You, and all the color gripers, are complaining about the scratches on the head of a rivet in the prop spinner when the aircraft is missing the whole tail section.


Game is not working but this makes my day. I'll just keep reading it till the night goes.
:grin::o:eek:;)

But Storm is right in the way that it's better if we stand with a "be constructive" attitude even if we disprove each others on some points

[SNAFU]

The point is quite simple:

We aim with one eye, on a rifle, a pistol, 125mm cannon and so did the pilots back in those days and the pilots nowadays (the leading eye, even though we have a HUD-gun-cone or something else). But in the game we play with two eyes on a 2D screen. So how do you simlute that? I have got no idea, but the difficulties to keep you head steady for a clear aim is somewhat simulated the way it is now, I think. It is not how it really is/ would be, but the sum of the difficulties are somewhat a way, I can feel aiming is more than just moving a joystick.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

The thing is, Snafu, that you do not aim with one eye (no pilot would ever close one eye) but you have both eyes open (there had been a video clip somewhere posted here that explains why it is actually better not to close the other eye when shooting with a rifle). If a pilot really would have closed one eye he would have lost all in-depth perception and it would have made it very difficult to judge distances. He then would have had a 2D vision in a 3D world.

I do believe that putting the revi slightly off-centre in German planes was not to make pilots lean right (why should they? It would have complicated the task of the fighter pilot). It simply did not matter to the pilot if it had been in the centre or right before his right eye.

I understand what you say about simulating the difficulty to have a steady aim.

However I also think that the difficulty is artificially higher in a 109 currently than in a Spit because of the way trackir works. But I think we both agree that the difficulty should be the same for both planes. BTW if simulated correctly in the game the binocular view of the recticle it would still disappear at least partially if your head shaking is too strong. This would occur when the right eye due to head movement does no longer see the full circle. This would of course have an immediate impact on the image the pilot gets.

I concede that Lixma's image is perhaps not the most ideal solution to this issue but one that comes perhaps the closest from what has been proposed. But I am open to any other proposal that might be better.

EDIT: Of course it would also still wobble due to head shaking. So you would still need to correct your head position (keeping in mind that due to trackir it is - supposing that the headshake is correctly modelled- more difficult to correct head shake than in real life due to the "gear ratio" between your head position and how it is then depicted on the screen)

[Madfish]

The point is quite simple:

We aim with one eye, on a rifle, a pistol, 125mm cannon and so did the pilots back in those days and the pilots nowadays (the leading eye, even though we have a HUD-gun-cone or something else).

And that is actually where you're so totally wrong mate.

You do NOT ever close the second eye. They're called reflector gunsights (also called reflex sight) and even simple rifles use them. For example the German HK G36
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflector_sight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G36#Sights

Compared to standard telescopic sights, a reflector sight with no magnification can be held at any distance from the eye (don’t require a designed eye relief), and at almost any angle, without distorting the image of the target or reticle. They are often used with both eyes open (the brain will tend to automatically superimpose the illuminated reticle image coming from the dominant eye onto the other eye's unobstructed view), giving the shooter normal depth perception and full field of view. Since Reflector sights are not dependent on eye relief, they can theoretically be placed in any mechanically-convenient mounting position on a weapon.

Basically what you do is you look through it with both eyes open but the right eye (or the left eye for that matter) looks directly through the sight. The aiming spot will "magically" appear in front of you. It's an ingenious trickery of our eyes and works perfectly.

The screenshot posted in this thread is accurate and this is how it should be implemented in the game.

[Friedric]

So what exactly do you want, something that is factually incorrect, but pretty?

No want it history correct thats all :)

[ZaltysZ]

Are you sure about this?

Yes, but pay attention to "in relation to glass". If you move closer, you can say: reticle gets smaller in relation to glass, and you can also say glass gets bigger in relation to reticle - depending on which reference point you like.

[Sternjaeger II]

guys, make a little experiment yourselves: sit in your car and put a square piece of white paper on your dashboard, it will show its reflection on the windscreen: if you move your head forward and backward it gives the impression of changing in size, but it actually doesn't, it's only because you're looking at it from a different distance, to further prove this put your fingers on the edges of the reflected piece of paper, you will see it doesn't change.

German gunsights worked with the "dominant eye" principle: statistically most people have a right dominant eye, that's why it was a bit offset to the right.

As someone else mentioned above, it's the same thing with the red dot sights that you can now mount on guns: people keep on doing the mistake of closing one of their eyes to aim, but it's meant for natural shooting, all you need to do is look at the red dot, place it on the target and it's a hit.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

guys, make a little experiment yourselves: sit in your car and put a square piece of white paper on your dashboard, it will show its reflection on the windscreen: if you move your head forward and backward it gives the impression of changing in size, but it actually doesn't, it's only because you're looking at it from a different distance, to further prove this put your fingers on the edges of the reflected piece of paper, you will see it doesn't change.

German gunsights worked with the "dominant eye" principle: statistically most people have a right dominant eye, that's why it was a bit offset to the right.

As someone else mentioned above, it's the same thing with the red dot sights that you can now mount on guns: people keep on doing the mistake of closing one of their eyes to aim, but it's meant for natural shooting, all you need to do is look at the red dot, place it on the target and it's a hit.

+1

I endorse this. It took me a fair bit of time and a good deal of patience from Lixma (where is this guy btw. Was always nice to discuss with him) until I understood. And made my own little experiments that confirmed this.

One eye looking through the sight with the other eye open will make the circle wobble apparently in the air as long as the one eye catches the circle. This is how it should be implemented.