Gunsight 109 propositions

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

On the occasion of reading the posts in this thread concerning a player's video:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19455&page=137

I rethought the whole gunsight issue with the 109.

I watched MrX video and tried to use the implemented gunsight as he does. He seems to use it quite effectively. After some trials I came to the conclusion that when one uses hud view like Mr X the gunsight issue is not as bad (but still bad because it takes to much time to switch between positions - unrealistically long time).

However many if not most people use TrackIR and are further penalised not only by the duration of the animation but also by the animation itself.

Current animation of leaning forward and back is highly penalizing pilots because of its duration (too long. In reality it would take only a fraction of the time).

It also merges from a fixed head position to the gunsight and from the gunsight to this fixed head position. This penalizes in particular TrackIR users as when they switch to the gunsight their head is first jump-forced into that fixed head position before moving (slowly to the gunsight). Vice verca one is forced into that fixed head position when exiting gunsight mode before the sight jumps to the TrackIR head position.

With both ways you will have a more or less huge jump in the sight that you cannot control. This is completely destroying sighting for 109 drivers (for hud view users it is a lesser problem as their forward view = that fixed head position). Even if you look straight before switching to and from gunsight will cause the jump as your head will never be perfectly aligned with the fixed head position because of TrackIR.

If we really want the full reality in game as much as possible we would need a gunsight like as discussed in this thread:

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

I really would prefer this solultion as it is most close to the real physics of binocular optics (humans have two eyes and not one. In game we only have one eye currently. Now they realise to add 3D cockpits for binocular view but what about binocular view of gunsights?).

Unfortunately some people just flame me for this opinion of mine (and some others) because they think it looks unusual and ugly (even though the real pilots would have seen it like this).

Perhaps we can settle this dispute in the future.

In the meanwhile and easy to implement I would like to ask the devs to realize:

Accelerate animation to times <0.3s (this is about what I measured for leaning your body forward and backward. Remember they never leaned to the right just forward and backward) and either:

1. Until implementing the real gunsight view: Go back to old IL2 logic and allow immediate switch from normal flight to gunsight mode. In gunsight mode allow for full head movement.

2. My suggestion if you stick to the animation (until implementing the real gunsight view): merge the current head position to the gunsight and vice versa.

[JG53_Valantine]

Have to say I agree: trackIR isn't really a benefit when aiming with the 109 at present - very clunky and slow; not something you want in the middle of a dogfight.
V

[trumps]

I do not like the whole time lag issue with the zooming to gunsight view, instead I usually Recenter the gun sight with the F12 key, then for zooming in I just switch between the wide FOV, and the narrow FOV, seems to be the best compromise as things are currently for me.

Craig

[flyingblind]

I agree with you Stormcrow. The best implementation would be the crosshairs floating outside the confines of the screen which is what the pilot would have seen. Unfortunately this effect can only be observed by a real pilot looking through a real sight because of his binocular vision. The utube vids of revi type sights show the crosshairs only visible when they coincide with the sight glass as per game as they are seen through the single lense of the camera. Such treatment of the sights as you suggest would look particularly realistic if not awsome when used with a 3D vision setup.

[Robo.]

I am a TrackIR user and I fly the 109 quite a lot. I don't feel penalised in any way and I take it as a game limitation regarding the real life binocular vision vs. 2d monitor. I can't think of any better way of portraying the Bf 109 gunsight but I believe that with some fiddling with the TrackIR curves, one can achieve prety much perfect control of the head movement and if you know where your aiming position is, you see the ReVi just where it's supposed to be.

I don't think that coming back to the Il-2 ninja Ctrl+F1 pilot or displaying the crosshair around the ReVi glass would be of any benefit to so called reality in the sim. I understand what you mean though, it took me a while to get use to it.

For all 109 pilots with TrackIR - I lean my head down and to the left a bit, then hit my center TIR button, which brings my aim straight in front of the gunsight and I keeps it there even during fierce dogfight. Compared to the 6DoF mod in Il-2, I obviously had to alter my profile (was too fast and agressive around the centre), but this certainly did the trick for me and it might for someone else, too.

Just my 0.02

[ZaltysZ]

I also use TrackIR and never switch views as there is no need for that because 6DOF works fine for me. It is interesting why others have such problems.

[howcome]

Yep, TrackIR works great for the 109 gunsight. More realistic having to lean slightly to get a good sight picture. How did I ever sim without TrackIR?

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

If you think thoroughly this thing through you will come to two principal conclusions:

1. Being forced to leaning sideways (and centering TrackIR when leaning left is absolutely identical in what TrackIR mechanics concerns) is penalizing as unlike with TrackIR center being ON gunsight you will be offset from the trackIR curve center whether you lean to the right or with centering TrackIR on a left side position). This will result in following effect: your head position with respect to TrackIR curve center being displaced your most tiny movements during aiming will result im much bigger virtual head movements adding up to the already existing head shake. You would have to edit your trackIr curves considerabley making it almost insensitive for small to medium headmovements. I consider this a considerable drawback. And I tried it both ways.

2. It is not realistic as NO German pilot ever leaned sideways. They just leaned forward and fullstop.

You finally may come also to the conclusion that this thing can be improved with very little effort by the developer. Why should we not ask them? It is not asking for something less realistic but in fact for something more realistic and which will be less awkward unlike it is now.

[ZaltysZ]

I simply don't feel penalized, because I even don't notice when I have to lean. It happens without much effort and almost automatically. In addition, BF109 is such plane, with which deflection shooting is essential, so I track targets not only turning my head, but leaning it too (i.e. avoiding situations, where canopy frames obscure the target and so on). This is very intuitive for me, and such things as centered sights and sight view look very intrusive.

P.S: my X,Y,Z curves are linear and sensitive.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

No, they did not move sideways. Just forward gazing with one eye through the gun sight (that's what you do with a rifle too, don't you?). It is not by accident that the gunsight in German fighters is just at the same lateral distance from the centre as your eye from your nose.

thegermanpilotdidnotleantotherightthegermanpilotdi dnotleantotherightthegermanpilotdidnotleantotherig htthegerman ...

[CaptainDoggles]

Quite frankly there are many many more things in the sim that I'd like to see fixed before anyone begins fiddling with the revi.

If you take the time to get used to fighting with TIR in the 109 you get used to it. I personally don't have any trouble using it in a dogfight. Line your head up with the sight as you're maneuvering for the shot. If you wait until the last possible second then obviously it won't work well..

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I agree, he didn't lean right, but he moved forward, he had no buttons to hit.

he had no buttons to hit.
he had no buttons to hit.
he had no buttons to hit.
he had no buttons to hit.
he had no buttons to hit.
he had no buttons to hit.
he had no buttons to hit.
;)

I agree. For me the best solution would be:

Binocular gunsight (the circle wobbling in the air) and a quick animation for leaning forward (duration < 0.3sec) while using your current head position as starting point for the animation (and not a fixed position). When moving out, merge to your current head position as quickly.

It is not really difficult. In fact everything is imho already in the game.

In gunsight mode the wobbling of the circle: use the same algorithm for circle movement and visibility as for the spit with 109 revi circle geometry of course and as visibility limiting geometry the 109 revi glass geometry (in order to simulate head shake). In gunsight mode the revi would still be offset to the right but the circle just in the centre of the screen.

For merging to and from a current head position: head position (rotation, position) is already known. So just rotate back to straight forward view and lineary translate from current head position to gunsight head position (leaning only forward). Duration < 0.3sec. Done.

For those who still would like to use the TrackIR for this: Just don't use gunsight mode.

All will be happy.

[GOA_Potenz]

leave as it is, i never used the shift+f1 not even with il2 1946, always lean sideways, and now do the same no issues and also love the G effect that moves you away from the sight, no changes here just get use to it

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

If devs would implement my proposal, just don't use it as like now. I don't understand why you care for a change that you even would not experience if you go on using the same as now? :confused::confused::confused:

That is a really strange request from someone who would not even be concerned by such a change ...

[swiss]

Why don't you get yourself a TIR or FT, so devs can take care of more important things?
Problem solved.

That is a really strange request from someone who doesn't really has to ask for such a change ...

[Robo.]

If you think thoroughly this thing through you will come to two principal conclusions:

1. Being forced to leaning sideways (and centering TrackIR when leaning left is absolutely identical in what TrackIR mechanics concerns) is penalizing as unlike with TrackIR center being ON gunsight you will be offset from the trackIR curve center whether you lean to the right or with centering TrackIR on a left side position). This will result in following effect: your head position with respect to TrackIR curve center being displaced your most tiny movements during aiming will result im much bigger virtual head movements adding up to the already existing head shake. You would have to edit your trackIr curves considerabley making it almost insensitive for small to medium headmovements. I consider this a considerable drawback. And I tried it both ways.

2. It is not realistic as NO German pilot ever leaned sideways. They just leaned forward and fullstop.

You finally may come also to the conclusion that this thing can be improved with very little effort by the developer. Why should we not ask them? It is not asking for something less realistic but in fact for something more realistic and which will be less awkward unlike it is now.

No, sorry mate. :o

This is not more realistic:

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

I understand what you're trying to say, but what you propose is not the best idea I am afraid.

[swiss]

It would look like that either. The circle would be still in the center of the glass plate, the later however would appear in the middle of your vision.

Like this:
http://www.eyetricks.com/athome1.htm

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Mh. I really cannot understand why you argue against it???? :confused:

It would be only visible for those using the gunsight view (shitf+F1) while all others happy with leaning to the right side would just continue leaning to the right side. So you would still be able to play as today while the others who would like to use the gunsight as it was used in real life can use it in a manner how it was used in reality - be it ugly or not. Reality is not defined by its ugliness or beauty nor do movies define what is reality and what is not.

And please don't try to censur people expressing their wishes, ideas and proposition by telling them basically to shut up just because you basically think other stuff is more important (may be only important to some of you). I think the devs know in which order they have to sort out things.

[CaptainDoggles]

I think the devs know in which order they have to sort out things.

I think they do too, which is why I hope we'll see fixes for steam server disconnects, frame rates, graphical bugs, flight models, memory leaks, track recording and some good documentation on FMB scripting before they even consider this minor issue.

[swiss]

Mh. I really cannot understand why you argue against it???? :confused:



Because it's wrong, plain and simple.
The circle will never ever appear outside the combiner.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Now that's another issue. I agree with you that the whole revy would appear pushed to the centre. So what we would need is basically to superimpose somehow the revi on the centre and blurring it almost to full transparency. I guess this could however really be difficult this time to implement as it would change the cockpit model.

I am however not so certain if there still would be not optically occuring a crosshair a bit freely from the glass (physically not but how the brain composes it to a picture) knowing that the crosshair is not engraved in the glass but a reflexion. To the brain the crosshair is far away and not a few centimetres away.

[VO101_Tom]

On the occasion of reading the posts in this thread concerning a player's video:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19455&page=137

I rethought the whole gunsight issue with the 109.

I watched MrX video and tried to use the implemented gunsight as he does. He seems to use it quite effectively. ...

I'm more interested in how he solved that not shaking the aircraft when the 20mm machine gun shoot. If he is removed the shaking, what else could it be changed? I asked him, but did not answer. So I ask you (or anyone else), what do you think about this? If he is not picking the files, then the difference may be due to the Russian version of CloD...? Who here still uses that version?

[TheGrunch]

Because it's wrong, plain and simple.
The circle will never ever appear outside the combiner.
I agree with swiss in terms of the actual truth of the matter, but I still feel Lixma's solution is the least horrendous-looking compromise toward binocular realism.

[swiss]

Just make sure the combiner stays right off center, with a whole circle visible - and your set.
Now the thing I wonder is: That would mean the current wide view is one eyed(right one closed) and the gun view, well uh, with both?

Ok, what made oleg decide for this weird option? There must be a reason.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I am pretty sure that actually the pilot when aiming saw the circle in the centre. Imagine if he really had to lean sideways to to see the full circle. This basically is equivalent to have an aim that is offset by the amount by which the revi is offset from the centre. Consequence: Your convergence point would be hence offset too in the lateral direction in order to meet where the sight indicates it would meet.

Even if this offset may be small it would be awkward and I find it hard to believe that one would like his convergence point out of the symmetrical plane.

(the situation is a bit different for the colimateur sights of first world war fighters where they had to lean to the side at some point. This however never prevented the convergence set to the centre and one's aim was just by aiming through one gun the other following accordingly. This is thanks to the way a classical colimateur sight works. This is not the way a reflector sight works.)

What made Oleg and his team to do it this way and not another? Probably because of the same reason why in old IL2 in particular and occasional in CoD some things are not there or do not work as they should: By lack of information of how this works. Just see how much discussion is going on on this subject. And some stuff may seem odd at the first glance and be dismissed immediately just because of this.

I understand that introducing binocular view in a monocular world is a challenge but I think a solution can be found. I believe in the creativity of the dev team.

Yes, swiss, the current view is in wide field like looking with both eyes at the centre of the windscreen while leaning back. The gunsight view is like leaning to the right side and forward in order to stare with both eyes through the gunsight. I have difficulties to imagine that pilots did that in a dogfight.

[swiss]

I am pretty sure that actually the pilot when aiming saw the circle in the centre. Imagine if he really had to lean sideways to to see the full circle. This basically is equivalent to have an aim that is offset by the amount by which the revi is offset from the centre. Consequence: Your convergence point would be hence offset too in the lateral direction in order to meet where the sight indicates it would meet.


No, sir

German:
Das Reflexvisier ist ein optisches Visiergerät für starr in Flugzeuge eingebaute MG's, kann aber auch auf einem fest mit dem beweglichen MG verbundenen Aufsatz eingesetzt werden. Das Bild der Zielmarke wird durch ein Projektionssystem in der Zielebene abgebildet und wir somit gleichzeitig mit dem Ziel ohne Akkomodation scharf gesehen; kleine Bewegungen des Auges stören nicht, solange das Auge in dem die Zielmarke abbildenden Strahlenbündel sich befindet. Die Zielmarke selbst ist leuchtend; die Helligkeit kann der des Zieles angepasst werden. Die Lage und der Bildwinkel der aus einem leuchtenden Kreis mit eingesetzten Zielstacheln bestehenden Zielmarke sind unabhängig von dem Augenort: seitliche Verschiebungen des Auges oder eine zu große Entfernung vom Zielgerät bewirken lediglich ein abschneiden des Kreises, der die Größe der Vorhaltung angibt.
http://www.luftarchiv.de/index.htm?/bordgerate/optisch.htm

Reminder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXsVg8F91t8


Edit: And yes, the "Visierlinie was off center, at least; is - in this .pdf of the C3 I have.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I do understand how a revi works. But I think you did not understand what I was trying to say.

If the revi as seen by the pilot when aiming would be offset - that's what you suggest - the gun convergence would need to be offset too. All that I have seen in terms of how gun convergence was set for the 109 suggest that the gun convergence was on the centre line and not offset. This is a strong indication that for the pilot the revi sight was in the centre and not offset.

Please see here:

http://iaro.3dmax.hu/images/2011/11/07/bf109e1e3starreschusswa.jpg

http://iaro.3dmax.hu/images/2011/11/07/anschiesscheibe.jpg

(link to the post indicating the source of these two images: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=359128&postcount=12 )

The gun pattern is absolutely symmetrical to the central symmetrical plane of the 109. I do not see one sensible reason why one should have an aim that is deviated from the point where the highest effectivity is obtained (at the point where the bullets converge). This would defy any logic.

Conclusion: The pilot aimed with a circle in the centre (where the bullets would meet).

EDIT: The triangle for Revi in the second image is just a measurement reference. It does say nothing of how the pilot perceived it.

[swiss]

You can't really tell from the pic.

But basically you got two options:

A) Keep the line-of-sight parallel to axis of symmetry , you'll end up with an error but at least it stays the same over all distances.

B) they intersect at a given distance: Deviation decreases to the point of intersection(?), from there on increases again, plus it shifts to the other side.

I would say B is worse.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

So why did they not have option C: put the revi in the centre line? It disturbed neither the Spit, the Hurri or the Stuka pilot to have the revi in the centre. Why satisfy with a second best solution (assuming that the circle as seen by the pilot was offset)?

For me the answer is clear: because there was no need for option A, B or C as the pilot saw it in the centre and therefore where the most appropriate gun convergence was.

[swiss]

If that was such super solution, why are all the huds mounted in the center nowadays?

Fear of patent lawsuit? ;)


edit
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2573
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=26241.0
?

[TomcatViP]

A wild guess : they were concerned with glass front panel drag. They were looking on a way to minimize its size. By relocating the visor close to where it was needed (the leading pilot eye) they could reduce the size of the visor hence the size of the front glass panel.

Moreover, the right handed pilot could use his shoulder blocked on the cockpit wall to maintain his head position during a dogfight. Relocating the visor on one side would hence become natural in a cramped cockpit.

[robtek]

A wild guess : they were concerned with glass front panel drag. They were looking on a way to minimize its size. By relocating the visor close to where it was needed (the leading pilot eye) they could reduce the size of the visor hence the size of the front glass panel.

Moreover, the right handed pilot could use his shoulder blocked on the cockpit wall to maintain his head position during a dogfight. Relocating the visor on one side would hence become natural in a cramped cockpit.

That would also be a strong point for favoring cramped cockpits, always being able to stabilize your body during hard maneuvring.

And afaik the revi was offset to give as much unobstructed view as possible.

[fiendlittlewing]

The TIR and the German sight force one to have posture discipline. I find it an enjoyable challenge.

I agree that gunsight view is crap; I don't use it. Improvement could be made either by causing the gunsight view transition to be nearly instant, or by ditching the animation and keeping TIR functional during the transition. I would prefer the later option.

I don't know if I'd use the gunsight view even if it were improved. I prefer to lean forward. Even if I must also lean to the side a little. I would also point out that the revi pipper is a fairly predictable geometric shape. You only need to observe small parts of it to get a sense of where to aim. During deflection shooting the gun-sight is a mere suggestion anyway.

My motto is 'fly hard; shoot easy'.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Quite frankly there are many many more things in the sim that I'd like to see fixed before anyone begins fiddling with the revi.

If you take the time to get used to fighting with TIR in the 109 you get used to it. I personally don't have any trouble using it in a dogfight. Line your head up with the sight as you're maneuvering for the shot. If you wait until the last possible second then obviously it won't work well..

I agree.

[trumps]

I am totally happy with the way the sight operates as is, it is easy enough to Center your view to the sight if that is how you fly, or lean to it, what ever.
Many more important issues to deal to still.

Craig

[TomcatViP]

For us that stick to POV (you know that ugly button on top of your stick) it's really difficult.

I can't mix large FoV view with gunsight and leaning frwd take time (no prob for me) but make contact to be lost. Highly frustrating
.
When we had all the dynamic head mvmt activated that was not such a prob.

[CaptainDoggles]

For us that stick to POV (you know that ugly button on top of your stick) it's really difficult.

I can't mix large FoV view with gunsight and leaning frwd take time (no prob for me) but make contact to be lost. Highly frustrating
.
When we had all the dynamic head mvmt activated that was not such a prob.

Mr.X seems to have no trouble at all using the POV Hat switch. Check out his videos; he uses the snap view and is a way better shot than I am.

[Ataros]

I do understand how a revi works. But I think you did not understand what I was trying to say.

If the revi as seen by the pilot when aiming would be offset - that's what you suggest - the gun convergence would need to be offset too. All that I have seen in terms of how gun convergence was set for the 109 suggest that the gun convergence was on the centre line and not offset. This is a strong indication that for the pilot the revi sight was in the centre and not offset.

Please see here:

http://iaro.3dmax.hu/images/2011/11/07/bf109e1e3starreschusswa.jpg

Does anyone have a similar chart for Spitfire or Hurri by chance?