Friday 2010-09-03 Dev. update and Discussions

[Jumo211]

Hello Skoshi Tiger ,
the problem with this video is that those are very few aircrafts with more dramatic smokes that are in existence available on YouTube , zillion gun camera videos have these included , how many planes are going down like this with black thick smoke in available huge WWII archival footage ? maybe 10 , 20 ? plus you don't see the whole story , many of these black thick burst will run out in about 5 seconds which is not shown in the rest of the youtube footage and you won't find the whole footage on youtube to compare.
After few seconds black thick smoke is most of the time gone leaving very transparent grayish color and little smoke .
We're talking about hundreds of shut down planes you won't see on youtube , which shows 90% of the time little or no smoke regardless of planes which also caught fire .
Black thick smoke was not sustainable to continue for extended period of time with majority of planes shot down including Japanese aircrafts .
Available huge WWII air combat archive mostly U.S. and Italy's Luce is not always some poor grainy videos , it's almost like in HD quality and footage speaks for itself .

Back on topic , I believe that pilot head size must be correct , this is my picture I took just recently and it looks like I should be ready for Hurricane aircraft

[KOM.Nausicaa]

As for the Heinkel cockpit: he is sitting on a bench. (not a seat) -- here is the SoW BoB Heinkel from inside:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny59blbRplA

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by AdMan

lets use a time tested unit of measurement for the human body, which is the head and use perspective:


as you see there is a total of about 1 head of space from front and back of canopy edge, while barely a chin from top of head to canopy.

again:

^now you will notice in this photo (original full size too, ALL the pilots are slightly hunched over - not exactly sure what puts them in this position, chute, seat position, but it also seems their heads are hunched over a bit too , maybe for optimal view of panel/sight. Still you see there is only about a quarter head in front and a head and a half in the rear, the top of the canopy looks like it would nearly graze the helmet

now look at the screenies:

2 1/2 heads front to back, 3/4 of a head to canopy top.

Yes helmets aren't swimcaps but the aren't so big the enlarge the pilots head by double or more

That's a much better base unit of comparison, but the execution is inaccurate without having photos that show the aircraft from the exact same angle.

All of the comparisons done thus far have failed to account for view angle (or aspect angle if we want to put it in aviation terms).

The fact is that unless we view all the Hurricanes in the photos from the same angle (for example, with us sitting 90 degrees to the left of the plane), comparisons will be inaccurate because of the different angles skewing perspective.

For example, let's say we have a Hurricane with a non-moving pilot dummy in the cockpit. If i view the plane from 7 o'clock, the distance between the pilot's head and the windshield will appear bigger than the distance between the pilot's head and the headrest, but if i view it from 10 o'clock it will be the other way around. Add difference of perception due to distance and the fact that we totally discount the 3rd axis in this example and it's obvious we can't make an accurate comparison.

In your comparison, the real-life black Hurricane is viewed from 10 o'clock low, while the SoW Hurricane in the pictures is viewed from 8 o'clock level. So, even with a perfectly scaled pilot the SoW screenshot would exhibit more distance between pilot's head and windshield than the photo of the real one, simply due to perspective (part of the reason you measured 2,5 heads worth of space). Differences in perspective can be explained with trigonometry and such calculations have played a big part in observational astronomy before computers, when people had to measure the real dimensions of objects that are million of miles away based only on the characteristics of the telescopes and the angular data of the viewing. I'm not in the mood to bust out the crayons and start drawing in MSpaint, but a quick google search on stuff like parallax angles and apparent/angular distances will explain a lot.

I agree that in some screenshots the pilots in the fighters look somewhat small and this week's Hurricane is among them. What i can't explain is why the same pilots appear fine in bombers, or even in fighters shown in previous updates. Up till now, it seems that nobody else can explain this either, otherwise someone would have answered this question. Until someone can prove that different pilot models have been used in different screenshots, i'll just chalk it up to being used to the IL-2 oversized pilots and needing some time to get accustomed to the new ones.

In any case, your idea of using the head as a unit of measurement is solid. What would lay the debate to rest and give a positive verdict is if we could take a real photo and replicate its viewing angle and distance in SoW, then accurate comparisons could be made. However, this demands the use of an object viewer or track recording/playback, which i guess wont be available until the release of the simulator.

[Jumo211]

Excellent topic ! also a lot of fun going on because that's about all we have right now

@ Skoshi Tiger

here is what I meant by initial outburst footage with aircraft going all the way to the ground ( or water in this case ) .
These two aircrafts are about the biggest black thick outburst I have seen from tons of WWII archive footage ,
it's rare to find as there is not much of such outburst recorded by gun cameras or by the cameraman on the ground .
These are pretty violent blasts but then again each thick smoke is running out in few seconds .

Here beginning @ 3:24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9txeXJE0zL0

[Space Communist]

Ok this is getting ridiculous. Clearly they are going to have to exhume the bones of the pilot of L1833, remodel his head with plasticene, then place him in a reconstructed Hurricane and do a full 3d scan.

Seriously guys this is such a pointless debate. I am confident that it is to scale, but even if it wasn't you'd have to be Rainman to see it in flight.

[Trumper]

If something is wrong ,it is wrong and better to get it right now than after being released,nothing wrong in constructive criticism.
Oleg ought to appreciate the amount of hours and research being provided on his behalf and for our end product and enjoyment.

[McHilt]

Feedback is essential to get a more objective view on details like... a head of a pilot, which is just as essential as the left wheel of the landing gear f.e.
Ok, maybe a bit farfetched but as long as the sim is not out we have to occupy our time other than flying BoB, but as closely related as possible which means:
giving feedback, no matter what the subject is.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

That's a much better base unit of comparison, but the execution is inaccurate without having photos that show the aircraft from the exact same angle.

All of the comparisons done thus far have failed to account for view angle (or aspect angle if we want to put it in aviation terms).

The fact is that unless we view all the Hurricanes in the photos from the same angle (for example, with us sitting 90 degrees to the left of the plane), comparisons will be inaccurate because of the different angles skewing perspective.

For example, let's say we have a Hurricane with a non-moving pilot dummy in the cockpit. If i view the plane from 7 o'clock, the distance between the pilot's head and the windshield will appear bigger than the distance between the pilot's head and the headrest, but if i view it from 10 o'clock it will be the other way around. Add difference of perception due to distance and the fact that we totally discount the 3rd axis in this example and it's obvious we can't make an accurate comparison.

In your comparison, the real-life black Hurricane is viewed from 10 o'clock low, while the SoW Hurricane in the pictures is viewed from 8 o'clock level. So, even with a perfectly scaled pilot the SoW screenshot would exhibit more distance between pilot's head and windshield than the photo of the real one, simply due to perspective (part of the reason you measured 2,5 heads worth of space). Differences in perspective can be explained with trigonometry and such calculations have played a big part in observational astronomy before computers, when people had to measure the real dimensions of objects that are million of miles away based only on the characteristics of the telescopes and the angular data of the viewing. I'm not in the mood to bust out the crayons and start drawing in MSpaint, but a quick google search on stuff like parallax angles and apparent/angular distances will explain a lot.

I agree that in some screenshots the pilots in the fighters look somewhat small and this week's Hurricane is among them. What i can't explain is why the same pilots appear fine in bombers, or even in fighters shown in previous updates. Up till now, it seems that nobody else can explain this either, otherwise someone would have answered this question. Until someone can prove that different pilot models have been used in different screenshots, i'll just chalk it up to being used to the IL-2 oversized pilots and needing some time to get accustomed to the new ones.

In any case, your idea of using the head as a unit of measurement is solid. What would lay the debate to rest and give a positive verdict is if we could take a real photo and replicate its viewing angle and distance in SoW, then accurate comparisons could be made. However, this demands the use of an object viewer or track recording/playback, which i guess wont be available until the release of the simulator.

yes I know viewing angle is hard to compensate for, but there is no way perspective is making his head look that small

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Jumo211

Hello Skoshi Tiger ,
the problem with this video is that those are very few aircrafts with more dramatic smokes that are in existence available on YouTube , zillion gun camera videos have these included , how many planes are going down like this with black thick smoke in available huge WWII archival footage ? maybe 10 , 20 ? plus you don't see the whole story , many of these black thick burst will run out in about 5 seconds which is not shown in the rest of the youtube footage and you won't find the whole footage on youtube to compare.
After few seconds black thick smoke is most of the time gone leaving very transparent grayish color and little smoke .
We're talking about hundreds of shut down planes you won't see on youtube , which shows 90% of the time little or no smoke regardless of planes which also caught fire .
Black thick smoke was not sustainable to continue for extended period of time with majority of planes shot down including Japanese aircrafts .
Available huge WWII air combat archive mostly U.S. and Italy's Luce is not always some poor grainy videos , it's almost like in HD quality and footage speaks for itself .

I'm sure your right. What I'm looking forward to is a more detailed damage model and associated visual effects in SOW.

Untill we get a video of what SOW is actually going to provide in terms of fire effects I'm fairly happy with what has been shown to us.

Originally Posted by Jumo211

Back on topic , I believe that pilot head size must be correct , this is my picture I took just recently and it looks like I should be ready for Hurricane aircraft

LoL! Of course, a smaller head would mean a smaller chance of being PK'ed! and that has to be good?

Cheers!

[airmalik]

I hope Oleg's getting a chuckle out of this thread.

Here's my contribution:



original: