Looks fantastic!

But major factual errors(!!):
1. Nose gunner never sat like that. I have never seen a seat mounted there, plus physically there is no space to put the feet like that!

2. The Top Gunner, gun is not fixed on the bar but pivots on it, so it would be loose and point straight up (due to weight of back end).
*if* the bar position was to rear, then the barrel would be pushed aft by the wind.

3. The DG radio antenna, the reddish object just in front of top gunner, is completely wrong shape.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...8&d=1283522637

Just to clarify, I'm taking a measurement of each head, and comparing it between two arbitrary points on the plane. Yellow and orange lines are to show what I am measuring from to show there are no tricks. I am not trying to show a comparison between yellow lines on the same plane.

I think it should be obvious no matter what I draw, that the pilot is perfectly scaled, and his proportions are correct.

You should have done it like this. make your own mind up.

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...canecomp-1.jpg

That's a Spitfire by the way. Our references regard the Hurricane.

There is no doubt that the pilot figure is perfectly proportioned. That doesn't mean his head can't be too small in comparison to specific items on a Hurricane.

Imagine I took a full body picture of you in order to create a pilot figure. But once we create the model there's a problem....you're over 6ft and we want to create a smaller pilot that will cause fewer clipping problems when moving in the cockpit. Now instead of shortening your legs a bit and maybe squeezing your shoulders in a touch (leaving your head the same size) say we choose to shrink the entire model by 15%....

Hey, we still have a perfectly proportioned pilot model BUT everything including the head is now 15% smaller than it was. Now, when the head is compared to a Hurricane canopy panel it appears smaller than it should be because the head IS 15% smaller than the average adult head (assuming your head is normal that is).

Hope that makes sense!

I'm not saying this is what happened but it's a possibility.
We still need a clear unobstructed side-on shot without helmet to be sure though.

Oleg said that this was not the case and that the pilot figures are exactly 175 cm. That's close to 5'9''. There were NO reductions in scale.

You will notice I posted a pic of a spitfire, and the video of a spitfire. I shifted gears, but I'm still comparing apples to apples and pears to pears.

@ winny - I have, thanks. BTW, you should not have clipped the top of the SOW head by 3 inches while not doing the same for our other pilot.

This is a little more appropriate:

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...canecomp-1.jpg

http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/213330-1/Finnish++Hurricane

woohoo!

Keeps looking better and better :)

I wonder how much they are sandbagging us :D

Keep up the great work Oleg and Team!

Cheers!

Guys, look at the pictures posted by Sutts. Specifically the third picture, which is a SoW screenshot from a previous update. In that one it seems pretty accurate.

I find it hard to believe that pilot models are out of scale when

a) they appear correct in bombers and

b) they appear correct in hurricanes as well, when viewed from different cameras/FOV settings/angles.

I mean, what could possibly have happened? Are they growing and shrinking randomly in mid-flight?

Scale is always an issue in games with a 3d/action component, from FPS to simulators, but let's keep it in perspective too (no pun intended). The only way that the same pilots would appear different in different aircraft and from different viewpoints is if, well, they weren't really the same...say that the development team was playing a prank on everyone and using different sizes in each update to troll people...which i wouldn't blame them one bit if they did, now that i think of it. :-P

Is this the new "cockpit bar in the FW190" argument or the new ".50cals are porked" argument? :)

lmao!