BF109 - Can't we just have the gunsight in the middle?

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

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

would technical limitations prohibit that though?

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

?

[Lixma]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

would technical limitations prohibit that though?

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

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.

Originally Posted by DayGlow

Also aesthetically I don't like the sight just hanging there in 2D space.

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.

[David Hayward]

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.

[Lixma]

Originally Posted by DayGlow

My asthetic issue is the 2-D display. To have the redicle float in space you need to look through it, out to your target. That would mean the cockpit and even the redicle casing (the glass) out of focus. DOF field effects would be an issue because it would have to fixed to the center point of the screen.

That's my aesthetic problem as the whole display is flat and in perfect focus.

Ahh, I see. Understood.

Back onto topic, for me the simplest solution would be an optional keypress pov shift to see the sight in combat. This wouldn't require recoding how the sight functions outside the frame or the issues of 3-D behavior in a 2-D space.

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.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Ctrl E

You're playing the wrong game mate. This game is about realism. Putting the gunsight in the middle is the most idiotic suggestion made on these boards to date

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.

[BadAim]

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.

[Lixma]

Originally Posted by klem

Yes, that means the aiming point is no longer in the centre of the screen/windshield but it wasn't, was it?

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.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Lixma

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.

[Lixma]

Originally Posted by klem

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,

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.

Originally Posted by klem

...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.

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.