Fw-190 Bar.. once and for all...
 

I got this PM from a trusted community member today... This issue has been around here for as long as I can remember, therefore I am going to sticky this to the top of the boards for 7 days... Then I will move it, but IMO it is important enough and certainly such a historically controversial topic to warrant such treatment.

If he wants to name himself then by all means do so.. but since he sent this to me in a PM I will not post his name. The pictures speak for themselves.

Oleg got it right.

http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/D04PilotviewwToScale.JPG
http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/F06w-wo_refraction.jpg
finally look at this and note the apparent thickness of the glass on the far side versus the actual thickness of the glass on the near side
http://my.core.com/~jrjacobs/C03GlassSideView.JPG

This speaks volumes, and certainly much louder than the "opinions" of any simmers here, even myself, because I had an "opinion" on the issue as well, and apparently I, like all the others who said otherwise were wrong.

The picture showing blue line labeled "with refraction" indicates a bar that is somewhat lower than in the sim, relative to the revi.

Is this Correct Thinking? Its been a few years since I played The FB.

Very slightly, if at all.

The photograph should be reviewed with care, though:

1. There is no seat in this FW190D13 as you can see from the other pictures taken, so the photograph is guessing the point of view of the pilot inflight.

2. There is no engine and no nose attached, so the photographer is also guessing on the angle of view.

3. If this photograph was taken to model the view in a FW190, the overall visibility should be largely decreased compared to this:
http://www.avsim.com/pages/0102/il-2...a4cockpit1.jpg

IMHO there are much better pictures from inside complete FW190s present.

to late for IL2 Sturmovik!
but see this pictures:

http://home.arcor.de/fw190d9/sonstig...t/190a4tl1.jpg

http://home.arcor.de/fw190d9/sonstig...gstez42dc6.jpg

http://home.arcor.de/fw190d9/sonstig...sight_line.jpg

http://home.arcor.de/fw190d9/sonstig...Fw190sicht.jpg

http://home.arcor.de/fw190d9/sonstig...ht/fw190a6.jpg

here a video from the FW190A4 Cockpit:
http://video.google.de/videoplay?doc...98826330&hl=de

here a small Video how a Revi work!

Link:
http://video.google.de/videoplay?doc...21819993&hl=de

Here we go again!

:lol:

Notice Bear has vanished. Maybe he is hibernating to digest all the salmon caught with this.

How the revi works ... I thought it was a collimated display therefore reticle size would not vary as distance from the combining glass changes. That is a basic reason for the the reflector gunsights very existence. You will with most reflector sights have view angle limitations but reticle size should not vary with eye to glass distance.

There is something not quite right with this video. I suspect the optics in this sight are not original.

I noticed that, too. Especially with the building in the background you can see the gunsight changes size pretty much when moving back and forth. I doubt it was like that in the real thing or guessing distances really was pure guessing.

nah its just like a sniper scope if you pull back your head and look through it the object looks larger.

it actual stays the same size, it's just the reflection grows as you get farther away.

try it with a pair of high scoped binoculars you will see.

Hm, I compared the size to that building in the background. To me it seemed to vary compared to that and I don't know if it is supposed to. But I must admit I didn't spend much time watching the video that closely and I never saw it working in reality either. It just surprised me, to see it working like that.

No Mastiff thats the point, any reflector gunsight or HUD works on the collimated principal of a projected image. Its nothing like a Sniper scope or high powered binoculars. The Reflector gunsights principal reason for invention was to present a constant sized reticle image independent of the pilots head position. the Reticle (by the process of collimation) is focused at infinity therefore its angular dimension is independent of the shooters eye position.

Unlike a Ring and bead where the Angular dimension of the Ring is directly proportional to the distance between the eye and the ring. In fact A Ring and Bead gunsight is only accurate at one fixed Eye to ring distance.... thats why there was a need for the reflector gunsight.

What I think is happening in the video clip is that the apperrance of the pilots eye getting closer to the sight is in fact the zoom of the video camera. The camera itself is moreless at a fixed distance from the sight but the zoom control gives the illusion that the eye is getting closer to the sight when in fact its not. So the Zoom magnification has in effect two differrent focal distances the sight body itself and the reticle which is (by definition) at infinity. The net result is that this camera zoom does not replicate the effect of the pilot moving his head closer to the sight.

it's exactly like a sniper scope with the red dot in the middle, if you have ever used one. I have and that's what the red dot does, when I look in to the scope from a distance it looks larger than it really is. The lense in the scope causes it to look as if it is getting larger when it really isnt.

Yep I am a rifle shooter as well :) The principals are totally different. In a rifle scope the image of the sighting reference be it a dot or cross hair is magnified, therefore there is an associated focal length. In these sights the aiming refrence and your eye are seperated by a lens. Therfore any time you change the distance between your eye and the scope the amount of magnification changes as does the aiming refrence (dot or cross hair) size.

With a reflector sight there is no magnification whatsoever on the displayed reticle. There is no lens between your eye and the projected reticle. The reticle is displayed at infinity. I have used slightly more advanced gyro reflector sights in real life ... Ferranti Isis and CSF97K and HUDs,though more modern than the Revis the basic principals are the same. The symbology size does not change as you move your eyes closer or further from the combining glass. If it did than any form of angular range finding (stadimetric) would not be possible.

I see from the photo's that the sight was inline with the right eye. I am assuming US and British planes had it centrally placed. Would this have made much difference?
And if it did, one hopes SOW models this...

The illusion that the sight is changing size is due to the fact that as you move toward, or away from the sight, you're also moving toward or away from the reflector glass, and the wall behind it.

You're actually having more or less surface area of the glass, and wall in your field of view at any given time. The sight stays the same size, the wall and glass change size due to retinal image size projected in the eye.

That makes sense Heloguy

Zoom lense video cameras apparently existed since the 1930s (I didn't know that)

its an old gunsight mounted in somebody's living room, recording the image with a modern camera ;)

Basically a reflector sight meant your reticle, ring and other marks remained "calibrated" regardless of head position.

This was essential because in real life you worked out range to target and hence whether the target was in convergence and how much deflection was needed using the ring and tick marks.

Of course the reflector sight is not that important for 90% of gamers because most people use icons to read off range and either shoot from the dead six or deflection shoot by guesswork, insight and "invoking the force". Then again if they can pull it off consistently good luck to them :)

Depending how accurate the drawing is, did anyone notice the size of the 'bar'?

Maybe its not a bar. Perhaps a pin. Windshield glass create high magnification.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...appyBounce.gif

While we're at it...


The FW190 is not the only plane with such a problem.

Look here... The mythical "lateral-vertical" bar of the Macchi C.202 !! :eek:

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/167...02hireshw1.jpg

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/8...chi202bbv8.jpg

:-x




"......"
Rick

What are you referring to the Vertical line which is the Foresight or "Bead" for the backup ring or the cylindrical object to the left of the Gunsight ?

Interesting. I think its the vertical canopy frame. But...does MACCHI have "gunsight view" like Luftwaffe cockpits? If so, we need to see the Luft View before making a judgement. Perhaps using Luft View, if available for MACCHI, moves the reticle more to the view center than the vertical canopy frame.

This is all fascinating stuff. As ElAurens poasted at ubi, the MiG-3's gunsight glass and (rather large) reticle is also interfered with by the cockpit model.

Unlike old timer Fw fans, I don't consider these "major" things, but small stuff in line with the reversed Yak compass, overly dark gunsight glass on Yak-9s, etc...small stuff like that, which should be adressed by modders if the Moscow Bureau does not have the time. You know how Central Committee directives change all the time and cause developers to develop ulcers.

Thats the hinge for the MG cowling.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...00011324_m.jpg

Rickusty

Here an image of a Macchi MC202 with both forward and near the cockpit Airscoops :)

http://www.users.on.net/~ttail/macchiscoop.jpg

Plenty of images of Macchi MC202 with the forward scoop. Though not all had it.

No no, the thing that is wrong is the right canopy frame... which obstructs the forward view by a lot of margin...

IRL the gunsight view wasn't obstructed at all, look at the 2nd picture, and see as the face of the pilot and the gunsight are in a totally natural position... no canopy bar is obscuring the view from the inside.

The C.202 cockpit have been made wrong from the beginning... while the C.205 cockpit and canopy frames are close to reality...

Look at those pics.

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/7...agrammadz4.jpg

The canopy frame obscures a large part of the gunsight view.

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/2669/int205bne8.jpg

This is the cockpit of the C.205, which was basically the same airplane with a different engine :o

Look how the canopy bar isn't obstructing the gunsight view, as in the black and white picture ,taken from ahead of the canopy, shows..

So, not only the C.202 has porked guns, but porked gunsight view too... :mad:

Rick

Ok I see your point ref the Canopy frame.

Take another look. The 'bar' in game cockpit pics is certainly larger than what is shown in the drawing. Also take a look at the position of the instrument panel covering.

The combination of factors makes the FW case worst of all.

I agree its too high.

Say what you will about the FW but the worse example belongs to the P-47D10 and D22.

S!

So true, at least the Fw190 was usable even with the bar. The Razorback Jugs were almost worthless unless your target was stationary. The new mods fix all three and the Razorbacks are great to be finally able to do some deflection shooting.

True... the Razorback had a major issue there...

Cheers

109 Cockpit
 

And how about 109 G-6 series cockpit? That side bars are horrible! Was it true?

Is there some real photos?

FW190A8-R6 (W.Nr 733682) at Imperial War Museum in London


Orginal pics from DQKat65 over at SimHQ

The mods help a little... :) But yeah... useless in a DF w/o 6DoF

Funny...

Bar? What bar? I guess after years of playing the game, I never really noticed in the FW or the P47 (especially never noticed in the P47).... I guess its just what catches your attention. I bet in RL its much like I notice in my race car. Its loud, uncomfortable, and I hear all kinds of racket, but when the flag drops, I don't notice any of that. I bet once in combat, pilots probably didn't notice any minor annoyances either - you use the tool at hand.

SOW BoB is probably being delayed because the same thing is going through Olegs mind. It might take a few years to decide.

Bump.

Would really like to see that MC 202 fixed.

Well, the C.205 cockpit isn't the best too. Look at the windshield frame. Do you see the hole in the left upper corner ? You can see through...

This is weird.. this looks like a post @UBI.....

Did you run threads on both forums?

Thats because the camera PoV has changed in latest patch.
Each cockpit has its holes, they are mostly not visible.
There will be fixes here and there for various cockpits in future.

NSU's pics in the first page speak alot. The first picture shows the pilot's nose and its close to eye level (but seems the camera is above).


So the bar might have been too much for the 190. But hopefully they'll RAISE the BAR in IL2 Call of Duty . . . Anyways I'll throw a plug in what great work Team D is doing . . .

For COD, there should have a pilot adjustment where line of sight and head movement changes your view of things . . . like really tall pilots would slouch or short guys would sit on a pillow or something . . .

These beat the horse threads . . . it's like newly released movie Hanna / Japanese Anime. pre teen girls shouldn't be that violent but for some reason one is compelled to watch them do a trail of blood.

The Bar shows up exactly where it should if there is no glass. They didn't model refraction and Oleg stated exactly that. If they couldn't do everything then they wouldn't do that one thing. Possibly because fudging the one would lead to demands to fudge the rest in ones and twos.