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

[Heliocon]

I have no idea about its historical accuracy but I agree with the OP - partially because its unneeded fluff it doesnt improve the realism or gameplay other then a minor cosmetic which actually gets in the way (especially for new players). Its not in the same league as for example realistic engine managment or other features.

+1 to space communist

[Baron]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

If you hang realism in this instance, where do you stop? He-111's that break the sound barrier? Pe-2's with more guns that B-17s? Sooner or later you're playing Crimson Skies.

U do realize that ctrl-F1 severely restricts your field of view and to get normal view back u have to press it again, target appears, press it again, and so on and so forth.

Hardly realistic or practical in the middle of a df.

[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

[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.

[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.

[carguy_]

Originally Posted by klem

I've never sat in a 109 with or without a gunsight - has
Did the LW pilot really lean over to see the gunsight reticle? Somehow I doubt it.

If what Lixma said is right, then to get a view of the full revi gunsight, a pilot must:
1. SITTING STRAIGHT - lean closer to the revi to get the "ghost" effect

or

2. SITTING A BIT TO THE RIGHT - seeing the full glowing crosshair without having to lean closer to it.

In the game we have the pilot sitting slightly to the right, close to the revi. Why?

After reading the FULL thread and generally agreeing with Lixma, I think that the classic IL2 SHIFT+F1 view was more correct, because one doesn`t have to lean close to the revi to see the crosshair, IF HE IS SITTING SLIGHLY TO THE RIGHT.

Hence, the old il2 gunsight view should be restored.

[Lixma]

Originally Posted by carguy_

If what Lixma said is right, then to get a view of the full revi gunsight, a pilot must:
1. SITTING STRAIGHT - lean closer to the revi to get the "ghost" effect.

No. (and if that's what you think i've said i'm beginning to get worried about my communication skills...)

The pilot sits looking forward, no leaning forward, sideways or craning his neck. The Revi is adjusted to shine a full reticle image into his right eye. That's the whole point of it being offset.

Originally Posted by carguy

2. SITTING A BIT TO THE RIGHT - seeing the full glowing crosshair without having to lean closer to it.

Again, there's no need to sit a bit to the right (unless the Revi was set-up for someone else). Please remember the view point we see in CoD is not what a two-eyed human would see.

Please have a scan through the thread again, especially the posts/pictures dealing with what a real 109 pilot would see through his left and right eye compared with the Cyclops depicted in CoD.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Lixma

Seriously.

Over a decade of faffing about with Shift-F1, leaning over, loosening straps or whatever...i'm weary of it. Just place the damned thing in the centre of the dash! Is anyone really going to be put out by such a minor concession to usability?

Realism be hanged in this instance.

You haven't bin round these har parts fer long pilgrim! Have ye?

[FZG_Immel]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

You haven't bin round these har parts fer long pilgrim! Have ye?

March, maybe april.. right

I'm leavin' anyway, no more Grizz...

We can't depend on TrackIR, because the most of the people just don't have it. Developers need's to find a solucion. And even with trackir, there is sime problems.

well, let's just remove the rudder axis then, since not everybody has rudder pedals..

WTF ???