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

[Lixma]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Your wrong, you had to lean with slightly with the 109 and 190.

How many eyes does a camera have? = 1

How many eyes does the virtual pilot in CoD have? = 1

How many eyes does a (healthy) 109 pilot have? = 2

An illustration....

Here's what a Cyclops would see if he flew the BF-109. As you can see it's exactly the same standard view we have in CoD. On eye, straight down the centerline....




Now here's what a real 109 pilot would see. A pilot with binocular vision. A pilot with the reticle being projected fully into one eye.....




At the moment people are taking the current Cyclops view as 'Realism'.

[b101uk]

Originally Posted by Lixma

How many eyes does a camera have? = 1

How many eyes does the virtual pilot in CoD have? = 1

How many eyes does a (healthy) 109 pilot have? = 2

An illustration....

Now here's what a real 109 pilot would see. A pilot with binocular vision. A pilot with the reticle being projected fully into one eye.....




At the moment people are taking the current Cyclops view as 'Realism'.

err no, because from the edge of the reflector glass to the centre of the reflector glass is wider than the distance from the centreline of the nose to the centre of the right eye, only if the reflector glass from its left edge to is centre matched the average anatomical distance of the nose centreline vs. right eye would you see the above.

in reality with both eyes open and a wider reflector glass from its left edge to it centre you would get about <~66% of the reticle

To get the effect you depict the reflector glass would need its left edge central to your nose, the glass would need to be ~3” (~75mm) wide (~1.5" (~37.5mm) to reticle centre).

[Lixma]

Originally Posted by b101uk

err no, because from the edge of the reflector glass to the centre of the reflector glass is wider than the distance from the centreline of the nose to the centre of the right eye,

I just measured the distance from the centre of my nose to middle of my pupil....37mm. Double that and we get 74mm (3 inch).

Now, I just tried Googling 'Revi dimensions' with no appreciable success but 74mm/3 inch on my tape measure looks pretty close to the width of an actual Revi's reflector.

To get the effect you depict the reflector glass would need its left edge central to your nose, the glass would need to be ~3” (~75mm) wide (~1.5" (~37.5mm) to reticle centre).

On screen in CoD the left hand edge of the Revi is bang down the centre-line (give or take 2mm), and those figures look good to me and confirm what my tape measure is suggesting.

Actually thinking about it I don't think that Lixma's picture is realistic.

BUT:
It might be possible that in fact one did not have to lean right for aim. It depends on how the reflector glas actually worked.

As far as I understood reflector sights the trick is to project light on a surface that is reflected so that the pilot can see it. Now from school we know that inbound angle = outbound angle. That is the benefit of the reflector sight with respect to iron sights because this makes the aiming point almost independent of small head movements. The image will slightly move but it won't impact the aiming as much.

A little picture about the basic principle after which to my understanding a reflector sight works. For simplicity I moved the light source into the same horizontal plane as the eye but the principle won't change at all with a 90° moved light source:



The angle between the reflector glas and the light beam emanating from the light source is equal to the line of sight when the eye is on the image. That's the basical law of optical physics.

Now what happens if the reflector glas is slightly inclined sideways? Yes, the angle between the light beam and the reflector glas decreases and so the angle between reflector sight and the eye line of view. This itself increases the angle between the light beam and the eye line of view so that the image can be seen from further aside. But it will be on the reflector glas and not on the window.

Here a drawing with the setup as described. I exagerated on purpose the inclination of the reflector side to better make the effect visible. Please also keep in mind that with appropriate glas cristal design it should be possible to obtain the same optical result without really inclining the reflector glas.



My strong feeling is that taking into account the tight cockpit dimensions of the 109 and the not so far off-centre position of the reflector sight a very very very tiny inclination would have been enough to allow seeing the image without leaning sideways.

Anyhow I agree with drewpee. I mean we're not talking about making the 109 turn better than the spit. We talk about computer hardware limitations in simulations and as far as I see it there's absolutely no loss in realism if the sights can be recentred on a button push (I even suggested something that is inbetween the current status and old IL2 days).

[Lixma]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Actually thinking about it I don't think that Lixma's picture is realistic.

Why not?

1: You're sat in a 109.

2: Looking straight ahead.

3: Both eyes open.

4: Revi offset to project the reticle image directly into your right eye only.

I submit your view would be more or less like this..... (paintshop skills notwithstanding)



What would you see?

try it yourself, Lixma.

Go to a mirror (the reflector glas is nothing different that a transparent mirror) and see if you can see anything from behind you at the side of the mirror. I guess you won't see anything exept the wall to which the mirror is attached.

[Wolf_Rider]

we understand what you're trying to say Stormcrow, but the old "arcade machine" type reflection system has the source a lot closer than the bathroom wall.

That still cannot defy physical laws. The distance between the light source and the reflecting surface is irrelevant to optical law. Only the angles count. See my previous post one page before.

[Sauf]

Originally Posted by Lixma

Why not?

1: You're sat in a 109.

2: Looking straight ahead.

3: Both eyes open.

4: Revi offset to project the reticle image directly into your right eye only.

I submit your view would be more or less like this..... (paintshop skills notwithstanding)



What would you see?

Actually, while were redesigning the revi can we have a spitfire painted on it as well? Will save me having to do all that take off/landing and flying bs

[klem]

Originally Posted by Lixma

Why not?

1: You're sat in a 109.

2: Looking straight ahead.

3: Both eyes open.

4: Revi offset to project the reticle image directly into your right eye only.

I submit your view would be more or less like this..... (paintshop skills notwithstanding)



What would you see?

What Lixma is trying to say is that the right eye reticle image combines with the left eye no-reticle image and the brain interprets a centralised combined view. See the attached sketch. There is no way to simulate this on a 2D flat screen. Even moving your eye to the right in CoD isn't an optically realistic view, it is a fudge to 'simulate' putting the combined central view onto the screen.

Another problem is that the gunsight is not presented properly. It should be square on to the right eye and angled to the left eye. That binocular view can't be simluated either and IMHO it favours the 'left eye' view, so the angle off and the amount you have to move your head is too great even if we accept the fact that we have to move our head at all. Its too far off centre to represent what the pilot really had to do.

The real situation is that the head did not have to be moved much at all, if any. What kind of stupid obstacle would that have been to give a man fighting for his life? Lean way to the right and try to pick up the reticle while losing all other SA? They were a lot smarter than that.