Thanks for that Link.

It would be interesting to know if that pilot has the release mechanism 'released' as he seems to have an impressive amount of head movement. It does seem he has he seat raised quite a lot.

I can well remember the feeling of being strapped into chipmunk cockpits when I was a lad. You felt bolted to the hard flat back of the seat and you can only move your shoulders a very small amount. I recently sat in the cockpit of a replica of the prototype Spitfire (flat canopy) and although not strapped in I set myself up hard against the seat back and only moved my head. I could see more behind than you might think and more than in IL-2 Vanilla as there is a certain amount of lateral movement in the neck, not just rotational movement and tilting the head down a little gives a little more rearward view.

Here is an extract from a book about the Spitfire by Alfred Price and contains extracts from a 1943 report of a trial of a Spitfire VIII fitted with a tear drop canopy. The report also included a comparison between the modified Mk VIII and a Tempest fitted with a tear drop canopy. Regarding the rearward view from the Spitfire the report states "This is an enormous improvement over the standard Spitfire rear view. The pilot can see quite easily round to his fin and past it, almost to the further edge of the tailplane, ie if he looks over his left shoulder he can practically see to the starboard tip of the tail. By banking slightly during weaving action, the downward view to the rear is opened up well." The report also states "The Tempest hood is ballooned and this gives much better rear vision than the narrow hood on the [modified] Spitfire. There is considerably more head freedom in the Tempest, whereas in the Spitfire the pilot has to hold his chin well in when turning round to look behind, to avoid catching his oxygen maskon the side of the hood. The Tempest armour plate is further away from the pilot's head than in the Spitfire, but is a slightly better shape as it goes as high as possible. "

I think that also makes it clear that the Tempest rear plate obscures far too much of the rear view in IL-2 and it shouldn't be necessary to loosen the Sutton harness to get a good rear view.

The Tempest's rear armor plate model was checked by us and it appeared, that it is very much like the original was. Its one of the best cockpit models in game - not only because of the eye candy. There will NO rework of this model.

But maybe PoV, which is quite close to the plate.

The cockpit is just fine, in fact its great, its only the rear view I have an issue with (well, apart from the lack of the later engine). See the attached photos (Tempest and very similar late Typhoon). The backplate is barely wider than the human head but in IL-2 it is beyond shoulder width.

You could move it further away in the model but if you only move the eyepoint in the existing model won't you just push our faces closer to the gunsight in forward view?

And how did your measure this? The plate has just the correct size, thats our conclusion. Yes, the PoV would move to the front.

Because the board had a guard's head and shoulders, and not obstruct the view.Its logical!For what Tempest or P-47 has drip shield cockpit?For worst visibility or for beter?
I read this forum, rarely write something here and I can not believe how hard UP and Oleg's team assimilation logical arguments.Shame

http://www.hawkertempest.se/WOAnthonyBailey.htm

http://www.hawkertempest.se/JoeKenda...pestphotos.htm

http://www.hawkertempest.se/res/Misc...gs/cutaway.gif

http://www.hawkertempest.se/Cockpit.htm

By the simplest means possible. I turn my head and I see that far too much of the rear view is obstructed.

I don't know if the 3D model is accurate and the armour plate to scale compared with the rest of the cockpit or the real aircraft. I don't know if the eyepoint is correct. I don't really care because I understand that you are trying to best represent/compensate for a 6 DOF rear view on essentially a 2D screen. What I am saying is that the result is wrong. The armour plate appears to be too wide. It was essentially narrower than its height and not roughly equal in height and width as it appears to be in the current rear view.

Like Kubisko and other past posters I don't understand why you are having such a hard time accepting this.

TD has added a variety of new aircraft or variants but seem extremely reluctant to improve the rear view of one of the most important RAF aircraft or are at least reluctant to do more than consider "But maybe PoV" which if I understand you correctly will change the forward view. It seems to me that to move the eyepoint forward enough to make a more realistic rear view it would put the forward view eyepoint far too close to the panel/gunsight but only TD will know that when/if they try.

Moving the PoV forward would have a similar impact on rear visibility that shrinking the backplate would, while negating the need to alter the cockpit away from its historical proportions (which are already represented in the current cockpit). The pilot's head is currently pressed up against the backplate and so visibility to the rear is compromised (and the backplate will seem very large to the pilot as a result). It seems to to me that Caspar is indicating that DT will address the Tempest rear-visibility issue in a future patch but that they will address it using PoV rather than adjusting the cockpit model. I wouldn't be too worried about the forward view in the Tempest (it should remain excellent) and you'd be surprised how little you need to move the PoV to make a meaningful difference WRT the backplate.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

1) You can´t feel the Gs

2) You can´t feel the aceleration

3) You can´t feel the rudder- turning right or Left

4)You can´t feel nothing

The eyes are blind , Only see in resolution 1900x1200?? -
compared with the reality is , very poor.

You only can have 6DOF vs all things have a real pilot!!



Cliffs of Dover Have 6DOF,
See videos. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:P

Guys... do you really expect us to change a cockpit part to a wrong size/proportion by will? Never!

Oh I have seen the result of the guy, who thought, that was a good idea... disgusting!

Here... this is the best grafic... made by someone else, that I found, so I don't have to do an own... compare for yourself:

http://www.preservingfidelitysquad.n...orPlate-01.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...eviously-X.jpg(Typhoon, but should be the same)
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Hi...st-Cockpit.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1.../Tempest-1.jpg



The reason for the bad view in game is the problem, that is this thread about: the ugly fixed PoV. You demand (sorry I understand it that way) from us, that we should change the model instead of looking for a good solution? I really cannot go with that foulty solution. What about all other planes? Each one of them is suffering from fixed PoV! Thats a fact!

Did you fly Mc.200/202/205 series lately? Checked PoV? It had been changed with 4.10. Moved forward for 202 and much more for 205 (making them all equally). The rear view was very worse before, now its ok (still a penalty without 6DoF). Or what about Ki-43 I ? No problem with that one? Moving the PoV is the only thing we can consider as an approach to make the resampling better to the real thing, but changing the model... no.

Maybe time for major changes and not deal with "bullshit".May is time to consider the more realistic DM(hispano,browning) is too weak,instead of doing more and more bombs are not known to have been used.
You are dealing with this and in your hands is a refreshing this not very popular old game.
I have a hunch that clifs of dover will have not more to offer than il2 1946 for long time.Show what U got.

I believe in you