PDA

View Full Version : Once and for all - 190 cockpit bar



gates123
08-26-2004, 11:38 AM
Look closely at this perfectly restored FW-190D13 and you will notice on the last picture in the cockpit that Oleg got it right. Will the debate ever end? If someone would like to enlarge the pic for closer observation that would be greatly appreciated.

http://www.johndeffes.com/yellow10.html

http://www.fightingcolors.com/custompagestuff/b17visibility72.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

[This message was edited by gates123 on Thu August 26 2004 at 10:52 AM.]

gates123
08-26-2004, 11:38 AM
Look closely at this perfectly restored FW-190D13 and you will notice on the last picture in the cockpit that Oleg got it right. Will the debate ever end? If someone would like to enlarge the pic for closer observation that would be greatly appreciated.

http://www.johndeffes.com/yellow10.html

http://www.fightingcolors.com/custompagestuff/b17visibility72.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

[This message was edited by gates123 on Thu August 26 2004 at 10:52 AM.]

meh_cd
08-26-2004, 11:43 AM
Erm, I hardly see how you dare to even think that this will stop the argument. If it truly is refraction that improves the view in real life, this photo shows nothing. Also, if you can get someone with access to the plane to take a shot straight on, THEN we could settle it once and for all. It'd be awesome regardless who was right or wrong. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gates123
08-26-2004, 11:49 AM
True but the bar clearly crosses behind the revi at the exact same place we have it in game. I guess for me to assume this is enough proof (tough crowd in here) is just that...an assumption. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.fightingcolors.com/custompagestuff/b17visibility72.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

BBB_Hyperion
08-26-2004, 12:04 PM
How about hop in it and look for yourself before posting such things ?

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fwview.jpg
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fwview2.jpg

Note that the angle on first picture is lower and that when you would lower the angle on 2nd pic the bar would hardly be in view .)

Wonder when CrazyIvan locks the thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

[This message was edited by BBB_Hyperion on Thu August 26 2004 at 11:12 AM.]

crazyivan1970
08-26-2004, 12:11 PM
I need a drink....

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

gates123
08-26-2004, 12:11 PM
I'm heading out to Mesa AZ in a month I'll try to contact these guys to take a pic myself...the debate rages on.

ZG77_Nagual
08-26-2004, 12:23 PM
Wrong bar, CrazyI

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2004, 12:30 PM
Seems to me the gunsight is also larger in real life than the one in-game, and by at least half the size. Could this be the same "oops" that applied to the 109's Revi?

faustnik
08-26-2004, 12:44 PM
Words that now make me cringe are "cockpit bar" and ".50 cal dispersion". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

NN_EnigmuS
08-26-2004, 12:54 PM
stiglr it's the revi of anton series before from a1 to a6,it was not a revi 16b on those model like in game lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/signyak/enigmus.gif

Xnomad
08-26-2004, 01:04 PM
I think if the bar was that big in real life it would be mentioned in at least one pilot report, at least one, that the view forward in a Fw 190 is appaling during flight and makes aiming with the gun sight difficult.

At the moment the Fw 190 Dora makes a great racing plane, but that's about it, it isn't a fighter because fighting with it isn't easy. And in FB it doesn't look like it was built to be a fighter. Fighter planes are designed so that they are easy to fly and fight with, they don't make the view in front terrible and then tell you to "train a lot and get over it".

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Xnomad-Sig.jpg

meh_cd
08-26-2004, 01:15 PM
I e-mailed them (as I'm sure many of us have done in the past, they probably won't even read it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ) and politely explained our predicament and asked for a picture from the pilot's perspective. We shall see...

Tvrdi
08-26-2004, 01:17 PM
gates123..on your pic is D13 model.....its not the same cause A series were smaller and with different cockpit...also on other pics posted recently on this forum, pics showing the cockpit bar from Fw190(A series)..ther is clearly visible that bar was much smaller (thinner) than it is in the game now...I lived in russia and i know how they are stubborn http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif and ya know, what the hell, this sim covers the WW2 in russia, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

IIJG69Kartofe
08-26-2004, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I need a drink...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To have a drink you must go to .... THE BAR ... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif


Ok ok! I leave =&gt;

Xnomad
08-26-2004, 01:35 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tvrdi:
gates123..on your pic is D13 model.....its not the same cause A series were smaller and with different cockpit...[QUOTE]

And the D-13 doesn't have machineguns in the cowling so it will be slightly different in comparison, especially with the A-8 and higher models that had the larger MG 131 13mm Machine-guns. Ok the MG bulges don't block the view but they help as a point of reference.

As can clearly be seen in the following photo of an A-8

http://www.triplane.net/fin/190/190mages/MyView.jpg

Also don't forget that the D-13 was completely overhauled and rebuilt I have photos of it in a magazine I bought two weeks ago where it shows it in someones back yard and in pieces, it was in a terrible state. Still it is the only flyable Dora in the world and apparently rebuilt as close to how it was when it came out of the factory as possible. Nevertheless people might use this as an argument that it isn't a Fw factory build and thus no use as a comparison.

Almost everything in the A-8 picture above is original part of the plane except for perhaps some instruments. I find the photo proof enough and I don't think a photo of the D-13 will prove anything that this A-8 already has.

[This message was edited by Xnomad on Thu August 26 2004 at 12:46 PM.]

Tvrdi
08-26-2004, 02:08 PM
xnomad...ur right...on your pic of original A8 its clearly visible that cockpit bar is really small and thin..also the nose is visible and should be included in the cockpit in FB like is on exampl. with Lagg....but this discussion is useless because Oleg and his team working hard on PF and FB is no more "working project"...

Chuck_Older
08-26-2004, 02:09 PM
**ALL, PLEASE READ**

For those of you who don't remember/never knew-

Oleg himself has specifically stated that this will NOT BE FIXED.

This argument got so heated and childish at one point in the past that he has flatly refused to change the 190's cockpit to rectify this problem. Also, this subject was a primary reason, in my opinion, that Oleg stopped posting here.

I have been convinced beyond doubt that the 190 'pit has something wrong with it in terms of the gunsight.
This is not a democracy or a courtroom. Proving your point about the 190 cockpit will not help, even if you get Kurt tank to back you up!

The subject is closed. That's not my rule, by the way, it's Oleg's. Go look at a razorback Thunderbolt's gunsight for a while and then the 190's will be bliss.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

Jaws2002
08-26-2004, 02:14 PM
Saw pics of this aircraft when it was in construction. The restorer said that the front windscreen has less then half the thickness of the original, and not the same refraction qualities. So is not a good example.
You could probably find it if you search the forum, in one of the old "bar" treads.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/Uber2sm.jpg

Xnomad
08-26-2004, 02:27 PM
The FW 190 is only 1 of 2 single piston engined fighters that you can pick when flying for the LW, that's a big deal that's why people get so upset.

There often isn't much else to fly if you go blue on some maps, and I think everyone would love to fly the Fw 190 but find it difficult, otherwise it would be a very popular plane.

Anyway I'm certain it won't change anything discussing the subject, but I want to make sure that Oleg doesn't mess it up in future games as there doesn't appear to be much competition in the Sim market and I do want to fly a nice virtual Fw 190 some day.

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Xnomad-Sig.jpg

ECV56_Rolf
08-26-2004, 02:38 PM
From that Dora photograph, I can see two things:

1: The refraction statement it's actually true, you can see it very clear.

2: The bar is there, because the armor glass is in place. In the other old photo without the bar there is no armor glass.

I don't believe that either removing the bar or aplying the refraction correction, will be of great help.

Someone claimed a long time ago that what was really wrong was the view position.

If you look from the outside, you will see the pilot head resting on the head armr protection.

Flying in a FW190 on high G seems to have been absolutely uncomfortable! Because I tried to find one singe photgraph of a flying FW190 with the pilots head resting on the pad... and they all actually are nearly 20cm (8in)away from it and at least 5cm (2in)higher. (grounded or taxing planes doesn't count because the pilots try to keep their vertical position, and the armor goes to the rear when the canopy is open)

Only once I have seen a pilot that have it's head on the 190 at IL-2 height position... (and even he was forward) they cared to explain that the guy was of small size!

A long time ago Oleg claimed that moving the looking position higher will mean a head protruding out of the planes cockpit.

That is true if the pilot keeps sitting at he same distance from the head armor, but it is not if you move it forward.

I don't believe they will change any of this in FB, and actually after two years flying in the actual position I got used to it, and I will really love to understand that "famous" british report about the focke saying that the 190 is more maneuverable than the spit, but turns less... I understand that it must climb faster, more for his powerplant than wing loading, and actually 190A8 and A9 are faster in game than reported in the graphs (they can reach 600-610 TAS on the deck), but accelerates to slow, and it climbs as a rock.

The game engine is old, and at this point I doubt they would care to modify the 190 model, because they have their hands full with an FB new set... PF... and a whole new and reengined game... BOB.

I hope in BOB some old issues as this one could reach some common ground, but I'am quite sure that Oleg and team must get instant nausea when even seeing a 190 Photograph or when seeing this figure anywhere else! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

So... the easy and useful solution, change pilots head place. Forget the bar, the refraction and... the revi appears to be exactly where it goes, its sight center line no more up than 18cm from the 13mmm guns fire line... so... you could fly it from the normal position with a far better view, but the sight view will remain the same...

My 2c

ASH at S-MART
08-26-2004, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gates123:
Look closely at this perfectly restored FW-190D13 and you will notice on the last picture in the cockpit that Oleg got it right. Will the debate ever end? If someone would like to enlarge the pic for closer observation that would be greatly appreciated.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont know what the options are with regards to mounting the revi to the dash.. and thus affecting the height of the revi.. I seem to recal someone posting something about that... But in this picture

http://www.johndeffes.com/sitebuilder/images/Yellow10pit-758x1137.jpg
It looks like the revi is mounted very low.. So low that the dash board edge padding even blocks the bottom of the revi..

But.. There DOES seem to be that BAR behind the revi.. But.. Now answer this question.. When the restored yellow 10 did they use the orginal glass? I DOUBT IT! In that most glass that old.. espically layered bullet proof stuff tends to get cloudy.. and yellow.. etc.. So.. they probally replaces the orginal glass with newer NON BULLET proof NON LAYERED glass which COULD have a DIFFERENT light refraction index.. Thus making the bar look thicker.. Just a thought!

In short.. this one pic does not settle it and I still think the forward Fw190 view like the P47C is bogus with regards to real life due to the limitaions of the sim

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

DarthBane_
08-26-2004, 05:50 PM
Nope, he didnt got it right.

Jaws2002
08-26-2004, 06:19 PM
Ok here it is:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=60110323&r=33610323#33610323 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quote:The glass we have is 38mm thick, but the frame (original eqpt.) could hold up to 50mm.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/Uber2sm.jpg

meh_cd
08-26-2004, 06:45 PM
Wow. Refraction really does make a HUGE difference, even without the maximum thickness. They'll probably wonder why another yooha e-mailed them and asked them to repeat the exact same thing as in that post. :P

BBB_Hyperion
08-26-2004, 08:03 PM
As pointed out this glas on restored is only 38 mm so the effect is less than on real one .)

38 / 50 = 0.76 = 24 % difference . But with a refraction index of 1.6 the high shift for 50 mm is about 3 cm from horizontal.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Bearcat99
08-26-2004, 09:39 PM
In pic 2 of Hyperions post... if you consider that the camera is higher than the leather cusion and lower the camera angle accordingly so that it shows just the leather and not the dash behind it.. linke the in cockpit view in FB.. it seems to me like it is even more obvious that Oleg got it right. But hey... Im just a P-51 jock so what do I know... Hey Ivan are you gonna lock this or should I...? Or doyou just want to see how long THIS one goes on for... Maybe it can break the previous record.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

BaldieJr
08-26-2004, 09:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
How about hop in it and look for yourself before posting such things ?

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fwview.jpg
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fwview2.jpg

Note that the angle on first picture is lower and that when you would lower the angle on 2nd pic the bar would hardly be in view .)

Wonder when CrazyIvan locks the thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

[This message was edited by BBB_Hyperion on Thu August 26 2004 at 11:12 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the photo, to the right, is that the prop I see?

It seems that t http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif he 190's prop is to small in the game. It should be blocking up far more of the view.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

<A HREF="http://officemax.secureportal.com/" TARGET=_blank>
Hey ya'll prepare yourselves
for the rubberband man!</A>
http://www.fighterjerks.com/rbman.png
http://www.fighterjerks.com

BBB_Hyperion
08-26-2004, 11:14 PM
Yes BaldieJr another Detail to pick on hehe .)
We want bigger props .) . But well prop is mostly transparanent in flight http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

For the Bar its really small i did sit in a A8 a while ago and you can see the cowling guns with ease even when i didnt have a parachute to sit on for taller guys. When looking at the revi that was too low mounted on the variant the bar was much lower then the cowling guns and you can look at them without a bar infront of you.

Here some picture from the famous vid from ossi from the same plane.

As Sitenote the Revi is mounted too low here but doesnt matter for Bar case.

Look from higher angle
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fwview3.jpg

Look from leather aimpoint revi line
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fwview4.jpg

And for comparison
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fwview.jpg

But FW isnt the only plane with such problems in il2.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

falco_cz
08-27-2004, 02:29 AM
Let me have little dream...a shining new Fw190 pit with nice Maddox Games writing on a tasty REVI sight...just like I185 has!

Aaron_GT
08-27-2004, 03:33 AM
Stiglr wrote:
"Seems to me the gunsight is also larger in real life than the one in-game, and by at least half the size. Could this be the same "oops" that applied to the 109's Revi?"

It's also a different shape, so it might simply be a different model of Revi.

Aaron_GT
08-27-2004, 03:37 AM
In the pics of Yellow 10 it looks like the leather combing should be much larger, and be the limiting factor, obscuring the bar anyway.

LLv34_Stafroty
08-27-2004, 04:03 AM
you suggest that pilot was hiding behind the leather combing in FW pit? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IVJG51_Swine
08-27-2004, 06:18 AM
Thats a Revi 12 in the first pic sitting in an A8 which is incorrect. It's installed incorrectly. Many ac had add ons done after the war.

BTW, there is a bar on the outside of the frame area(I have already shown numerous pics of that and have sat in 2 different 190s) but the whole point is that the Revi would be adjusted higher then what we see in the sim. The downside is that your top view area would be reduced a bit since the revi would be closer to the top frame area.

And Oleg did say that it wouldn't be changed for IL-2 but how about the later sims after BOB???? You never know.......I wish we could get better info instead of the stuff that gets posted every 3 months or so.

www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

Full Real Online War: http://www.forgottenskies.com/

IVJG51_Swine
08-27-2004, 06:30 AM
What you should see is a Revi that is higher then the outside bar area...This is a pic that I took...

http://images.snapfish.com/33%3B683%3A323232%7Ffp58%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D6%3B%3A%3 D437%3DXROQDF%3E23234%3C5%3A65847ot1lsi

The area under the red line is the OUTSIDE frame area.

www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

Full Real Online War: http://www.forgottenskies.com/

NorrisMcWhirter
08-27-2004, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
**ALL, PLEASE READ**

For those of you who don't remember/never knew-

Oleg himself has specifically stated that this will NOT BE FIXED.

This argument got so heated and childish at one point in the past that he has flatly refused to change the 190's cockpit to rectify this problem. Also, this subject was a primary reason, in my opinion, that Oleg stopped posting here.

I have been convinced beyond doubt that the 190 'pit has something wrong with it in terms of the gunsight.
_This is not a democracy or a courtroom. Proving your point about the 190 cockpit will not help, even if you get Kurt tank to back you up!_

The subject is_ closed_. That's not my rule, by the way, it's Oleg's. Go look at a razorback Thunderbolt's gunsight for a while and then the 190's will be bliss.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/BBB3.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but this is the crux of the problem; even with the knowledge that I'm wasting my breath....

a. Supposedly, the view bar is a matter of 'opinion' where we actually have photos taken from cockpits which indicate no view bar problem. Neither is there a firm body of evidence suggesting that the 190 has a bad view except when taxiing but that is true of almost all tail draggers.

Of course, someone may have modified the cockpit (or, the image) for their own purposes but that is unlikely.

In contrast, we have 'data' for .50 cals from a USAF manual. We don't have something so tangible as an actual photo where we can all see, for ourselves, the point in question.

b. The .50 argument became nasty and *extremely* childish but they were fixed *immediately* whereas the cockpit view has never been given consideration, it would appear. Even Oleg said that he had changed the .50s to something non-accurate and that he didn't really want to do it that way.

The question to come out of all of this, although I think I already know the answer, is *why the double standard?*

Xnomad: I agree with your point regarding "The FW 190 is only 1 of 2 single piston engined fighters that you can pick when flying for the LW" entirely.

What exacerbates the problem, for me, is that these planes have been in the game for a very long time now and they still suffer from problems.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

NorrisMcWhirter
08-27-2004, 06:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And Oleg did say that it wouldn't be changed for IL-2 but how about the later sims after BOB???? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suspect it will never be changed simply because there is no money in it.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

Blutarski2004
08-27-2004, 09:24 AM
Thanks for the 50cal plug there, Norris .....

BLUTARSKI

Abraxa
08-27-2004, 10:43 AM
the gunsight doesn't seem a Revi, but this FW pict seems interesting anyway.

http://ourworld.cs.com/Abra772/Data/fw6.jpg

p.s. hi Hype http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BBB_Abraxa

meh_cd
08-27-2004, 11:45 AM
Why wouldn't it be a Revi? It looks like one.

NN_EnigmuS
08-27-2004, 12:07 PM
ouh nice pic,it's a revi 16b like in game

nice found

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/signyak/enigmus.gif

Roy_15JG52
08-27-2004, 01:50 PM
S! all

here you can find few FW 190 pics:

http://www.15jg52.com/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=118&posts=8

NN_EnigmuS
08-27-2004, 02:08 PM
all is there for making the fw190 forward view accurate lol please http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/signyak/enigmus.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
08-27-2004, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Thanks for the 50cal plug there, Norris .....

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blutarski : I have no wish to stir up the .50 cal debate again; I am merely highlighting something that is quite annoying in that no action has been taking for the 190 view bar issue (which, even if it were not an issue, has caused massive amounts of debate) whereas an apparent issue of similar magnitude was fixed almost 'overnight' AND was regarded as the developer to introduce an inaccuracy.

I'm sorry but can you tell me the logic to 1C's decision? I can think of only one reason...and it's something I've suspected for some time.

Regards,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

DarthBane_
08-28-2004, 05:23 AM
Not even things from object viewer are done in few years, it says: ANY pair of guns could be fired simultaniously, but we did get overnight usa guns fixed due to whining, i agree to your point $$$ are of biggest importance. Sad.

Tvrdi
08-28-2004, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
all is there for making the fw190 forward view accurate lol please http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/signyak/enigmus.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

pitty no such jokes (like forward view and gunsight dropping) in your yak http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

NN_EnigmuS
08-28-2004, 07:14 AM
yup but in yak we cannot fly without speed bar because the compass is hide lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

anyway i want the fw forward view corrected especially the bar and the pilot head position because i like all plane in this game even if i am in a red squad i like flying blue too

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/signyak/enigmus.gif

ZG77_Nagual
08-28-2004, 08:12 AM
It's amazing that we have all these 190 cockpit pics and not one of them definitively supports either argument http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's like the argument is an entity unto itself and only seeks to preserve itself. LOL

meh_cd
08-28-2004, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
yup but in yak we cannot fly without speed bar because the compass is hide lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

anyway i want the fw forward view corrected especially the bar and the pilot head position because i like all plane in this game even if i am in a red squad i like flying blue too

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/signyak/enigmus.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've always loved your sig pics, what kind of Yak is that?

NN_EnigmuS
08-28-2004, 09:41 AM
it's a yak3 made by NN_Avirex(the skinner of me262 and me110g2 cokpit)

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/signyak/enigmus.gif

Smokin256
08-28-2004, 10:11 AM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
"It's amazing that we have all these 190 cockpit pics and not one of them definitively supports either argument It's like the argument is an entity unto itself and only seeks to preserve itself. LOL"

Hilarious observation there! That is so true! LOL

Cheers.....Smokin256

meh_cd
08-28-2004, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
it's a yak3 made by NN_Avirex(the skinner of me262 and me110g2 cokpit)

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/signyak/enigmus.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a skin? Wow. I always loved both of the cockpits, too! He rocks. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Blutarski2004
08-30-2004, 08:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Blutarski : I have no wish to stir up the .50 cal debate again; I am merely highlighting something that is quite annoying in that no action has been taking for the 190 view bar issue (which, even if it were not an issue, has caused massive amounts of debate) whereas an apparent issue of similar magnitude was fixed almost 'overnight' AND was regarded as the developer to introduce an inaccuracy.

I'm sorry but can you tell me the logic to 1C's decision? I can think of only one reason...and it's something I've suspected for some time.

Regards,
Norris
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I'll keep the 50cal response short and sweet, because I am getting tired of it as well. I wnet to a great deal of trouble to assemble all the official data which was submitted to Oleg. You continue to demean those efforts with disparaging remarks, provocative quotation marks, and the claim that somehow Oleg surrendered to overpowering whining. I take such expressions as an attack on my intellectual integrity. As far as Oleg's famous statement is concerned, all I can say is that opinions are by no means unanimous as to his true intent. IMO, legit data was presented and Oleg responded to it. If any relative gunnery imbalances are perceived to exist, I suggest that they are a consequence of certain other gun types being under-modelled in damage effect. End of 50cal bit.

As regards 190 cockpit visibility and gunsight view, I remain of the opinion that the current method of FB modelling does not accurately reflect the true range of cockpit visibility available to a pilot. My reasons are as follows.

The FB cockpit vision model appears to be based upon a static head position from which a MONOCULAR view field is geometrically generated. Such a method exaggerates the obstruction to pilot view offered by vertical cockpit frame components. In reality, a pilot possesses a certain degree of freedom in moving his head, even when he is strapped into his seat. More importantly, human BINOCULAR vision greatly reduces the the degree to which any vertical cockpit frame component will block the field of view. The great difference between BINOCULAR and MONOCULAR fields of vision is easy to demonstrate: sit in your car and look past the windshield pillars with both eyes open, then with one eye open. We are all presently modelled as flying cyclops.

The gunight view issue, I believe, is affected by one point which is not well modelled in FB. Gun harmonization is not simply a matter of range; it is also a matter of speed. The zero lift angle of attack trim setting of an aircraft will vary according to speed, and a pilot's sight line over the nose of his aircraft will correspondingly vary. Gun harmonization therefore had to take into account the effect upon that sight line produced by the a/c trim angle at the anticipated combat speed. As I understand it, the FW190A series flew with a decidedly nose down angle of attack when trimmed for level flight at combat speeds, which would produce a few extra vertical degrees of vision over the nose of the aircraft. This does not seem to be reproducible by FB's FM code.

Seat height adjustment options have also been discussed, but I am not qualified to expound on that point.

BLUTARSKI

269GA-Maxmars
08-30-2004, 09:46 AM
http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/p-15875.jpg

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
08-30-2004, 10:20 AM
Time to activate ................

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tHeBaLrOgRoCkS/planes/CIl337.jpg

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tHeBaLrOgRoCkS/planes/signiture3.jpg

Ugly_Kid
08-30-2004, 01:23 PM
I have read several books and documents bordering FW, Eric Brown, LW pilot's account etc. I have often read appraisals of FW for good visibilty and just as often mentions of the nose-down attitude in flight - indeed so often that it passes as a rule. I have never read one single account mentioning a problem of visibility (aside taxing and take-off) or a problem of taking deflection shots - not once. Contraty to this game here, I haven't seen one single player giving FW such a positive notes.

Generally, I think the virtual pilots impressions of some distintive characteristics of an aircraft should match those of a real pilot in order to pass as an accurate simulation. It's no different from simulating a good turning capability on Spitfire or good diving capability of P-47.

Actually, the normal cockpit view is not that bad, the problem is the gunsight view...the head should move only sideways and not forward and up, like the shift now is. Something like this:

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/whynotlikethis.jpg

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

PlaneEater
08-30-2004, 03:28 PM
Point of clarification:
The gunsight in Yellow 10 is not a Revi 16B or Revi 16D as the 190D-9 in FB is presented with.

Yellow 10 has a Askania EZ42 gyro gunsight, similar in function to the P-51's gyro K14 'acemaker' sight.

WUAF_Badsight
08-31-2004, 12:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gates123:
Look closely at this perfectly restored FW-190D13 and you will notice on the last picture in the cockpit that Oleg got it right. Will the debate ever end? If someone would like to enlarge the pic for closer observation that would be greatly appreciated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

THE Y10 D-13 COCKPIT PIC SHOWS A GLASS GUNSITE WITHOUT A OBSTRUCTION AT THE BOTTOM DUE TO A BAR

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
08-31-2004, 01:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Blutarski : I have no wish to stir up the .50 cal debate again; I am merely highlighting something that is quite annoying in that no action has been taking for the 190 view bar issue (which, even if it were not an issue, has caused massive amounts of debate) whereas an apparent issue of similar magnitude was fixed almost 'overnight' AND was regarded as the developer to introduce an inaccuracy.

I'm sorry but can you tell me the logic to 1C's decision? I can think of only one reason...and it's something I've suspected for some time.

Regards,
Norris
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I'll keep the 50cal response short and sweet, because I am getting tired of it as well. I wnet to a great deal of trouble to assemble all the official data which was submitted to Oleg. You continue to demean those efforts with disparaging remarks, provocative quotation marks, and the claim that somehow Oleg surrendered to overpowering whining. I take such expressions as an attack on my intellectual integrity. As far as Oleg's famous statement is concerned, all I can say is that opinions are by no means unanimous as to his true intent. IMO, legit data was presented and Oleg responded to it. If any relative gunnery imbalances are perceived to exist, I suggest that they are a consequence of certain other gun types being under-modelled in damage effect. End of 50cal bit.

As regards 190 cockpit visibility and gunsight view, I remain of the opinion that the current method of FB modelling does not accurately reflect the true range of cockpit visibility available to a pilot. My reasons are as follows.

The FB cockpit vision model appears to be based upon a static head position from which a MONOCULAR view field is geometrically generated. Such a method exaggerates the obstruction to pilot view offered by vertical cockpit frame components. In reality, a pilot possesses a certain degree of freedom in moving his head, even when he is strapped into his seat. More importantly, human BINOCULAR vision greatly reduces the the degree to which any vertical cockpit frame component will block the field of view. The great difference between BINOCULAR and MONOCULAR fields of vision is easy to demonstrate: sit in your car and look past the windshield pillars with both eyes open, then with one eye open. We are all presently modelled as flying cyclops.

The gunight view issue, I believe, is affected by one point which is not well modelled in FB. Gun harmonization is not simply a matter of range; it is also a matter of speed. The zero lift angle of attack trim setting of an aircraft will vary according to speed, and a pilot's sight line over the nose of his aircraft will correspondingly vary. Gun harmonization therefore had to take into account the effect upon that sight line produced by the a/c trim angle at the anticipated combat speed. As I understand it, the FW190A series flew with a decidedly nose down angle of attack when trimmed for level flight at combat speeds, which would produce a few extra vertical degrees of vision over the nose of the aircraft. This does not seem to be reproducible by FB's FM code.

Seat height adjustment options have also been discussed, but I am not qualified to expound on that point.

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll try to deal with this reply in greater detail when I have time. In short, though:

the comments regarding the view refer to vertical components whereas we are not talking about a vertical component.

Like you, I'm tired of the .50 cals - both in debate and in the game (I refer it to as game, now, as it's becoming less of a sim as we speak). While is a credit to you in submitting the data, who is to say that your data is correct; it is, again, an opinion backed up with information that suits that opinion. I had no wish to counter the .50 data but to simply point out that Oleg is now clearly driven by marketing needs that appear to embrace bias on many levels. i.e. the problem is not confined to the .50 cal issue but, rather, epitomised by it.

Ta,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

starfighter1
08-31-2004, 02:31 AM
hi,
a link to more real things as some of You know:

http://www.triplane.net/

http://www.triplane.net/fin/190/190pit.htm


and of course the correct hight of pilots view and the revi/gyroscope and not this 'gnomish view' as running in FB at many planes.

mor flexible head movements and option to adjust pilots seat are welcome at BoB.

Blueprints is one thing. Real cockpit view design and virtual pilots view another story in 3D design. Even of armored glass with different refraction values.
It's better to cut the low poly than to overframe the view...at pc desktops.

Hope to See the fix of the Zero Cockpit struts(sizes) at PF..

NonWonderDog
08-31-2004, 01:59 PM
The more I look at it, the more I realize that it is modelled almost exactly to the blueprints. You can see exactly where the armored glass fits into "the bar," and it looks just like all the photos I've seen.

The difference is that you wouldn't actually see much of "the bar" if you were looking through thick armored glass at such a steep angle. Everything would be refracted downwards a bit, as you can clearly see from some of those pictures.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the refraction would change the zero of the gunsight. If the refraction isn't there, the gunsight points low. Now since refraction probably isn't something were going to see in flight sims for quite a while, a decent compromise would have been to move the gunsight up a bit, right? It wouldn't be completely accurate, but neither is the lack of refraction effects. The resultant gun angles probably wouldn't be all that far off, either.

Scratch that, it would look awful. Maybe better would be to shrink the bar down a bit? I don't think that anyone would really object, but it seems like a lot of work and filesize for something so minor.

"The bar" doesn't really bother me at all; I can live with it the way it is. It's the rest of the framing that gets in the way, especially the bar running across the top. There's nothing wrong with them, they would just be much easier to see around in real life than in the sim.

DarthBane_
08-31-2004, 03:07 PM
Lack of competition in sim market has brought us to this point. Sad. There is no other sim and we have to take anything developers say and give. No matter what facts are presented, and there are meny in this thread, we get their picture of things, not real picture. Olegs world. Salute Sir.

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2004, 04:42 PM
Give that man a cigar!

Yessir, it's that overlarge, 2 x 4 of canopy that really gets in your way.

I find the FW190 is the only plane in which the fully zoomed OUT view is useless. Way too much of the view is obstructed by the framing. I only use the Normal View for flying and spotting in the Focke Wulf.

Smokin256
09-01-2004, 02:39 PM
Starfighter wrote:

"hi,
a link to more real things as some of You know:

http://www.triplane.net/

http://www.triplane.net/fin/190/190pit.htm


and of course the correct hight of pilots view and the revi/gyroscope and not this 'gnomish view' as running in FB at many planes.

mor flexible head movements and option to adjust pilots seat are welcome at BoB."



Agree totally! The way I see it there are four posible reasons for this.

A, Mr. Maddox truly blieves the view positions are correct.

B, He Believes that any obstuction of the view area through the glass is bad. regardless of its effect on viewing angle. (Obstructions meaning engine cowls & gun blisters.)

C, He is interested in creating a compromize between viewing outside & viewing the instruments.

D, The IL2/FB graphics engine is incapable of rendering the cowls & wingroots correctly because of the clipping problem.

Mr. Maddox has not been inclined to tell us which it is. Fair enough! It's his sim, it's his perogative.

Personally I'm hanging my hopes for BoB on #4.

Since he hasn't said why he chose to model things the way he has there is little point in discussing it further.

At this point all we can do is "vote with our wallets". Myself I have not bought either AEP or BOE. & since I see that the Corsair suffers from the same problem ( The gunsight is mounted two inches too low) I won't be buying PF either.

NonWonderDog wrote;
" The more I look at it, the more I realize that it is modelled almost exactly to the blueprints. You can see exactly where the armored glass fits into "the bar," and it looks just like all the photos I've seen.

The difference is that you wouldn't actually see much of "the bar" if you were looking through thick armored glass at such a steep angle. Everything would be refracted downwards a bit, as you can clearly see from some of those pictures.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the refraction would change the zero of the gunsight. If the refraction isn't there, the gunsight points low. Now since refraction probably isn't something were going to see in flight sims for quite a while, a decent compromise would have been to move the gunsight up a bit, right? It wouldn't be completely accurate, but neither is the lack of refraction effects. The resultant gun angles probably wouldn't be all that far off, either.

Scratch that, it would look awful. Maybe better would be to shrink the bar down a bit? I don't think that anyone would really object, but it seems like a lot of work and filesize for something so minor.

"The bar" doesn't really bother me at all; I can live with it the way it is. It's the rest of the framing that gets in the way, especially the bar running across the top. There's nothing wrong with them, they would just be much easier "


Stigler wrote;
"Give that man a cigar!

Yessir, it's that overlarge, 2 x 4 of canopy that really gets in your way.

I find the FW190 is the only plane in which the fully zoomed OUT view is useless. Way too much of the view is obstructed by the framing. I only use the Normal View for flying and spotting in the Focke Wulf."



Also totally agree! Unfortunately I fear we're SoL on this issue. This is directly related to the obscured instruments problem & is IMHO a flaw in Mr. Maddoxs' basic game design philosophy. I feel that he misses what's most important to Accuracy & realism.

Example, on the Yak gusight/compass problem;
Having the correct & accurate dimensions on what amounts to a graphical embelishment. (the body of the gunsight) = UNIMPORTANT!

Being able to see a primary flight instrument while in flight. = VERY IMPORTANT!

The sad thing is The proper (read accurate relative to reality & one plane to another)dimensions for canopy struts & other cockpit parts could be arrived at scientifically but would still require some artistic license. Unfortunately this seems to be something Mr. Maddox is very uncomfortable with.

Just my opinion.

Cheers.......Smokin256

Edit, Spelling & syntax.

[This message was edited by Smokin256 on Wed September 01 2004 at 01:48 PM.]

[This message was edited by Smokin256 on Wed September 01 2004 at 01:49 PM.]

starfighter1
09-01-2004, 02:50 PM
hi,
by the way: something to enjoy..2 years old !
just a link to some jap. designers (render WW-II warbirds/ mpeg by Light Wave Engine)

http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/airplane/1942/1942.mpg

http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/airplane/1945/1945.mpg

that's what we are looking for the future http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
1) correct individual cockpit view/gunsight view at every plane
2) realistic gun fire (no muzzle flashes)

and a lot of more advanced design here again

I guess this jap. designers know more about realistic cockpit and plane design than some of so called prof 3DMax designers at several pc-combat developers...


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Smokin256:
Starfighter wrote:

hi,
a link to more real things as some of You know:

http://www.triplane.net/

http://www.triplane.net/fin/190/190pit.htm


and of course the correct hight of pilots view and the revi/gyroscope and not this 'gnomish view' as running in FB at many planes.

mor flexible head movements and option to adjust pilots seat are welcome at BoB.

Agree totally! The way I see it there are four posible reasons for this.

A, Mr. Maddox truly blieves the view positions are correct.

B, He Believes that any obstuction of the view area through the glass is bad. regardless of its effect on viewing angle. (Obstructions meaning engine cowls & gun blisters.)

C, He is interested in creating a compromize between viewing outside & viewing the instruments.

D, The IL2/FB graphics engine is incapable of rendering the cowls & wingroots correctly because of the clipping problem.

Since Mr. Maddox has not been inclined to tell us which it is there is little point in discussing it further.

Personally I'm hanging my hopes for BoB on #4.

At this point all we can do is "vote with our wallets". Myself I have not bought either AEP or BOE. & since I see that the Corsair suffers from the same problem ( The gunsight is mounted two inches too low) I won't be buying PF either.

starfighter1
09-01-2004, 03:01 PM
hi,
and sorry how to design... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/pitot_up_d.htm



[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
re the above links to all:
http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/index.htm

LBR_Rommel
09-10-2004, 04:02 PM
sry but i cant resist

we have all pics videos guys

Oleg Cockpit
http://www.lanpoint.net/fotos/fw190/FW190-A8_****.jpg

the correct view inside
http://www.lanpoint.net/fotos/fw190/FW190A3.jpg

front view
http://www.lanpoint.net/fotos/fw190/FWReviView.jpg

check this video and see the side view, the revi of course its wrong
http://www.lanpoint.net/videos/FW190A8_cockpit.avi

I WANT THIS
http://www.lanpoint.net/fotos/fw190/55.JPG

Oleg dont hate us but you are wrong when you did the 190 cockpit, but we still love you, but plz fix it.

&lt;O|

Major LBR=Rommel

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.hpg.ig.com.br/rommel_ban.jpg

DarthBane_
09-11-2004, 09:28 AM
Thank you Rommel for documenting and proving the amount of mistake and false modeling of FW cockpit by developers. On the metter of FW series they have shown us how inacurate and personal point of view looks like. And than we get a story about not modeling more planes due to lack of gun station pics? This plane with hundreds of pics is comletely wrong in il2, than FB, than AEP. Why?

BBB_Hyperion
09-11-2004, 09:40 AM
BTW i found the Bar it is viewable like it is in Il2 when you remove the leather covering and a metall plate below the armored glas frame(And only then you can see the Bar in full beauty)

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

OldMan____
09-11-2004, 01:30 PM
In fact I think FW190 has a very good fowrad view (and I almost soley fly it). Not as good as P51 and yak ones.. but good enough. Very good view at edges of FOV (in widest view with gund view off).

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

IVJG51_Swine
09-11-2004, 02:57 PM
View from the front, nothing is obstructing the Revi here...This says it all...BTW, the argument about the cowling affecting the view is absolutely incorrect with the nose down attitude in-flight..
http://images.snapfish.com/33%3B7%3B64%3B23232%7Ffp8%3Enu%3D3232%3E44%3A%3E29 7%3E232344%3A388982ot1lsi

Inside cockpit view, the red is the outer frame area(THE BAR).
http://images.snapfish.com/33%3B7%3B64%3B23232%7Ffp58%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D6%3B%3A %3D437%3DXROQDF%3E23234%3C5%3A65847ot1lsi

http://images.snapfish.com/33%3B7%3B64%3B23232%7Ffp58%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D6%3B%3A %3D437%3DXROQDF%3E23234%3C5%3A24%3B%3C2ot1lsi

Nose down attitude in-flight
http://images.snapfish.com/33%3B7%3B68723232%7Ffp63%3Dot%3E232%3A%3D6%3B%3A%3 D437%3DXROQDF%3E2323595%3B8%3C486ot1lsi

www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

Full Real Online War: http://www.forgottenskies.com/