Gunsight 109 propositions

Now that's another issue. I agree with you that the whole revy would appear pushed to the centre. So what we would need is basically to superimpose somehow the revi on the centre and blurring it almost to full transparency. I guess this could however really be difficult this time to implement as it would change the cockpit model.

I am however not so certain if there still would be not optically occuring a crosshair a bit freely from the glass (physically not but how the brain composes it to a picture) knowing that the crosshair is not engraved in the glass but a reflexion. To the brain the crosshair is far away and not a few centimetres away.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

On the occasion of reading the posts in this thread concerning a player's video:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...19455&page=137

I rethought the whole gunsight issue with the 109.

I watched MrX video and tried to use the implemented gunsight as he does. He seems to use it quite effectively. ...

I'm more interested in how he solved that not shaking the aircraft when the 20mm machine gun shoot. If he is removed the shaking, what else could it be changed? I asked him, but did not answer. So I ask you (or anyone else), what do you think about this? If he is not picking the files, then the difference may be due to the Russian version of CloD...? Who here still uses that version?

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by swiss

Because it's wrong, plain and simple.
The circle will never ever appear outside the combiner.

I agree with swiss in terms of the actual truth of the matter, but I still feel Lixma's solution is the least horrendous-looking compromise toward binocular realism.

[swiss]

Just make sure the combiner stays right off center, with a whole circle visible - and your set.
Now the thing I wonder is: That would mean the current wide view is one eyed(right one closed) and the gun view, well uh, with both?

Ok, what made oleg decide for this weird option? There must be a reason.

I am pretty sure that actually the pilot when aiming saw the circle in the centre. Imagine if he really had to lean sideways to to see the full circle. This basically is equivalent to have an aim that is offset by the amount by which the revi is offset from the centre. Consequence: Your convergence point would be hence offset too in the lateral direction in order to meet where the sight indicates it would meet.

Even if this offset may be small it would be awkward and I find it hard to believe that one would like his convergence point out of the symmetrical plane.

(the situation is a bit different for the colimateur sights of first world war fighters where they had to lean to the side at some point. This however never prevented the convergence set to the centre and one's aim was just by aiming through one gun the other following accordingly. This is thanks to the way a classical colimateur sight works. This is not the way a reflector sight works.)

What made Oleg and his team to do it this way and not another? Probably because of the same reason why in old IL2 in particular and occasional in CoD some things are not there or do not work as they should: By lack of information of how this works. Just see how much discussion is going on on this subject. And some stuff may seem odd at the first glance and be dismissed immediately just because of this.

I understand that introducing binocular view in a monocular world is a challenge but I think a solution can be found. I believe in the creativity of the dev team.

Yes, swiss, the current view is in wide field like looking with both eyes at the centre of the windscreen while leaning back. The gunsight view is like leaning to the right side and forward in order to stare with both eyes through the gunsight. I have difficulties to imagine that pilots did that in a dogfight.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I am pretty sure that actually the pilot when aiming saw the circle in the centre. Imagine if he really had to lean sideways to to see the full circle. This basically is equivalent to have an aim that is offset by the amount by which the revi is offset from the centre. Consequence: Your convergence point would be hence offset too in the lateral direction in order to meet where the sight indicates it would meet.

No, sir

German:

Das Reflexvisier ist ein optisches Visiergerät für starr in Flugzeuge eingebaute MG's, kann aber auch auf einem fest mit dem beweglichen MG verbundenen Aufsatz eingesetzt werden. Das Bild der Zielmarke wird durch ein Projektionssystem in der Zielebene abgebildet und wir somit gleichzeitig mit dem Ziel ohne Akkomodation scharf gesehen; kleine Bewegungen des Auges stören nicht, solange das Auge in dem die Zielmarke abbildenden Strahlenbündel sich befindet. Die Zielmarke selbst ist leuchtend; die Helligkeit kann der des Zieles angepasst werden. Die Lage und der Bildwinkel der aus einem leuchtenden Kreis mit eingesetzten Zielstacheln bestehenden Zielmarke sind unabhängig von dem Augenort: seitliche Verschiebungen des Auges oder eine zu große Entfernung vom Zielgerät bewirken lediglich ein abschneiden des Kreises, der die Größe der Vorhaltung angibt.

http://www.luftarchiv.de/index.htm?/...te/optisch.htm

Reminder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXsVg8F91t8

Edit: And yes, the "Visierlinie was off center, at least; is - in this .pdf of the C3 I have.

I do understand how a revi works. But I think you did not understand what I was trying to say.

If the revi as seen by the pilot when aiming would be offset - that's what you suggest - the gun convergence would need to be offset too. All that I have seen in terms of how gun convergence was set for the 109 suggest that the gun convergence was on the centre line and not offset. This is a strong indication that for the pilot the revi sight was in the centre and not offset.

Please see here:





(link to the post indicating the source of these two images: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...8&postcount=12 )

The gun pattern is absolutely symmetrical to the central symmetrical plane of the 109. I do not see one sensible reason why one should have an aim that is deviated from the point where the highest effectivity is obtained (at the point where the bullets converge). This would defy any logic.

Conclusion: The pilot aimed with a circle in the centre (where the bullets would meet).

EDIT: The triangle for Revi in the second image is just a measurement reference. It does say nothing of how the pilot perceived it.

[swiss]

You can't really tell from the pic.

But basically you got two options:

A) Keep the line-of-sight parallel to axis of symmetry , you'll end up with an error but at least it stays the same over all distances.

B) they intersect at a given distance: Deviation decreases to the point of intersection(?), from there on increases again, plus it shifts to the other side.

I would say B is worse.

So why did they not have option C: put the revi in the centre line? It disturbed neither the Spit, the Hurri or the Stuka pilot to have the revi in the centre. Why satisfy with a second best solution (assuming that the circle as seen by the pilot was offset)?

For me the answer is clear: because there was no need for option A, B or C as the pilot saw it in the centre and therefore where the most appropriate gun convergence was.

[swiss]

If that was such super solution, why are all the huds mounted in the center nowadays?

Fear of patent lawsuit?


edit
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2573
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/i...?topic=26241.0
?