try it yourself, Lixma.

Go to a mirror (the reflector glas is nothing different that a transparent mirror) and see if you can see anything from behind you at the side of the mirror. I guess you won't see anything exept the wall to which the mirror is attached.

we understand what you're trying to say Stormcrow, but the old "arcade machine" type reflection system has the source a lot closer than the bathroom wall.

Actually, while were redesigning the revi can we have a spitfire painted on it as well? Will save me having to do all that take off/landing and flying bs :rolleyes:

That still cannot defy physical laws. The distance between the light source and the reflecting surface is irrelevant to optical law. Only the angles count. See my previous post one page before.

When I first got track IR I imaged I would be able to see better. Yes of course I could see better. I could effortlessly and naturally lean just a little to the right to look through the Revi as I line up a shot.

But the thing which I didn't expect from Track IR is the feeling of flying. When you do a loop you lean back and look up and over as you pull through ... If you are flying full throttle at tree top level at 60 degree bank you lean with the turn to stay upright and it FEELS like you are turning. :cool:

I think you can turn any web cam into facetrack for free. Try it

With track IR the revi is perfect on the right side out of the way until i need it.

One of the things they used to say to the new pilots is keep your head on a swivel.

http://img861.imageshack.us/i/revi.jpg/

source distance to reflector makes a big difference, Stormcrow. You only get the big shift when the source is a big distance away


http://www.spitfirespares.com/spitfi.../gunsites.html

Gun Cam Harmoniser (Pg 1 Gun)... illustrates my point

its about 1/5 the way down the page

First you won't need a big shift in the 109. And I would also say that the required shift is by far less than in the image you're pointing me to. IF distance of the light source is significant at all which I still doubt. The limiting factor is the size of the reflector glas, not the distance. The distance only plays a role because of optical size reduction with increased distance. But this factor is irrelevant for a particularly designed light image projected actively at a certain angle on the reflector surface.

EDIT: Also reflector surface sideway inclination plays a role (see last picture in my post)

I liked the revi behaviour in the old sturmo adn get used to it. It was good to have the same FoW with Shfit+1. A track IR device costs 1/4 of my earnings in a month, so i'm a bit sad about this also :(

you'll have to take that up with the real world image, Stormcrow

the critical distance is if the left edge of the reflector glass is central to the position of the human nose & the nose of the aircraft, if it is then is the distance from the left edge of the reflector glass to the centre of the reflector glass the same distance as the human anatomy from the centre of the human nose to the centre of the right eye.

if yes to all the above then the right eye is in perfect line with the centre of the reflector glass thus reflector light and the brain will naturally merge the left/right eye image in the same manner to if you were to use a marker pen on a bit of clear glass to mark a X and with both eyes open were to position it in line close the right eye, however with respect to the gun sight and the above there needs to be a narrow angle of view for the “reflective recticel” so it cannot be seen at all by the left eye when the right eye is positioned correctly.

Can you make a drawing? I really don't get what you try to explain, b101.

Two images I found on the net.

Here a cockpit image of a 109E
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/Flu...E_bestfoto.jpg

Note that the left edge of the reflector sight is on or at least very very close to the centre of the cockpit. Also note that the reflector glas is quite big.

Now here an image of a pilot sitting in a 109. Please note that he sits a bit leaned to his left side but it gives a good impression about where his eyes would be if he sat central:
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/dow...09G/Me109G.jpg

I think the paralaxis is so small that my guess is that he wouldnt have had to lean sideways for aiming.

Thankyou!

My reply to you earlier confirmed the positions and measurements regarding the reflector glass and gave some (rough) numbers.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...6&postcount=97

So yes they had to lean to use the sight.

/Thread Cheers.

If you want Krupi you can lean all the way from Norway to Australia as long as we get a decent sight shift.

Just bind it to some joystick button instead of shift+f1= problem solved!

WOW the sights the same as it is in il2, why don't you moan at them to change that too.

Actually I do just want my view centred on sight on button push back as it was in IL2. You would still be able to lean if you want. I don't see why you oppose to this. It won't prevent you from what you want to.

You can't set up a button for the sight in CoD?

Yes you can, just press middle mouse and right mouse and its done :)

Buts thats apparently too much effort :rolleyes:

In CoD's un-shifted view the left-edge of the reflector glass is just millimetres from the centre of the screen.

We are flying with a Cyclops as a pilot. That's why we need this leaning over/Shift-F1 nonsense. None of which is realistic.

If CoD wants to simulate a real pilot with realistic binocular vision then we should get a reticle that was fully visible and appears to float 'outside' of the reflector glass.

Like so....

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

Uhm, not that I know of. Not identically to IL2. But if you can show me you'll be welcome. But don't talk about the COD default shift+f1 as it is something completely different from old IL2.

@Krupi: guess what, I tried this indeed yesterday, shifting with mouse to set the view. When I go back to trackir I am automatically shifted back to centre cockpit view. It simply does NOT work. So this advice is useless.

Lixma, please go physics and explain it in an understandable way why it should be so. I still don't get it why out of miracle the opposing half of the circle should appear in the middle of nowhere.

Why is that different? When I want to line up behind the sight in IL2 I hit shift/F1. How is it different now?

OK, so it's a TrackIR issue. Is that different from how TrackIR worked in IL2?

Find some clear safety glasses with individual lenses, get a fine tip marker pen and put a small fine cross on the RH lenses about the same diameter in total as 1p coin in line with ware your right eye would be centred, put on the clear safety glasses with the fine cross marked on the RH lenses and tell us what you see - a combined image by your brain.

It is the same “optical brain trick” used by NV/targeting monocles etc used by pilots of e.g. AH-64 or I use to use when I did a lot of shooting with both iron and telescopic sights (you get use to seeing a merged image with the black haze of the outside of the telescopic sights with the left eye which you don’t get with a monocle etc)

I had an Apache HMS post lined up ready to go.

:grin:

Do you ACTUALLY play Cod and try the shift+f1 in both games? Well, obviously not. If you had you would know that in Cod when pressing shift+f1 I can NOT turn my head around and track an enemy. In Il2 I could track an enemy when pressing shift+f1. Go try it yourself.

It's just not that big a deal if some want an easier aiming system. Think about it, Germany was and are brilliant at designing machinery. If the sight wasn't effective and easy to use why would they stick with it. Men did in fact modify their machines in the field. If the British sight as better why not use a captured sight or just move their own?

I don't have the game yet. That's why I'm asking you all these questions. So, the problem is not the location of the sight, the problem is that you can't turn your head when you're in Shift/F1 mode, right?

were the gunsights made by Zeiss?

if so the photography methodology was used... keep both eyes open looking through the view finder

The most German gunsights were made by Revi. The one in Bf 109's are Revis too.

If you are using Track IR then yes it jumps back.

To center the sight with track ir just lean to the left and center track ir. This way when you stop leaning you will be positioned behind the sights. :)

Not that this helps, but it's pretty neat don't you think?
http://youtu.be/Blem3FlkaMc

Okay try this....

Here's an Apache driver's Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS). It projects the HUD and other stuff into one eye only.

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9...metanddisp.jpg

And yet the Apache drivers have two eyes...binocular vision.

So what does the Apache pilot see when he's flying around?

Is it this....?

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6999/heli2y.jpg

Or is it this.....?

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/7717/helic.jpg


And so with the Revi.

The Revi is installed on the 109 to project its reticle onto one eye only (the right one in our case).

And yet Luftwaffe pilots has two eyes....binocular vision.

So what would our Luftwaffe pilot have seen while flying around?

Something like this...?

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/8366/cyclops.jpg


Or this.....?

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

Well all that need to be established is the width of the reflector glass (thus its centre) (which is suspect is wider than >3” (>75mm) ) and the aperture thus FOV of the rectical which will denote if a pilot could use his brain to merge the 2 images (left eye cannot see the rectical when the right can) or if he was required to lean a little &/or close one eye etc.

I could be wrong but revi is a shortened reflex vision? (whatever that was in german)


*Edit...

Reflexvisier

Why isn't this post getting more love? The 109 gunsight lined up with the gunners right eye and stereoscopic sight compensated for the rest. This really is what a 109 gun sight should display if this SIMULATION is SIMULATING a pilot with TWO EYES.

The fact is, no matter how realistic a sim is, it must compensate at least just a bit for the fact that this simulation is being displayed on a two dimensional display (don't get me started on 3D displays that only use one of the ten visual cues to simulate human stereoscopic vision) with image resolution that falls far below the image quality of the average human with two eyes.

The fact is that a human being with eyesight comparable to viewing the world through the best computer display available on the market wouldn't have the vision requirements to be a combat pilot in WWII seems to be a fact that a lot of people here seem to ignore.

Well said Evil Joven

Comparing a ww2 gunsight to that of a modern helicopter whose operator has to be trained to use the sight like you are showing it very clever!!! :rolleyes:

It is, because the concept behind both gun sights is nearly identical; the sight is only viewable by one eye and yet, due to the the way the human brain processes stereoscopic vision the image will appear to be displayed in front of both eyes as long as both are open.

besides that, stereoscopic vision is very poor in a night vision device.

:grin:

I think this post should win.

Correct. REVI is Reflexvisier and the EZ/REVI (gyro sights) were Einheitszielvorrichtung Reflexvisier. Askania was probably the main producer, although Zeiss was made quite a few also.

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

This is not possible, even with two eyes.
Reading this thread (and this forum, and others) makes me think about that guy that was hypnotized to think Porche 911 was faster than any other car (Top gear), you guys are hilarious :lol:

Would be better to just make it possible to save a default view for each plane, userfriendly is a key here.
And Shift F1, loosening the straps should not restrict view at all, not realistic.

I would even like it to be possible to save config on each plane.
Using a throttle quadrant, and have to reprogram axis from water to oil radiators each time when changing between some planes is very unpractical

You heard it here first.

Stereoscopic vision is impossible. Even with two eyes.

Lixma, mh. Perhaps we're talking about two slightly different things. I do understand that even if only one eye sees an image the other is made to believe that it also sees this image. This I can understand. Provided they see the SAME image.

What I find hard to believe is that according to your images the brain is capable to add stuff. In the case of the 109 it would be the other half of the circle, something the right eye would not see as it only sees the left half of the circle.
Also the Apache Hud view is strange. As depicted the brain is obviously capable to make the eye without hud see the numbers whereas the eye with the visor doesn't.

because the reflector glass is wider than 3" (~75mm) thus its centre is >1.5" (>37.5mm) from its left edge.

the reflector glass is ~25% of the front window width and how wide is a human body with arms that need to move relative to the canopy A pillars vs. canopy B pillars vs. the inner walls of the cockpit.

http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Bf-109E/M...Cockpit-01.jpg

If the reflector glass is 3" (~75mm) wide how wide dose that make the cockpit for a human to sit in!

Stereoscopic vision don't put something inside the sight, to the front window, unless you have your left eye to right of your right eye?

I agree with your post, but you have left out a very important aspect in your 109 illustration, in order to actually 'see' the whole circle, you'd have to move your head a lot closer to the revi (so the right eye actually see the whole circle), in other words, you'd have to use Shift-F1 again.

Stereoscopic vision only applies to things in close range. That's why when you look into the vista of Grand Canyon, the whole view looks so flat and picture like.

Notice also how close the HMD is to the pilot's head.

Someone needs to go back time and tell the Luftwaffe that their sighting system is flawed! They need to know this! Also I'm going to send an email to the department of defense to let them know that their Apache pilots are using a useless aiming device.

Yes + when pressing ctrlF1 in CoD it zooms in per default (cannot be changed afaik) so the view is the same as using maximum zoom (or close to it) when u aiming for a target in IL2.

So u first press ctrl F1 and it lean right/zooms in, then u zoom in even more with the normal fov button.

In CoD u cannot be combat redy with ctrl F1 eneabled since u see squat whats happening around u. Its also a "animation" that takes a couple of seconds to kick in.

Here's a dude sitting in his cocpkpit with the gunsight clearly covering his right eye. Because he's leaning a bit to the right his right eye is actually right of center of the sight, if he wasn't, it'd be right in the middle.

http://i.imgur.com/v17Ap.jpg

what he meant was "binocular vision". The brain doesn't magically create the l/h half of the reticule, but it does do the (Apache pilot vision) overlay thing quite effectively, same with photography.

the same lack of which made great brouhaha over "the bar"

The left eye doesn't have to see any image at all. It could be closed for all we care.

It's the brain combining two separate images (left eye with no reticle plus the right eye with a fully formed reticle) into one coherent image.

Nothing is being added.

In real life (not in-game) the pilot will have a fully formed image of a reticle projected to his right eye. The left eye does not receive any such image. But the brain combines both streams of data from each eye into one visual image.

Please remember the view in CoD as it stands is that of a Virtual Cyclops. Just one eye, straight down the centre-line of the aircraft. This is why in CoD's standard view the reticle is only partly visible....because the Revi and its offset installation was designed for a pilot with two eyes.

Ok, I see the Apache pilots stole vision sights from the Lufwaffles?
And Luftwaffles used one on each eye, thats what your telling me?

OK It sounds like the sight view is not nearly as easy to use as before. I have seen people stick their head out the side of the cockpit. Can you shift your head over to look through the sight?

click mouse scroll wheel (? or one of the buttons) and shift right

winner the reason he see the sight like that is because its shoved directly into his eight eye. They need training to be able to focus each eye separately on a apache.

You cannot use the apache as an example.

Many posts since your response.

Well, I've been using 6DOF with Il2 Mods off and on for a few years, and this isn't a huge departure from that - as far as functionality goes.

I have to admit, I do not like the new Shift-F1 a great deal. All I'm doing is leaning over a little bit and moving up in the gunsight - this should not limit my head traverse.

I think a better solution for me is to map TrackIR pause key to my controls, and just Pause the TrackIR when I've centered the gunsight in normal view.

While I'm on the point of views - I've been focusing the last few days on bombers and turrets. I do not like the traverse limits of view within those turrets. Your view is quite constrained. Look, if I'm going to be stuck in a small bomber turret - at least let me look around!

Back to the 109, I like the offset - In fact I like it better than having the RAF/US setup with this great big gunsight in the middle of my view. I only shoot a small fraction of the time I'm flying, the rest of the time I like the fact that the sight is out of the center of my view.

Just my 2 cents.

S!

Gunny

I thought that was the main point of the offset, the spits and hurris have a very dirty looking gunsight that spoils the forward view.

This might help some...(hope springs eternal)

Here's a BF109 pilot's perspective.

Right eye open, left eye shut....

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/3368/rightbz.jpg

Left eye open, right eye shut....

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/8409/lefty.jpg

And here is what a pilot with two eyes open would see....

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

And here we have the current set up in CoD. It also happens to faithfully, realistically, recreate what a Cyclops would see were he ever to fly for the Luftwaffe.

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/3412/cyclopsj.jpg

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6605/gallandlops.jpg

No that is not what he would see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflex_sight

OK, what would he see?

We should remember wile most people brain can superimpose 2 slightly different images given they have 2 eyes and do it ALL the time :rolleyes:, some people have different eye dominance so would not be able to process info from a RH sight without training unless they used the left eye instead for the sight (regardless of if they are left or right handed) ;)

Likewise not everyone (fewer people) in all would be able to use a magnified image in one eye and normal focuses in the other eye, thats why fewer people have both eyes open with telescopic sights than with reflex sights. ;)

Remember the brain is a powerful with respect to image processing, given that what out eye see’s and feeds to the brain is upside-down and the brain flips it the right way up and that the brain if we were to ware some special glasses that flipped the image upside-down after a few weeks to a couple of months the brain would flip the image so we would the correct way up agene as experiments have shown.

I WILL SMASH YOUR FACE INTO A JELLY!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBzxfR6VF80

So which is more real then ?

The perception of reality is so subjective.

I think it's a viable alternative, and should be an option for those that wish to simulate real life

As a pilot that flies with HUD every once in awhile, no, that's not what you would see. If I adjust the HUD so only half of it is visible in my right eye, I don't magically see the reverse of that half mirrored on the left. I only see the half, unless I adjust it back to center. HUD, and reflector sights are pretty much the same thing, it's just that the HUD shows information from a processor, instead of only an image of a gunsight. The way it's modeled now is correct.

Oh, this is very possible. Just ingest copious amounts of hallucinogens prior to climbing into your plane!

In real life the 109 pilots (and FW-190) did not have to lean over to the right to see the reticle clearly. The cockpits were cramped enough as it was. If the pilots really did have to lean over to the right just to get a clear image it's surprising that no bright soul ever thought to mount the gunsight centrally rather than offset to the right.

In CoD we have a beautifully modelled cockpit. However we are handicapped with a Cyclopean view of it due to the nature and limitations of a 2D display. And, so, work-arounds such as Shift F-1 or using Track-IR to lean over are necessary.

Unfortunately these work-arounds are being mistaken for reality. The reasons given range from "Go play Hawx noob" to "I've gotten used to it, it's easy with practice".....none of which have any connection with simulation as far as I can tell.

Then don't adjust the HUD so only half of it is visible in your right eye.

The offset Revi sight in the 109 projects a full image onto the right eye, not half.

Yeah that's the point missing here, you would have to be able to adjust your HUD so that ALL of it is visible in your right eye, and NONE of it is visible in your left eye.

Then your brain magically blends both images together.

[edit] damn beat me to it lixma, kudos for your indefatigable patience![/edit]

Correct, if the pilot leans a bit to the right! ie loosen straps. Back to where we started.

I now understand what Lixma continually explains.

I just come to thinking that both the cockpit of the 109 and the 190 was sooo small that the final paralaxis was insufficient to make the pilot lean to the side in order to align to the sight.

See real historic picture of the 190, the revi's left edge as seen by the pilot is cockpit centred:
http://i.imgur.com/v17Ap.jpg

The Focke pilot actually sits quite centred while his right eye is spot on on the revi sight. The left edge of the reflector glass is centred as is the pilot's nose which is pressumably in the middle between both eyes. My guess is that the pilot sees the full image of the aim circle as much as I see my hand when I hold it in front of the right half of my face. And I still can regognize it as a hand but the image is that it is superimposed with the background like putting to photo slides together. You can easily try this yourself without any particular equipment.

It is a bit difficult as both eyes will focus at two different distances that is a bit strenuous when you hold your hand that way. However this problem is inexistent for the revi sight as the aim circle was projected as if in far away distance is I understand correctly, so no focus problem.

I don't know where people get from that you lean to the sides. You move your head slightly over, which this picture clearly shows. Are you all wearing neck-supports or something?

Nope.

The gunsights were installed directly in the right eye's line of sight. And further adjusted to suit the individual pilots.

The analogy may not be perfect (else it wouldn't be an analogy :)) but the concept is the same.

:rolleyes: lol

HUD are for looking threw with both eyes thus however you adjust the HUD the left eye can always see what’s on the right side hence it wont work, if the gun sight has a significantly narrow FOV for the reflected recticle so the right eye is centred over the reflected reticle and at the same the left eye cannot see the reflected recticle on the reflector glass then the effect will work like monocular HMD. ;)

No.......

+1 its the ZOOM that is unrealistic not the position of the revi

That post before with the two images showing the two eyes, open them in two browser windows, put the right eye on the left and the left eye on the right, makes sure the windows are fairly small and you are sitting a little further back from the screen and the go sort of cross eyed (as if looking at something a lot closer) and then you will ACTUALLY see in 3D what the pilot would have seen if his eyes were there.

Result: You have placed the eyes too far apart, but also, you can see the gunsight AND out the front windscreen. It seems you guys are right! It doesn't look like that picture you keep posting though, impossible to simulate 3d on 2d properly...

The 'Right Eye' image is spot on. The fully visible reticle is proof of that. (assuming the dev team have got their measurements correct).

The 'Left Eye' image is a bit of a guess. I had no gauge to measure how far I should shift the view-point to the left with the mouse to accurately recreate what the left eye would, in isolation, see. It doesn't matter so much, though. The picture was illustrative rather than scientific.
That's what I have been attempting to demonstrate (with varying degrees of success :)).

It's not an attempt to simulate 3D.

It's a simulation of how the Revi reticle would appear to a real 109 pilot with both eyes open.

Currently CoD simulates a Cyclops with one eye open, looking bang down the centreline of the aircraft.

Because of this unfortunate but necessary Cyclopean view we have had, for a decade now, a work-around; the Shift-F1 view.

More recently Track-IR has enabled the player to lean to the right and achieve a similar result. Unfortunately people are mistaking this as reality. People really do think Shift-F1 simulates what a 109/190 pilot had to do just to see their gun-sight.

Thanks for being clearer on what you were trying to get across...


some were thinking, if only half the reticule is seen, only half the reticule gets overlayed, hence some of the difficulty you had.


http://www.imfdb.org/w/images/0/01/ReviC12D.jpg

I see what you guys want to see, but you have narrowed it down to only the reticle. If we should have it like a reticle on front screen, it will be similar to holding your finger close to screen and pointing it upwards, you will still be able to read this(not too close), but there also will be two blurry fingers on each side of the words.
And then it would be like everything close to reticle will have to be double and blurry, to be realistic.

The colimated gunsights work just like the modern red dots on rifles.
The sight projects a crosshair in front of the sight and the shooter can scan aim and shoot with both eyes open. You don't have to close one eye or move your head to the side to aim. You look with with both eyes at the target, one eye through the sight, and the brain will automatically create the combined image, with the dot in the midle.
Shooting both eyes open, specially with reflex sights, has some clear advantages, specially in a fluid combat situation, where your periferial vision is very important.
Same in a 109. The pilot didn't zoom in, or moved so much like in the game. The sight was right in front of his eye.

So Lixma is in a way correct. We have two eyes and a brain to combine the two images.
This looks quite good.
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4853/109kb.jpg

Of course our brain is very good at bluring things close to the eye that we don't focus on.
I kind of agree. The Shift+1 image is unnecesary restrictive in CoD.

binocular vision won't work on a monitor though... it will only work in real life

So leaning to the right requires 2-3 seconds of horsing around, and then bolts your head down?

You might want to see a chiropractor, because something is really wrong with your neck.

Now this thread evolved into a real good thing and I learned something. Thanks to Lixma and all the others explaining that thing with a lot of patience. Unlike before I now do think that this image IS what we should have ingame as the best representation of what we have in reality. My guess is also that with headshake the circle will wobble around the position as depicted on the image but stay intact, as long as one eye of the pilot sees the whole circle. We also now should get this kind of behaviour for sideway headshakes in Spits and Hurris as the effect would have been the same (not so though for vertical headshakes whatever plane).

For those not yet convinced: take your hand, hold it up in front of one of your eyes only at a certain distance (10-30cm is a good distance for demonstration) and focus on something in the background but try to mentally concentrate on the hand. You will see a half transparent, a little blurry hand superimposed to the background image you are focussing to. You can try this with other objects, too.

Could we get this to the developers somehow?

So that guys head is in the center is it HAHAHAHAHAHA, open your eyes.

Cant figure out why u are arguing against changing how shift F1 works in CoD.

Something tells me neither do u.

@Krupi:
irrelevant. Dismissed.

I think they should change how Shift F1 works, but i don't think that they should change the position of the sights.

How the hell is that irrelevant?

Note I understand about the ocular vision but it would not look like this. It would only look like that if the pilot had a setup like the one apache pilots use.

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

So your telling me all german pilots were right eye dominant?

Well, there we agree and i think everyone else is to.

Probably the topic headline that messes up things.


Im pretty sure no one wants the sight physically moved to the left, even if, at times, it seems like thats what they are debating.

It works for either eye, left or right, dominant or not

This image is erroneous for the two-eye-open situation, in that the cockpit here is strictly the only-LEFT-eye-open cockpit. Instead, the correct image shoud be a certain superposition of the left-eye cockpit image and the right-eye cockpit image, the two images being transparent to each other.

~~~
All the above discussions (yours and mine) are about the situation where the left eyeball's axis and the right eyeball's axis (by axis I mean the direction an eyeball is pointing at) are parallel; in other words, the pair of eyeballs are looking at a point relatively far away, such as a fighter you are aiming at. If the pilot looks at objects inside the cockpit, the way to take screenshots for the two eyes will be different.

If, for example, the pilot is gazing right at the Revi gunsight with two eyes, the Revi gunsight would be at the centre of both his left eye vision and his right eye vision, but would look slightly different for being looked at from slightly different points of view. The brain then processes these two images to form a binocular 3D vision of the Revi. So the image posted for the left eye (with right eye shut), pasted below, would be wrong if the left eyeball is also looking at--pointing at--the Revi gunsight, because now the Revi should be at the centre of the image.

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/8409/lefty.jpg

Yeah, but as we don't have 3D capable game now we have to make the best approximation to reality as possible with a game that tries to represent a 3D environment with only 2 dimensions available.

And as for the aim circle depiction the best compromise with respect to a 2D world and binocular vision simulation is to show the whole aim point circle wobbling slightly around the centre of the screen as long as the right eye is capable to capt the full circle on the reflector glas with all the headshake. So me thinks Lixma got the point at how it should be presented in the game.

For those that still have aproblem visualizing it, try this.

Set a (D)SLR camera to infinity and look through the viewfinder while keeping both eyes open.
( don't block your other eye with teh camera body LOL)

You'll have steropscopic vision with the viewfinder data superimposed.

Now try to read the numbbers in the viewfinder while keeping track of whats happening in the distance.

That's what requires training, not the actual superimpostioning.

I think you are still mis-understanding the Revi setup in the 109/190.

In a real-life 109 the Revi (a reflex sight) is offset to the right....as accurately depicted in CoD/IL-2 etc...

In real-life the 109 pilot sits looking straight ahead through the windscreen....both eyes open.

The offset Revi is installed this way to project its image into one eye only. The right eye.

The right eye receives a fully formed reticle image (just as the Apache driver gets a fully formed HUD image in his right eye).

The left eye receives no reticle image whatsoever.

The brain combines both eyes viewpoints into one.

Therefore the real life 109 pilot would see a full reticle in front him while sat straight ahead with both eyes open....approximately like the (rough) picture i've been posting.....

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

No.

But the majority of people are right eye dominant, thus the offset of the Revi to the right.

It's actually weirder than that, Zxwings.

The picture you refer to does not show the Left Eye image, but is actually what someone with one eye located in the centre of the head would see! A Cyclops in fact.

The reasons for this are we're trying to represent a 3D stereoscopic reality onto a 2D display screen.

[sarcasm] And I want a Heartbreaker 109 with Megan Fox in it... [/sarcasm]

Seriously, this game is about simulating the Battle of Britain, so there's no need to change the 109's revi to an unrealistical position, just to make it easier to look through it.

Lixma is RIGHT. End of story. This how it would look (and probably should be the normal view in the game). I have done 30 years of shotgun shooting, and ALWAYS shoot both eyes open. I have also done 30 years of hunting with rifles with telescopic sights, but I shoot rifles with both eyes open. I have never closed the left eye to shoot with sights of any kind, open, telescopic, or red dot, or laser. Yes I am right eye dominant, and right handed.