Another victim of Shift-F1 = Reality.

Oh the humanity!!!!1

(Seriously though, Miller. You've read perhaps 5 lines from page one and skipped the rest)

But do you close your sphincter?

Here's a little video on shooting both eyes open and how the brain processes the image....Just like with the Revi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCsktp0pO10

Ah, I see; yes, that cockpit is as seen from the centre of the head. Nonetheless, I think that a 'centred'-eye cockpit with a right-eye reticle is erroneous, because a superposition of the left and the right eye images is what binocular vision sees.

I understand your image is for trying to represent a 3D stereoscopic reality onto a 2D display screen. Yet I think this attempt itself is too much against reality.

A right-eye vision with the left eye shut, when you are using the gunsight, and a centred-eye vision when you are not, are, I believe, still the most realistic.

By that logic then an Apache simulation should not display the HUD on screen.....:)

An Apache pilot receives the HUD image in only one eye....just like the 109 pilot does.

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

And this is what every simulation of an Apache will look like for a few decades more....a fully visible HUD on our 2D displays. A combination of left and right eye information where it really matters.

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

No one would dream of removing the Apache's in-game HUD display!

And yet there is no fundamental difference between simulating on a 2D screen what an Apache pilot would see, and what a 109 pilot would see.

If our simulated Apache pilots can see the HUD clearly then why shouldn't our simulated 109 pilots see the reticle?

FFS stop comparing the revi to the apache, that monocle projects the image directly into the pilots eye the revi does not do this.

Actually a victim of TrackIR reality. Simply adjust it a bit and you don't have any problems. If I'd use Shift-F1, dude i would go crazy. And unfortunately you can't simulate closing your left eye, and I doubt any pilot did this due to the loss of the ability of estimating distance and being unable to overview the area around you.

If your right eye is not close to centered on the sight, you will never get 3d vision with the revi sight. The 1/2 recticle image is all you would see until the 1/4 of your head where your right eye is near center on the gun sight. The reflected image is only properly seen with the closest eye to it (your right eye) ONLY if that eye is coming close to center of that image.

I don't know why you are comparing an apache's HUD to a revi sight. Keeping both eyes open would not create the effect you are talking about until one eye, at the very least, was close to the center of the sight. You had to lean in reality to see the revi, even some 190s had the sight directly in the center. You have to lean to see this sight correctly in game as well. I honestly don't see what the problem is.

We are talking about simulating on a 2D screen what a pilot with two eyes open would see.

A pilot using a Revi gun-sight and an Apache pilot using a HMS both have an image in front of their right eyes.

A pilot using a Revi gun-sight and an Apache pilot using a HMS do not have an image in front of their left eyes.

Agreed?

Now here is a picture of a simulation of what an Apache pilot would see with both eyes open.....

Please explain why this screenshot is an acceptable representation for simulation....

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

....whereas this one is not acceptable?

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

@ Bliss...

If you don't think so... texta a reticlue onto a piece of clear plastic and investigate it ;)

This thread is amazing. It's like the world's shortest, most accurate test for retardation. Pretty much everyone who's criticized Lixma has failed.

The Revi was designed to do exactly what Lixma is describing in terms that even your reptilian brains should understand. This is why the revi was made this way, not because they didn't want to move another gauge over a few centimetres, but because this is how it was supposed to work, with the image being projected to your right eye and you brain overlaying it into your forward vision.

If you're debating this, then you are some kind of "King Retard Aspergers Lord!"

@Bliss:

I too thought initially that Lixma was wrong. Go to page 11 where you can see me doubting. But Lixma was very patient and tried to explain it (which is very difficult). I then did a very small experiment that everyone can do at home with no particular item if desired. And I had to conclude that Lixma was right right away. It SHOULD look like his image.

The experiment is: take a hand (or a drawn cross on a transparent slide) and hold it in front of one of your eyes only and don't focus on that cross but on something in the background. You WILL see the cross or the hand superimposed to the background image even though the eye not seeing the cross or the hand to the background. I tried it and it worked and it will work for you too.

BTW: As this effect will be available to all human pilots it would lead also to the aim scheme not disappearing with a head pushed to the sides in a Spit or a Hurri within certain limits. So horizontal headshake will make the circle move to one side as a whole within certain limits. The limits are that the eye closer to the reflected sight still can see the whole circle on the reflector glas.

Btw the aim circle would never appear to the pilot as being on the reflector glas but somewhere in the distance.

Speculum, remove your insulting troll post please as quick as possible.

You didn't have to lean to see the Revi sight. You are mistaking IL-2's work-around (Shift-F1) for reality.

The Revi was installed offset to the right to be dead in line with the pilots right eye as he looked forward....a reflex sight. It was to be used with both eyes open.

Here's what a 109 pilot's right eye would see....

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/8606/1newrights.jpg

And here's what a 109 pilot's left eye would see....

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/2561/1newlefts.jpg


Now imagine what the 109 pilot would see with both eyes open.

As a further exercise, imagine the same thing with the Apache pilot. What would the Apache pilot's left eye and right see? The right one would see a HUD, the left one would not see a HUD.

And yet despite the fact that an Apache pilot sees the HUD in only one eye (just as our real-life 109 pilot sees the Revi's reticle in one eye) we simulate an Apache like this.....

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

should that not be: "King Retard Asparagus Lord!" :-P

Please add key shortcut so i can switch left eye right eye xD give them a break! I like it as it is no easy boom and zoom dogfights last longer!

Shift +F1 ;)

Lixma,

We don't use 2 eyes in this sim. We are playing in a 2d world here. We have one POV to look upon and until technology has changed, this is what the limits of COD will be.

So you are basically a cyclops in the game, but my point in all of this is the point of reference you are looking at "in-game" would be one eye, directly in the center of the pit.

This video (remember a camera only has one eye) shows exactly what I'm talking about with regards to the current limitations present with simulating something via a 2d image. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blem3...layer_embedded

Notice how the sight goes out of view depending on where your one eye is looking. That's how it's modelled in the game. Because in the game we can only have one eye. The last thing I would want to see on my screen is a recticle covering 1/2 the revi and 1/2 into space. When technology is out to simulate true 3d in the game, I'd wager that the sight would show up just as it was in RL. But it's not going to until that time.

so the work around is setting the view to a key... just like there isn't a real work around for the "flying by the seat" or a feeling of weight

I don't understand your logic, Bliss. As we never will really feel real g-loads ourselves should this not be simulated as closely as now? Why do you have headshake and g-loads activated on Syndicate server? This also never ever can be correctly represented on a computer screen as it cannot influence on how you yourself feel the forces when sitting in front of your computer. Same goes for black and red outs.

I say let's make it as close as reality within the possibilities. If in real life we have binocular vision the representation ingame should be as close as possible with a 2d graphics. And be it a aim circle wobbling before the background and not restricted to the reflector sight glas.

Umm, clearly you are upset about something. What I stated was correct. In order for the sight to appear (the entire recticle) in RL your right eye must be somewhat centered on the sight. This is true.. Calm down and take a breath and think about it. Also, in RL we have 2 eyes and a 3D world. This is also true.

Now moving on to the COD world. In this sim we have 1 POV and 1 eye. This is because of technology. So (keep up here for a minute, I know you must be smart!) our 1 POV in the sim is not centered on the gunsight in the 109. Therefore, (here we go again) it's not going to show the entire recticle.

Now before you go pounding all over your keyboard again. Please read this again and tell me how I'm wrong..

Thanks!

No, you are unfortunately not wrong as like it is today we only have a cyclope's view with one eye only. Were you are wrong imho (no offence meant, Bliss) is that you - as far as I understand it - say that as we have only one eye modelled it shall be kept modelled as one eye whereas I say let's simulate a real two-eyed pilot as best as possible. Lixma's picture is what I believe the best approximation to a two-eyed pilot as this is closest to reality.

Come on, you Syn people always hold up the flag for realism without concessions. Keep it this way and support two-eyed sight simulation.

there won't be any true 3D until goggles/ twin screen visors come about... until then, we're stuck with multiplanar

The best way to understand what Lixma is trying to say, is to just go to a gun range, or gun store, and try it yourself with a rifle with reflex sight (like the eotech).
Just bring the rifle in front of your eye and aim at a distant object while keeping both eyes open.
The reticule in the reflex sight is projected far away in front and actls like a front sight that is way far in front of you, so the focal distance for the dot is really close to the focal distance for the target.
If you aim with both eyes open your dominant eye will take over and impose the reticule visible with one eye over the entire image. Of course your dominant eye has to be in line with the center of the sight, but you still have a lot more room to play compared to irons.

But in game i think is really hard to implement this. The image with he reticule floating over everything is not exatly right. Human eye will simply blur the glass of the sight when it concentrate on the distant target and reticule.

Bliss, with respect....you are repeating everything i've tried to explain throughout the thread. Just do a search for 'Cyclops'. I even made this for example....:grin:

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/6605/gallandlops.jpg

I must ask you to have a read through my previous posts, i've been there and got the T-shirt.

This is an aesthetical judgement....nothing to do with realism.

And its exactly the tack I tried to take at the start of the thread. I thought the idea of moving the gun-sight to the centre would be a more 'palatable' option, visually speaking. If you read the thread you can see how well that went down.

Yep.

As visually unsettling as it may be for some (and i'm not immune to the visual charm of the current set-up) it's the correct way to go. 109 pilot's did not have to mess about to see their gunsight projected before them and if realism is the watchword here (which I have been assured it is by some in this thread :)) then a projected reticle should be coded in.

In our Apache simulations no one complains about a big green floating HUD in front of them. No one would dream of complaining about it....it's too obviously a necessary visual element of what the Apache pilot sees when he looks upon the world.

On the other hand the horror being expressed at giving the 109 pilot the exact same visual element is....odd.

would technical limitations prohibit that though?

all other sights would (I assume) be coded to float within the confines of the centered sight

You would only be able to see as much or as little of the reticle as your in-game pilot would see with his virtual right eye.

So under G-forces and manoeuvring the reticle image will still be cut off or disappear just like any other gun-sight. It's not like you could see a full reticle in front of you at all times, there is no advantage being sought or gained here.

sorry, I meant for just "recreating" the RL effect of just having the reticule float on centre screen without having any key command, like currently exists with the Shft + F1

I'm not so sure. I would hope the develpers would have had some time to sit and try one out, as apparently some people on youtube have.

Personally, it seems to me that moving your head from a fixed reflector sight is no different than me changing the position of the reflection of the HUD on its fixed position on my NVGs. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the game is right, and your wrong. The pilot would have to keep his head pretty still to keep that sight from disappearing.

Yeah, as Dayglow mentioned in his previous post our 2D displays keep everything in focus. Although I suppose a ROF-like blurred foreground effect may help?

Speaking personally it wouldn't bother me. The last thing i'm focussed on in a dogfight is what the reflector glass is doing.

@ heloguy...

judging from the amount of room not available to the pilot, in the front on shot provided earlier, it would appear the pilot would have no other choice but to not move around much

Well everything is in focus, so shouldn't this be the next step?
Blurring whatever your not looking at.
maybe linked to your tracking device.

I like the idea of Hatch as such but as others pointed out it won't work very well with what we have now (only head tracking). But I think it is rather an aesthetical issue without functionality than something essential adding to the simulation aspect however.

How would the PC know what to blur and what focus on?

All a head tracking device does is tell the PC where to centre the on-screen image. The PC has no clue as to where the users' eyes are actually looking. As such it can't make any reliable deductions about which part of the screen should be in focus or blurred.

EDIT: Dayglow beat me to it.

EDIT: So did Stormcrow.

The technology is there ROF uses it, but you have to turn off AA to select it.

It's a psuedo-effect. It just tracks your head position and blurs the outer edges. Like a fuzzy tunnel. If I want to glance at my instruments I have to physically move my head down to 'de-blur' them.

We'll need iris scanners (or something) for a PC to even begin to guess where we are actually was looking, and therefore which area of the screen to blur.

I was going to grab a few pictures to illustrate but the ROF mothership is on the dark side at the moment.

:D

I understand where you are coming from but you clearly do not understand the drain on resources that implementing these will have on a already system pushing game.

I agree that at present track ir users do have more of an advantage than they had compared to 1946. The best they could do at the moment would be to remove the head locking in the shift f1 view.

What on Earth are you talking about?

The team are working on other things at this moment in time, all I am saying is that don't except any changes soon. :( Sorry i did not mean to be offensive.

The most important thing to retain on this thread is that we have come to the conclusion that the aim circle should be wobbling freely as long as one of both virtual eyes can see the full aim circle on the reflector glas. The dev team should take notice of this and hopefully implement this in one of the next patches.

The tone of the your post suggested you had caught me out in some hideously embarrassing gaffe!

Wasn't offended....just genuinely baffled that's all.

:)

Huzzah! (etc...)

Personally i'd go with Track-IR if you can afford it.

:grin:

Ah, explain how the monocle 'projects' the image into the eye?

You do realise that the 'projection' has to make it through the pilots eye lens, iris, and then be focused on to the retina at the back of the eye?

And can you please explain how the pilots eye can then focus to inifity at the outside world, and targets, and at the same time focus on the monocle projected HUD?

The answer is neither image is 'projected'. Revi, apache HUD, or the outside world have to have equal focal points at the same time, or at least one is going to be seriously out of focus. You can't 'project' images in to the eye. The eye has to focus the light on to the retina.

Well Canon did have autofocus that focussed on the point you were looking at. So the tech already exists and is quite old as these things go.

Perhaps the next stage in tracking device's.
Sorry for not really elaborating in my posts but I always assume everyone's a genius :grin:

Thanks I know how a reflex sight works.

The whole mistake you are doing since I do not know how many posts, is to assume the reflex sight is set up to project into the right eye by default. It's an assumption, and it's wrong, because the pilots head is not in the position to make that work by default - for many reasons. It only works if you lean slightly right and forward. Note, not much forward - most here have no idea how small the Bf109 cockpit is, and how close you are to the instrument panel. The sim gives a wrong impression of that.

What the sim shows in the normal view (half cut of circle) is indeed what you see if your head is in the "default" position, and the leaning right and forward (shift F1) is pretty much spot on. What is NOT correct is the subjective impression of distance to the panel in the sim.

I'm too tired to repeat myself tonight so i'll limit myself to this....

No it doesn't.

CoD's default view is what a Cyclops would see; a being with one eye looking straight down the centre-line of the aircraft. To my knowledge no Cyclops ever flew for the Luftwaffe....although I confess I have no hard data on the issue.

Poor Lixma. Hopes getting high that finally people understood and then somebody jumps in that obviously hasn't read all posts or did understand them.

Lixma's right. Period.

No he is not. He is dead wrong. The sim default view is what you see, it is correct -- except for being much closer to the panel IRL. A small movement is enough to put your body/head into position. But you do NOT see the full circle as he pretends. I have experienced it myself in a cockpit replica 1:1 with working REVI once. (109 artisanal replica) There was a youtube video about that thing, but it's a long time ago. Can't find it.


And yes I am German. Btw, If someone is interested he can experience it at the technical museum in Berlin, but with a FW 190 cockpit. Same principle and REVI position though.

Lixma ist spot on. Obviously you did not bother to read the thread. I say it in German to get myself understood.

Lixma hat absolut recht. Was wir heute im Spiel sehen, berücksichtigt nicht stereoskopisches Sehen mit zwei Augen. Das Spiel tut so, als hätte der Pilot nur ein Auge. Natürlich, wenn man das Cockpit einfach nur mal so sieht, denkt man, das, was Lixma sagt, kann gar nicht stimmen, und genau das habe ich auch anfangs gedacht. Dann habe ich aber mal genau nachgelesen und versucht zu verstehen, was Lixma uns zu erklären versucht. Und dann verstanden. Man kommt zu dem falschen Schluss, dass Lixma Unrecht hätte, weil man selber keine Erfahrung hat mit derartigen Vorrichtungen und dadurch falsche Schlüsse zieht. Es gibt auch viele Leute, die, wenn sie einen Science Fiction Film sehen, denken, es sei ganz normal, dass das vorbeifliegende Raumschiff Motorengeräusche von sich gibt.
Eine Kamera und damit jedes Video gibt den wirklichen Sachverhalt absolut falsch wieder, weil eine Kamera nicht über stereoskopische Sicht verfügt, da sie nur ein Auge hat.

Mach mal einen Versuch:
Nimm mal Deine Hand und halte sie 10 bis 30 cm vor eines Deiner beiden Augen, aber lasse Dein anderes Auge ebenfalls offen. Dann schaue auf etwas dahinter (z.B. den Bildschirm), aber so, dass das eine Auge mit der Hand im Blickfeld die Hand immer noch sieht. Was Du sehen wirst, ist eine halbdurchsichtige Hand, die sich dem Hintergrund überlagert. Das Hirn verbindet nämlich das, was beide Augen sehen, zu einem einzigen Bild. Das heißt, das Gehirn überlagert das Bild, dass das Auge mit der Hand sieht, mit dem Bild, dass das andere Auge sieht. Genauso funktioniert das mit dem Revi. Wenn jetzt das eine Auge den Zielkreis sieht und man hält das andere Auge offen, wird das Gehirn beide Bilder verbinden und der Pilot sieht einen Zielkreis, aber nicht auf dem Revi, sondern halt sonst wo.

Seufz.....Was du nicht verstehen willst, ist das dein Kopf im cockpit NICHT in der Position ist die nötig ist um den von dir beschrieben Effekt zu erhalten. Das habe ich selber erfahren. Man muss sich nach VORNE UND RECHTS lehnen. Wenn auch nur sehr wenig, da der Kopf sehr nahe am Revi ist, besonders wenn man gross ist. (ich bin 1,85)

Du musst mir bitte nicht das Reflexvisier oder Optik erklären, danke, ich habe meine Physik klassen besucht.

Na, also so weit rechts ist das Revi nicht, was du offensichtlich nicht verstehen willst, denn in der Tat ist die linke Kante genau in der Mitte des Cockpits. Es ist also anzunehmen, dass das rechte Auge genau durchs Revi schaut. Punkt.

And now back to English

Und genau darin besteht dein Fehler: In der Annahme das rechte Auge würde quasi "perfekt" durch das revi schauen, also den vollen Kreis sehen. Das ist NICHT der Fall. Das habe ich selber erfahren.

I knew i was right..EVERYBODY is German..and when they get mad they drop the "other " language and speak German again till they cool down :grin:

S!

Well better that than try and conquer the world ;)

I don't remember them trying to do that...I know there was some real estate "issues"...they Acquired some land and there was a dispute as to where the property line ended:shock:

S!

You cannot compare sitting in a replica for an actual aircraft under field conditions. Under field conditions, in war, the Revi will be adjusted to suit whoever is flying the particular aircraft.

I am 173cm tall. Imagine I jump into a 109, fine-tune the gunsight so I get a clear image in my right eye as I look forward (just as the makers intended), and then jump out again.

Now imagine someone else hops in straight after, perhaps 190cm tall. He will be forced to stoop, bend over or lean in order to see the reticle. Because it was not adjusted for him.

So, he adjusts the sight to his preference and jumps out.

Now I jump back in and now I can't see the reticle without moving/leaning/Shift-F1ing myself into position.

If I get into a BMW-3 straight after a 150cm tall man has just got out, I will probably bash my knees on the wheel or fascia if I do not adjust the seat. But it would be wrong to claim that bruising one's knees is a known feature of the BMW-3 series. In a similar vein, if I go to the museum and jump in to the nearest 109 on display I would undoubtedly have to manoeuver my head in order to get a clear image of the reticle....because the Revi isn't adjusted for me. It's adjusted for someone else (probably no-one in particular).

OK, just a couple more things before the caffeine wears off.....:grin:

You mentioned the cramped nature of the cockpit. It's safe to say the 109's cockpit dimensions are legendarily claustrophobic. Therefore can you think of a worse idea than to install a gunsight into this aircraft that requires the pilot to start shifting about? I can't.

What possible advantage is it to install a gunsight in a high performance aircraft that requires the pilot to start leaning over just to be able to see the gun-sight? I can think of no advantages at all. None.

and something else about coal and keeping the trains on time

I would just like to post in disbelief that this thread has grown to 27 pages. Paradoxically I only add to this silliness by posting at all.

A long and good discussion on reflector sights:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=17850

+1

Arcade boy who opened the post should have been ignored by the community straight away.

Speculum, stop insulting people. Are you a forum troll?

?

It should not be difficult.

We are simply adjusting the reticles visibility parameters (which are already coded in) into the players line of sight....instead of shifting the players' line of sight to intercept the reticle (which is what Shift-F1 does). It's merely a shift in geometry, not a change in the physics or logic of the display.

But i'll guarantee you'd have no problem with a DCS:Apache HUD hanging there in space. Nobody in their right mind would. But when it comes to the Bf-109....it makes us uneasy.

This is exactly why I started the thread suggesting moving the gunsight to the centre of the dash. I thought this would be aesthetically more palatable than a floating reticle (which, if not done carefully could look pretty odd). But as I found out people were threatening to slit their first-borns' throat than suffer any such concessions to realism.

However, no sooner than a realistic solution is presented - concern for realism is quickly sacrificed on the alter of aesthetics!

The floating reticle would, I freely admit, be weird at first. But for no other reason than it has never been done before in a WW2 flight sim (AFAIK). The received tradition has always been to move the players' perspective to line up with the gunsight, or model the gunsight as centrally mounted. If a floating reticle is realistic then let's have one. In a few years people will be wondering what all the fuss was about.

Lixma, you should create a message with charts and graphs and 8x10 glossy photos with circles and arrows and send it to Luthier. Convincing us you are right will not get you very far. You need to convince Luthier.

Personally, I'm fine with a gunsight view that is as close to what the real pilot would experience as possible, even if it looks a little odd.

Ahh, I see. Understood.

To be honest if it wasn't for the utterly insane version of Shift-F1 we now have in CoD I wouldn't have bothered bringing the subject up in the first place. I can only guess what the programmers had in mind when they designed that view.

I've never sat in a 109 with or without a gunsight - has anyone?

Did the LW pilot really lean over to see the gunsight reticle? Somehow I doubt it.

Surely he simply used his right eye, where it was, behind the gunsight that was mounted off-centre in line with his right eye - no head movement at all.

So isn't the correct solution to have the reticle in its correct place in front of the right eye in the off-set gunsight where, if 'gunsight' view is used at all, it just moves you forward? That is, leave the forward view exactly where it 'normally' is and move the reticle to the right to the centre of the sight glass. Yes, that means the aiming point is no longer in the centre of the screen/windshield but it wasn't, was it? And yes that may mean some adjustment to the 109 aiming code. Now surely that's more realistic than leaning over.

I'll second that Lixma. The Gunsight view is way to slow, it porks TIR and it just generally doesn't make sense. It's a good thing that I love CloD so much or Luthier and Oleg would be looking down the business end of a hissy fit. Seriously, it's a small thing but it is generally annoying in a dogfight.

No. Although the physical gun-sight was mounted offset to the right it does not mean that in real life or in CoD the pilot should see an offset reticle.

Try this....

Grab a pen and look straight ahead.

Close your left eye.

Hold the pen in front of your right eye in the centre of your vision as best you can.

Now open your left eye.

With both eyes open will see a 'ghostly' pen directly in front of you. So despite the pen being located directly in front of only the right eye, your brain is combining both eyes' images into one.

Just as the Revi is physically offset to the right, so is your pen. But the brain nevertheless combines the seperate images into one coherent whole and so you get a 'ghostly' looking pen directly in the center of your vision. The same principle is at work with the Revi.

Additionally, with both eyes open you will also notice another 'ghostly' pen a bit further out to the right. This is your left eye's peripheral vision picking this up. Does this mean we should see two 'ghostly' reticles? No, because in the 109, looking straight ahead the left eye would not be able to see the reticle and so only one image of the reticle would appear before the pilot.

Hmmm.... I think we may be saying the same thing - almost.

With my left eye closed and the pen in the centre of my right eye vision and then I open my left eye, I don't see a ghostly image directly in front of me, I see the image of the pen in front of my right eye, not centred, and a ghostly pen to the right of that one which is seen by my left eye due to the angle across to it. I think we agree on the right eye image, even if we disagree about a centred ghostly image. Also with the Revis sight I wouldn't see the reticle with my left eye because as you say, it isn't in my left eye's field of vision so all I would see is the image directly in front of my right eye. Again I think we agree. So we could either have the reticle visible and offset or visible and centred although the latter wouldn't represent what is really happening. But we shouldn't have to move our head.

When people say they want realism, what do they mean? The fact that the sight is offset so it must physically look like that? The presumption that the pilot must therefore have had to lean over to use it? Or the fact that it was offset to be directly in front of our right eye with optics to ensure that we only see the reticle with our right eye, without moving our head, and either represent that with a centred view (a poor solution) or a visibly offset glass AND reticle with which to aim without moving the head, because I don't believe fighter pilots would be called upon to lean over to see the reticle. The offset was intended to help them not hinder them.

Then you are doing something wrong. You're supposed to be looking straight ahead, not at the pen, but through the pen. Then you'll see the effect.

This might help.....

Pick a spot on the monitor screen as near the centre of the screen as you can (a word, a smiley, a dead fly..etc)....this is your 'target'. Sit comfortably and look straight at this point with both eyes - as normal.

Now, close your left eye and hold the pen about 20cm away from your right eye so it covers your particular target. Do not focus on the pen if possible, keep looking straight ahead as if you were able to see your 'target'.

Now open your left eye and you should see your target and a ghostly pen super-imposed on top of it. Both target and pen appear right in the middle of your field of vision despite the pen, in reality being offset to the right. Such is the principle of the Revi.

If someone can think of a single advantage to requiring a pilot, strapped tightly into a high performance fighter aircraft to start leaning over just to be able to see his gunsight, I have yet to hear it.

I wish i could see this affect in real life as the major problem i have with it is that the target sight would be very blurred and quite annoying to aim through and your eyes would constantly be adjusting to both the target and the gunsight target.

No, because the reticle (not just the Revi's but all* reflex sights) is focussed at infinity. This means that regardless of whether your visual target is located 10m, 100m, or 1000m away the reticle will remain sharp and in focus for you.

To be sure, some people find a reflex sight unnatural at first. They might try to close an eye, squint or as you mentioned find themselves trying to focus one eye upon the reticle and one eye on the target (migraineville); but it doesn't take long to get used to it.

* I think all.

EDIT: DayGlow beat me to it.....shakes fist....:grin:

Ah okay, thanks for the information I wasn't aware of this.

If what Lixma said is right, then to get a view of the full revi gunsight, a pilot must:
1. SITTING STRAIGHT - lean closer to the revi to get the "ghost" effect

or

2. SITTING A BIT TO THE RIGHT - seeing the full glowing crosshair without having to lean closer to it.

In the game we have the pilot sitting slightly to the right, close to the revi. Why?

After reading the FULL thread and generally agreeing with Lixma, I think that the classic IL2 SHIFT+F1 view was more correct, because one doesn`t have to lean close to the revi to see the crosshair, IF HE IS SITTING SLIGHLY TO THE RIGHT.

Hence, the old il2 gunsight view should be restored.

The gunsight itself, not just the glass, has no provisions for adjustment either horizontally, or vertically according to any pictures, or museum pieces I've seen.

With that in mind, it should be noted that a reflector sight, or any gunsight for that matter, is adjusted to the actual bore of the weapon, not the user, so it's impossible that the sight be adjusted for each person as they are going to use it. I am in awe of those that say they must adjust their weapon's sight after it's already been zeroed. It only makes sense that someone would have to move their head in order to view the entire sight where it is reflected. The game has this particular instance correct. This ghostly image of the other half of the sight would only occur in a small portion of the range of someone's total range of motion in a cockpit. I don't disagree that it's possible, but I disagree with the overreaction that its omittance is debilitating. I would settle for Track IR support that was as stable, and intuitive as that that's included with the 6DOF mod for IL2.

OK I get that Lixma. I still think the reticle should be visible on the gunsight in 'Normal' view, thats what the pilot would have seen (with his right eye of course).

Can someone explain how to center the gunsight without trackir and without the zoom of loosen shoulder straps. I've tried holding down the middle and right MB and moving to the right, but that does nothing. I don't see any option in views or camera to adjust it.

No. (and if that's what you think i've said i'm beginning to get worried about my communication skills...:))

The pilot sits looking forward, no leaning forward, sideways or craning his neck. The Revi is adjusted to shine a full reticle image into his right eye. That's the whole point of it being offset.

Again, there's no need to sit a bit to the right (unless the Revi was set-up for someone else). Please remember the view point we see in CoD is not what a two-eyed human would see.

Please have a scan through the thread again, especially the posts/pictures dealing with what a real 109 pilot would see through his left and right eye compared with the Cyclops depicted in CoD.

The Revi unit was bolted solidly to the airframe. And in some 109 cockpit pictures you'll actually see extra supporting bars in an attempt to keep the unit as steady as possible.

However the reflector's line of sight was adjustable for elevation +/-2.5 degrees horizontally, and +/-3 degrees vertically. How this was done I do not know.

This adjustment was to allow the reticle to be reflected into the eye.....this adjustment didn't actually alter the reticle's position relative to the weapons. It didn't alter the zeroing.

There was also the ability to adjust the aircraft's seat-height. Much quicker and much less fuss. The handle is visible in CoD to the left just by the trim/flaps wheel. Doesn't work, though.

EDIT. I just stumbled across this. There was an additional adjustment available when mounting the sight. Assuming this replica is accurate the Revi unit could be moved closer or farther away from the pilot. This would alter the apparent size of the reticle relative to the edge of the reflector glass.

Which makes sense. The Revi was used on all kinds of different aircraft so the mounting brackets would have to offer some kind of telescopic adjustment for finer tuning.

http://cgi.ebay.com/WW2-German-Gunsi...-/230530262205

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/2139/revibracket.jpg

This is worth posting.

It's a schematic of the FW-190. Look carefully.....

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/2049/190revi1.jpg

Make a note of....

a) the center-line.

b) the sight-line.

c) the position of the reticle

d) the horizontal separation between centre-line and sight-line - 40mm.

Now grab a tape measure, find a mirror and measure the distance from the centre of your nose to the middle of your right pupil.....

Mine is 37mm.

The offset Revi gunsight is installed to sit directly in the right eye's line of sight.

No leaning required.

Here's a link to the full image....I'd post it here but it's a bit big....3mb.

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.p...n77up7&thumb=4

Lixma, as you have the best skills to explain all this and also all the information, including the things you just posted about the revi adjustments and the FW190 thing: could you assemble all this into one fluid text/document and provide this to luthier?

Perhaps open a new thread in the FM section with an appropriate title (just an illustration for what I mean - you surely will find a better one than me: "Pilot with two eyes and revi sights: How it should be") and put all the explanations and pictures in it. And send the link to luthier.

I probably will at some point....although the thought of going through all this again is a little daunting.

In the meantime i'll just repost the FW-190 thing for the new page, so it will get seen. This picture does a phenomenal job of illustrating the issue at hand. I only wish I had found it 25 pages ago.....sigh.

I guess if it ever came to fruition, it would be a big help to those that don't use Track IR, as their head would be held (aside from the headshake affect) directly in the middle. If you lean at all to the left, though, it should not be very far before the image would disappear. The effect could also be used on the Spitfire and Hurricane, if someone is leaning to the left or right of their sights.

The mount you showed does seem to have a telescoping piece, but I wonder exactly what it would be for. It's certainly not made for making fine adjustments and then being fixed in place. It looks like it only adjusts from one extreme to another.

You missed this :

So it is easily visible I don`t agree with you 100%. Only thing is that I figured that currently the crosshair view in the game sets the pilot leaned in, and slighly to the right when only one of those should be performed to see the crosshair. That is why I prefer the classic il2 - gunsight view - over the new view. In that view, the pilot is set slightly to the right without the need to lean in closer to the revi (which means narrowing the field of view).

And please, put glass cockpit, it's worth for getting a better view.

Seriously ! It's meant to be realistic, you can go in front of it by setting the key to position related to fastening belt. Then you'll find yourself in front of the sight.

I think you're still missing the point. In the "IL-2" view, and in CoD, the pilot is "moved" to "sit to the right" of the centre line but it is only a crude attempt to make it feel like you're using your right eye.

Look at the diagram Lixma posted. The Revi sight is immediately in front of the pilots right eye without him having to move. MG just need to show the reticle in the offset gunsight of the 'normal' view. An offset of 40mm from centre would have made virtually no real difference to the aiming point in RL although MG may need to look at the aiming code for CoD.

I'd go further and say I don't see a need for a shifted 'gunsight' view at all. With the reticle visible in 'normal' view there is no need for an offset view and IMHO no need for a shifted 'gunsight' view in any aircraft, just an FOV change if you want to narrow/zoom the view.

The "shifted pilot view" is not realistic at all. It never existed. We've simply come to think it must be right because its always been there in IL-2.

Yeah, the reticle should still appear/disappear due to G-forces on the pilot during manoeuvring.

That sounds reasonable. I'd never actually seen one before I found those pictures so I'm not certain how it was used. On the other hand the ability to adjust, even crudely, the range of the gunsight from the pilots' eyes would be very useful.

Sorry to bump this but i found a workaround. I don't know if it has been mentioned (i didn't read the entire thread), so apologies if it has been already mentioned.

For starters and obviously enough, if you're using a head tracking device you can set your center position to be offset and get rid of this issue: just move you head left, press your centering key and when you move back into your usual center position your view will be shifted to the right, giving you a nice view of the gunsight.


However. even if you don't have a head tracking device there is a solution to this. Turn off the mouse cursor to get the mouse to work as a camera controller (default key for this is F10), keep the right mouse button pressed and move the mouse around: you will see that you can move the camera forward/backward/left/right.

Alternatively, you can keep the mouse cursor on and follow the same routine but with the middle mouse button also pressed: middle mouse button acts as a temporary "over-ride" that disables the mouse cursor and enables camera control for as long as it's pressed, so that you don't have to keep switching between clickable cockpit and camera control all the time.

This way you can set your default viewpoint to be aligned with the gunsight. I think that pressing the "center view" key (default is keypad 5) will not reset your view changes as it only applies to the pitch/roll/yaw axis of head movement (it even over-rides freetrack in that respect, if i move my view to the right it stays there until i manually move it back with the mouse, i don't know how it works with trackIR though).

This way you can fly with the 109 gunsight centered no matter if you use a head tracker or not, it's like setting up your viewpoint to have a permanent lean to the right ;)

Have to be careful though, because as Lixma keeps pointing out; the sim views is set for a single point of vision (perspective), not a two point perspective, which is natural eyesight. It is this which 1C attempted to overcome with the SHIFT F1 gunsight view.

physically moving the single perspective to right would throw targeting off?

No, because the Revi's reticle image is focussed at infinity. As long as you can see the reticle you can be safe in the knowledge that you are seeing the true aim-point (assuming the guns are zeroed...etc)

I know what you're getting at...it seems as if the sight-line would diverge off to the diagonal left pretty soon due to the Revi's right offset. And if the Revi was replaced by a simple wire 'ring' sight in the same position then, yes, we'd be in trouble. We'd need at least a further sighting aid (a bead further down the sight-line) to help us align our sight. Reflex/reflector sights do away with this necessity.

+1 to what Lixma said. I shoot from the non-centered view a lot of times as during certain maneuvers you are pushed in your seat due to the G-force and the entire sight becomes visible, other times only half of it is visible but it's enough for me to estimate where the center is.

For example, i might see the top and left bars and the center, as long as i can see or estimate where the center is i don't use the shift-F1 view. In all of these cases the rounds stream directly to the aim point.

So, if you just use the mouse to move your viewpoint to the right a bit you're good to go, plus i think it stays there for the duration of the flight and is not affected by centering your views, either by the keypad or via your trackIR/freetrack/etc.

Once again, the how-to:

a) With the clickable cockpit/mouse cursor disabled: Press and hold the right mouse button, move mouse to the right until you can see the gunsight, release button.

b) With the click-pit/cursor enabled: Either press F10 to disable it and do as per point a), or click and hold both the middle and right mouse button, move the mouse to the right until the gunsight is visible and release both buttons.

F10 toggles the click-pit on/off. The middle mouse button is a temporary click-pit override, as long as you keep it pressed you can manipulate the camera, when you release it you get your cursor back to click on the instruments.

These are both the sim's default settings so if you have remapped them to something else you might want to save your controls, revert to defaults to see how the functions are named (as they are a bit non-intuitive) and then load back your controls.

I hope this saves you some trouble until/if a better solution is applied.

in real life, yes, I would agree 100%


yes... in game


again... yes, in game


in real life, yes... but ingame that is regarded to the single source (cyclops) viewpoint - see second point addressed ?

Same/similar to Blackdog. I'm using freetrack and single point.

Basically, create a custom profile for the 109 with a custom center. Once you create this profile, your done. No need to use Shift-F1 ever again for the 109.

To create custom center in Freetrack, you map key to custom center "set" function (e.g., space key) on the controls tab. Now start up the game, sit in 109 at dead center (pitch/yaw/roll/x,y,z=0) and move your head to the right along the X lateral axis until the sight is centered on the glass. Press the spacebar key (tip, it might be easier to turn off some uneeded axis like roll/z when you do this so you can get it lined up good when you press the space bar key.). Okay, now go back to controls tab and un-map that spacebar key. This to prevent losing your custom center in the future. Now save the profile and use it whenever you fly the 109. The parameters are listed in that custom profile and look like this:

[CustomCenter]
Yaw=
Pitch=
Roll=
X=
Y=
Z=

Once I set FreeTrack custom center I never have to worry about it again.

All I'm seeing here are workarounds for the fake realism.

Certainly, in my own case, owing to the very peculiar implementation of 6 DOF, I can move my head to the extreme side of the cockpit and hold a full width gun sight in non-shift F1 view; something that IL-2's "inferior" realism wouldn't allow.

It's like the stupid start up sequence. It may be real, but any one with any sense has already reduced it to a single programmed joystick button press.

People: We need to get beyond the rivet counting and re examine why any one would buy this.

I postulate that people buy PC games to have fun with, not to count rivets.

Rivet counting _may_ help a sim, but left unchecked, it can bugger up a good game.

We're already losing dedicated IL-2 players. How many new players do you think we'll attract if the game isn't identified as fun?

Right!

The only realism I like in a Sim is FM, Aircraft Limits(G's, Overspeed's) engine management (prop,mix,temps), balistics and damage models but all the rest is useless if you want to have fun in a game...

otherwise it's like going in a emergency simulator... ask real pilots if they like it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ
Use Freetrack/Track Ir

A simulator has to get closest to the real thing as possible and optionally dumbed down via realism settings, so your one press start button is not an unreasonable request, and should be added as a realism option. Personally I've long waited for sims with click able cockpits and now we finally have one for WW2 combat, my last nerd-wish to come true is owning a huge touch-screen to make proper use of it.

I do not believe we've lost anyone because 5 mouse clicks were too much though.

I think you'd have more fun spending the money on extra controls.

I understand the wish for click pits, but for serious simmers, a better implementation of UDP speed would have been more useful.

I think it's fair to recognise that most of us spend far, far more than the £30 game price on extra equipment to experience the game.

I'd much rather see development effort used to support some of the fantastic hardware that's about these days rather than adding functions to a mouse; which not even an Airbus 380 cockpit uses.

If you got your touch screen, where would you enable it in Conf.ini?

I've no idea how it would be enabled, but Ive seen it before in other flight sims, and I didn't think they were designed for that either, must be some mod.

What hardware can't be used then? I use a throttle joystick and rudders and they work just fine, are you talking about setting up a complete cockpit with notches and dials and all?