PDA

View Full Version : Tempest rear view - was really such bad like in game?



Kwiatos
03-12-2006, 04:55 AM
I wonder if RL Tempest have such bad rear view like in game? Tempest with its bubble canopy and profiled rear armour plate shouldn't have such bad rear view. Rear plate was only little bigger then pilot head and rear view should be more like in P-51 or P-47 with bubble canopy. Actually in game tempest rear armour plate is like wall and casue 0% back visisblity.

See 1 photo:

http://www.hawkertempest.se/kendall-2.htm

anarchy52
03-12-2006, 05:05 AM
as with 190 for example bad view is the conseqence of fixed point of view. If 190 bar is any indication - you better get used to it.

hop2002
03-12-2006, 05:16 AM
This was the AFDU's opinion of the Tempest rear view in their tactical trials:

"The all-round view from the pilot's cockpit is excellent, especially the rear view. This has been made possible by the "tear drop" hood which gives the pilot a better all-round unobstucted view than any other aircraft- Hun or friendly. It is also fitted to some Typhoons."

SeaFireLIV
03-12-2006, 05:16 AM
As anarchy 52 says, the fixed views doesn`t help for nearly all aircraft when looking behind. But you, know, creaking your neck round to see behind you all the time is hard work, so r/l pilots also...

...would swing the plane slightly left or right to help their view, so implement this and you`ll not be far off from how real pilots did it.

stansdds
03-12-2006, 05:26 AM
6DOF of TIR with Vector Expansion would make this much nicer, but Oleg has said we will never have this feature in IL2. I'd guess it will be in BoB. My only experience thus far with 6DOF is in MS FlightSim 2004. It works well, but my only complaint is that it allows you to stick your head through the canopy and look around. I'd like to see some sort of limiting feature that would allow you to lean out of the cockpit when the canopy is open, but confine you to the interior when it is closed.

Kwiatos
03-12-2006, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
This was the AFDU's opinion of the Tempest rear view in their tactical trials:

"The all-round view from the pilot's cockpit is excellent, especially the rear view. This has been made possible by the "tear drop" hood which gives the pilot a better all-round unobstucted view than any other aircraft- Hun or friendly. It is also fitted to some Typhoons."

Yea i found the same here:

http://www.hawkertempest.se/versus.htm

Yea definitly in game rear view is wrong.

<span class="ev_code_RED">
Search View and Rear View:
The all-round view from the pilot's cockpit is excellent, especially the rear view. This has been made possible by the "tear drop" hood which gives the pilot a better all-round unobstucted view than any other aircraft- Hun or friendly. It is also fitted to some Typhoons.

</span>

Brain32
03-12-2006, 05:33 AM
Tempest's rear view is heavly porked, while other planes in game with bubble canopy like P51D and P47D have excellent rear view, Tempest's rear visibility is more like Corsair, or atleast 109G2. Which is wrong, but maybe Anrachy52 explained it(game engine limitations). As for swinging the plane it's useless, improvement is marginal and speed penalty is too big. Rely on your wingman or your luck.

Kwiatos
03-12-2006, 05:40 AM
In P-51 nad P-47 are engine limitation too??

After watching document films and photos i must say that in game tempest rear armour head plate is too big size expecially too WIDE!

Brain32
03-12-2006, 06:02 AM
I think P51D and P47 have excellent rear view in the game. And yes armour plate is too wide...

Ratsack
03-12-2006, 06:21 AM
Use the Shift F1 key to move your virtual head forward and away from the head rest when you want to look behind. It may not be the perfect solution, but it improves the view quite a bit.

cheers,
Ratsack

Brain32
03-12-2006, 06:43 AM
Wihout shift+f1 the plane is completely useless, as armour plate covers insane amount of rear hemisphere, you could hide a formation of B29's behind, the pilot would never notice it...

Sintubin
03-12-2006, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
This was the AFDU's opinion of the Tempest rear view in their tactical trials:

"The all-round view from the pilot's cockpit is excellent, especially the rear view. This has been made possible by the "tear drop" hood which gives the pilot a better all-round unobstucted view than any other aircraft- Hun or friendly. It is also fitted to some Typhoons."

Yea i found the same here:

http://www.hawkertempest.se/versus.htm

Yea definitly in game rear view is wrong.

<span class="ev_code_RED">
Search View and Rear View:
The all-round view from the pilot's cockpit is excellent, especially the rear view. This has been made possible by the "tear drop" hood which gives the pilot a better all-round unobstucted view than any other aircraft- Hun or friendly. It is also fitted to some Typhoons.

</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol you make your opiniun from that site

oh my god

No wonder you believe that BS

luftluuver
03-12-2006, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by Sintubin:

Lol you make your opiniun from that site

oh my god

No wonder you believe that BS And what is wrong with quoting an official British government organization? Oh well, the type of reply expected from one so brainwashed by Herr Doktor Geobbels.

Kwiatos
03-12-2006, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
This was the AFDU's opinion of the Tempest rear view in their tactical trials:

"The all-round view from the pilot's cockpit is excellent, especially the rear view. This has been made possible by the "tear drop" hood which gives the pilot a better all-round unobstucted view than any other aircraft- Hun or friendly. It is also fitted to some Typhoons."

Yea i found the same here:

http://www.hawkertempest.se/versus.htm

Yea definitly in game rear view is wrong.

<span class="ev_code_RED">
Search View and Rear View:
The all-round view from the pilot's cockpit is excellent, especially the rear view. This has been made possible by the "tear drop" hood which gives the pilot a better all-round unobstucted view than any other aircraft- Hun or friendly. It is also fitted to some Typhoons.

</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol you make your opiniun from that site

oh my god

No wonder you believe that BS </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes i know bubble canpoy should have null rear view.
I no wonder that you belive that BS.

joeap
03-12-2006, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
This was the AFDU's opinion of the Tempest rear view in their tactical trials:

"The all-round view from the pilot's cockpit is excellent, especially the rear view. This has been made possible by the "tear drop" hood which gives the pilot a better all-round unobstucted view than any other aircraft- Hun or friendly. It is also fitted to some Typhoons."

Yea i found the same here:

http://www.hawkertempest.se/versus.htm

Yea definitly in game rear view is wrong.

<span class="ev_code_RED">
Search View and Rear View:
The all-round view from the pilot's cockpit is excellent, especially the rear view. This has been made possible by the "tear drop" hood which gives the pilot a better all-round unobstucted view than any other aircraft- Hun or friendly. It is also fitted to some Typhoons.

</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol you make your opiniun from that site

oh my god

No wonder you believe that BS </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A Bubble canopy having a good rear view is BS? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

SeaFireLIV
03-12-2006, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
This was the AFDU's opinion of the Tempest rear view in their tactical trials:

"The all-round view from the pilot's cockpit is excellent, especially the rear view. This has been made possible by the "tear drop" hood which gives the pilot a better all-round unobstucted view than any other aircraft- Hun or friendly. It is also fitted to some Typhoons."

Yea i found the same here:

http://www.hawkertempest.se/versus.htm

Yea definitly in game rear view is wrong.

<span class="ev_code_RED">
Search View and Rear View:
The all-round view from the pilot's cockpit is excellent, especially the rear view. This has been made possible by the "tear drop" hood which gives the pilot a better all-round unobstucted view than any other aircraft- Hun or friendly. It is also fitted to some Typhoons.

</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol you make your opiniun from that site

oh my god

No wonder you believe that BS </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what is wrong with that site, Sintubin? Your reaction to this perfectly fine site seems well over-the-top and probably biased against anything british.

luftluuver`s response to you is probably correct, and now I`m begining to think that maybe the Tempest rearview is too much compared to reality...

VW-IceFire
03-12-2006, 10:05 AM
Without actually checking the diagrams its hard to say but knowing the amount of work and detail Alex Voicu put into the 3D model (and Hammerd into the textures) its undoubtedly correct.

Once again, the limitations of the sim are that we can't lean out to the side to look back at the tail. Real pilots could just lean around the armored seat. We cannot. Its that simple.

If we got a bubble canopy Spitfire such as the FR.XIV the problem would be the same. I suspect this is also why we got the Ki-100-Ko instead of the Ki-100-Otsu as the bubble canopy on that plane would make little difference in how well we could see out the back.

Monty_Thrud
03-12-2006, 10:40 AM
Ignore him Seafire he's of the belief everything German is infinately superior and everything from the Allies is c-r-a-p... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Moving on, heres the rear view from P47 and Tempest...i dont believe anything can be changed...

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//IL2M_P47-rview.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//IL2M_Tempest-rview.jpg

domenlovrec
03-12-2006, 10:58 AM
Yes, that site is BS and i'm getting sick of red whiners. Perhaps tempest had good rear view, but quoting that page is pure ****. One day it's the fuel, today is rear view...

Capt_Haddock
03-12-2006, 11:04 AM
There's nothing wrong with the view. It's a superb 3D model.

The only problem is the fixed head position. As it's been already mentioned the solution is 6DOF (something that will have to wait for BoB).

Just download this Aces High II video and you'll see what I mean...
www.haddock.f2s.com/il2/IL2_01.wmv (http://www.haddock.f2s.com/il2/IL2_01.wmv)

http://www.haddock.f2s.com/sig/F19bannerh3.jpg

Sintubin
03-12-2006, 12:04 PM
I was not talking about rear view

But of the compares between fighters lol how do you SAY HOLLYWOOD lala

Xiolablu3
03-12-2006, 12:43 PM
Ahhh he is upset because in the reports it says the Tempest outturned the 109G http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

It may have done at speeds over 400mph, the elecators become so heavy on a 109 at that speed. It all depends what speed the turning tests were made at.


But seriously it also says the FW190A could outclimb the Dora, some funny stuff going on there.

horseback
03-12-2006, 03:30 PM
It is a wartime report; by definition, it means that the enemy aircraft used for direct comparison were not the latest models, were most often recovered in an unflyable state, and repaired/rebuilt with parts taken from wrecks or other unflyable enemy aircraft.

Oh, and they were flown by pilots not completely familiar with them, however skilled they may have been. In wartime, Allied pilots were given these comparison reports, warned of these shortcomings, and reminded to take them with a grain of salt.

And as we all know, only the Allied comparison tests had these flaws.

German and Soviet tests were done to exacting scientific standards, without the slightest hint of propaganda, flying former enemy/Western aircraft in pristine condition delivered by defecting decadent British and American playboys who were afraid to die (if they went to the Germans) or had seen the Socialist Truth (as revealed by Marx and Engels, and embodied by Comrade Stalin).

Those tests are entirely reliable. Trust me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

cheers

horseback

luftluuver
03-12-2006, 04:26 PM
horseback, such true words. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DangerForward
03-12-2006, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Capt_Haddock:
There's nothing wrong with the view. It's a superb 3D model.

The only problem is the fixed head position. As it's been already mentioned the solution is 6DOF (something that will have to wait for BoB).

Just download this Aces High II video and you'll see what I mean...
www.haddock.f2s.com/il2/IL2_01.wmv (http://www.haddock.f2s.com/il2/IL2_01.wmv)

http://www.haddock.f2s.com/sig/F19bannerh3.jpg

What I don't understand is why we have to wait for 6DOF to get head lean. I use the hat switch to look back. Why can't looking to the rear quarter mean move your head as much as possible to get a decent view to the rear. An interesting thing about the Tempest versus P47 is that the P47 bubble came from the Typhoon, yet the P47 has a better view.

pourshot
03-12-2006, 10:22 PM
Tempest rear view roxxors man, It can hide whole formations of b29's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/rearview.jpg
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/rearview2.jpg

dravisar
03-13-2006, 12:10 AM
LOL I gotta say, that website basically boils down to: The Tempest will OWN everything below 10k feet, and many times, under 20k feet, except in roll performance. *sigh* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I prefer Aces High II's system...you use the hat to look backwards, and you can place your "head" wherver you want it. You use the arrow keys to pan your head left and right, up and down, and then the page up and down keys to "move your seat" up and down, zoom in or out, and hit F10, all while holding down the hat switch. It saves your head position, so everytime you push the hat switch in that direction, its always the exact view you saved.

Its saves your view for every respective aircraft, much like a "personal view" profile.

Its perfect, and IL2 is in desperate need of it.

Xiolablu3
03-13-2006, 01:06 AM
'That' website test is a real WW2 doc.

JG5_UnKle
03-13-2006, 02:04 AM
Roll on 6DoF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kwiatos
03-13-2006, 03:04 AM
I dont care Track Ir - im not going to buy it. But it doesnt metter PF dont have these 6DoF. The point is that Tempest rear view is just wrong modelled. SHould be more like in P-47 where you are able to see much more in rear without ant tricks. The only resonable solution is making more narrow head armour plate.


http://www.hawkertempest.se/kendall-2.htm

SeaFireLIV
03-13-2006, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
The only resonable solution is making more narrow head armour plate.




Ah, but then it`s easier to get pk`d!

Feathered_IV
03-13-2006, 03:33 AM
Perhaps it might have been possible to slim down the modelling of the headrests to give a more balanced combination between physical appearance and practical visibility. At least thats what I wonder, every time I look out the back of the towering appartment block on my Ki-43 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

WTE_Ibis
03-13-2006, 04:57 AM
I fly blue so it matters not to me but if you look at the real picture posted, then the ingame one, side by side, then I don't care who did the model, they are noway the same. It is simply wrong and needs to be corrected.
I won't hold my breath.

JG53Frankyboy
03-13-2006, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Wihout shift+f1 the plane is completely useless, as armour plate covers insane amount of rear hemisphere, you could hide a formation of B29's behind, the pilot would never notice it...

and imagine the Ki43 hasnt that shift+F1 possibility at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

the Tempest and the Ki43 are realy heavily beaten by the in game rearview system.
but that is like it is and will not change.....

nevertheless different planes are different handled by the modelers... compare the size of the headarmour of the P-51D and the P-47D (bubble top) - they sould be the same , but the P-51s is much lower in game wich improves the rearview.
i think some of the few negatives points of having so much planes in the game.

Alex_Voicu
03-13-2006, 11:38 AM
Quick render showing the relative size of the head armor, compared with the canopy frames and pilot's seat:

http://alexvoicu.domeniuweb.ro/head_armor.jpg

VW-IceFire
03-13-2006, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by dravisar:
LOL I gotta say, that website basically boils down to: The Tempest will OWN everything below 10k feet, and many times, under 20k feet, except in roll performance. *sigh* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I prefer Aces High II's system...you use the hat to look backwards, and you can place your "head" wherver you want it. You use the arrow keys to pan your head left and right, up and down, and then the page up and down keys to "move your seat" up and down, zoom in or out, and hit F10, all while holding down the hat switch. It saves your head position, so everytime you push the hat switch in that direction, its always the exact view you saved.

Its saves your view for every respective aircraft, much like a "personal view" profile.

Its perfect, and IL2 is in desperate need of it.
You have to understand thats not from a website originally...thats originally a RAF document. Those are the real Tactical Trials with actual conclusions that were passed around the various echelons of the RAF command. They were very confident with their new fighter and in their tests against whatever they had to test against it did very well.

Its not so much propoganda, like many of you folks who don't understand what it is, but just an example of the fog of war sort of experience you'd have. The real pilots and commanders didn't have 100% fully operational German fighters to just jump right into and test or large volumes of books published with all of the speed, power, and performance ratings instantly available.

Quoting from this particular piece of documentation bears with it historical weight that both gives credence to its accuracy and lends itself to being inaccurate to what actually may have been. Thats what you get with a piece like that. It has to be respected as well as understood.

As for the 109 and Tempest turning...at 400kph in a diving turn I can outturn a 109 long enough to rip both wings and tail off. But thats true of the FW190 as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif