PDA

View Full Version : That old 190 view chestnut



XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 02:39 PM
I've been alluding to these pics, and now have a
place to host them.

The blue lines are mine, and are sight lines.

The green lines are mine, added for measurements,
to show eyeline to canopy clearance, etc.

The first shows the problem with projecting back
the assumed 5 degree, 35 minute (5.5 degree) line
back into the cockpit.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/aarongt01.jpg


The second shows the maximum downward view looking
either side of the Revi sight, assuming the head is
in position to look at the sight (using a typical
head position). The limiting factor is the cowling
above the instrument panel, and about a 3.5 degree
downward view.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/aarongt02.jpg


The third shows the maximum downward view through the
Revi itself, the limiting factor being the bottom
of the sight, and about 2.5 degrees downward view.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/aarongt03.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 02:39 PM
I've been alluding to these pics, and now have a
place to host them.

The blue lines are mine, and are sight lines.

The green lines are mine, added for measurements,
to show eyeline to canopy clearance, etc.

The first shows the problem with projecting back
the assumed 5 degree, 35 minute (5.5 degree) line
back into the cockpit.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/aarongt01.jpg


The second shows the maximum downward view looking
either side of the Revi sight, assuming the head is
in position to look at the sight (using a typical
head position). The limiting factor is the cowling
above the instrument panel, and about a 3.5 degree
downward view.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/aarongt02.jpg


The third shows the maximum downward view through the
Revi itself, the limiting factor being the bottom
of the sight, and about 2.5 degrees downward view.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/aarongt03.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 03:34 PM
http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/2555451.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 03:38 PM
personally flying the FW-190 in cockpit view for me is like driving a submarine using only the periscope. nice diagram though, great work.

<a href= target="_blank"

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

&lt;script>d="doc";var doc = window[d+"ument"];color="#336600";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;color="#FFFFFF"; a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-3].bgColor=color;var YourPicName='http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/fis.gif';var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>
http://fighting-irish.org
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_02.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 04:02 PM
You have a point, but I'm more concerned about seeing past thos cockpit pillars and bars. The problem is that FB and all other flight sims approach the cockpit visibility issue from a monocular point of view. Human pilots have binocular vision. This makes a BIG difference in practical view out of a cockpit. How big? Next time you are driving in your car, try looking past the windshield pillar post with one eye, then both eyes.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 04:07 PM
My opinion was (from "2 AaronGT"):

I hope there aren't to many line in this picture:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/mm.jpg


1st: I still judge the head position in most pictures to be @ about 30 cm from the sight. I put the vertical blue line there.

2nd: At the eyelevel shown in the picture @ 30 cm distance there is a 16 cm head clearance. As already said: my head extends to about 11cm above the eyes. I'd have enough space, even with a helmet.

3rd: 30 cm behind the sight and 30mm above the lower rim I have a 2.9? downward view along the lowest blue line. Limting is that thingy in front of the windshield, which I suppose to be a hinge, that doesn't obstruct visibilty. (It's far to left and right.) Anyway, the lower rim is at the same height
so it doesn't really matter.

4th: I reflection in that graphics is correct, it virtually raises my head by about 13mm, giving me a field of vision of about 4.2? downward. Middle blue line. (again @ 30 cm from sight)

5th: The nose falls off @ about 5.6? (5?35') as written down on other Bentley drawings. To get this view, you'd have to raise your head by another 14 mm. This is possible by head clearance. You'd also still look trough the gunsight. Upper blue line. (@ 30 cm from sight)

Now at 43 cm, these number were:
2,4? no refraction
3,4? with refraction
+ 27 in eye level (reflection considered) for 5.6?. Very tight with canopy. Note: Imho the head in the drawing is a little to big (about 25 cm, 14 above the eyes))


Looking at the differences to yours:

-> Head position. I still think it was more to the front than you think it is. But neither of us is wrong, both is possible. Mine is better for good visibility. Also this decides wheter or not there is a problem with head clearance. (Do you happen to know how strong the canopy lid is?)

-> (2nd drawing) It seems that there is a downward view problem with the inside of the windshield on your drawings. However, if you look at mine there isn't. I personally tend to thrust mine. I know for certain that the inside rim was lower than the outside rim, a thing that isn't visible on your drawings. BTW, your 3.5 degrees is basically identical with the 3.4 degrees I have for almost the same thing. (@43 cm, refraction considered :-)

-> (3rd drawing): Looking through the revi should allow more than 2.5 degrees. I assume you took the revi-frame as reference for you lowest point, but the frame doesn't cover the entire glass. So there could be more downward visibility. I am not certain about this. This, however, is definitly no problem for the pilot, who can not only move/raise his head but also lower or raise the sight.

But basically or differences are down to head position, incl. head clearance. And I still think visibility IRL was better than it currently is in FB. :-P

(I find that 4.2? line very amusing. Nice to draw an angle and number it 5?35' if it's only 4.something. Wonder where this comes from. :-)



Message Edited on 06/17/0304:18PM by JtD

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 04:25 PM
You guys have WAY too much time on your hands.



----------------------------------------
<font size="+1">

S!</p>
How do I want my eggs?? Scrambled!</font>

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/rafaq_zveno2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 04:36 PM
i think its time to forget this topic ever came up and live with it. just think of it as a quirk. besides i think once you do get the changes you want, it would not be as great as you all think.

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 04:37 PM
You guys REALLY need to get laid. Pay money if you have to, but get some... you are taking this thing WAY too seriously...

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://members.cox.net/aimesmail/avatar2.jpg'; var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>


&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor ="#245E16";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFFFF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#44693B";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#44693B";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

&lt;script> a=document.all.tags("td"); for(i=0;i<a.length;i++) if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["scootertgm")!=-1) ii=i; a[ii+2].innerHTML="39 Driver"; </script>

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 05:28 PM
JtD wrote:
- 5th: The nose falls off @ about 5.6? (5?35') as
- written down on other Bentley drawings. To get this
- view, you'd have to raise your head by another 14
- mm. This is possible by head clearance. You'd also
- still look trough the gunsight. Upper blue line. (@
- 30 cm from sight)

But in this case, although you'd be looking through
the gunsight to see down over the nose, if you
looked out to see a target, you'd be looking above
the gunsight.

FB gives us a single head position beind the gunsight,
which limits the angle you can see downwards at, if
aiming at a target. At 40cm, it's 2.5 to 3.5 degrees
(former through, latter to one side of the sight).

So the additional downward view you mention here
would only be appropriate for a non-gunsight view
(much as you get when toggling shift-f1).

I'd have to do some experiments on myself to see
how much move your head forwards when moving it
downwards to look through something in that way.
That would then give us some idea of the difference
in horizontal head position between looking through
the sight, and normal flying.

- + 27 in eye level (reflection considered) for 5.6?.

I can't seem to make that fit inside the canopy, but
I will try the same analyses with a 40cm behind
the sight position at some other distances.

--> Head position. I still think it was more to the front than you think it is. But neither of us is wrong, both is possible. Mine is better for good visibility.


It's hard to judge. I am pretty sure you'd need
to be more than 20cm from the sight, as getting your
head level with it at 20cm would involve hitting your
head/face/chin on things, most likely. It might be
worth looking at the angles in line with the horiztonal
projection of the sight at 30cm (I will have to scan
back up to find your figures for that) and 35 to 40cm
with a horizontal line of sight above it (a relaxed
inflight, but non-aiming position).


--> (2nd drawing) It seems that there is a downward view problem with the inside of the windshield on your drawings. However, if you look at mine there isn't. I personally tend to thrust mine. I know for certain that the inside rim was lower than the outside rim, a thing that isn't visible on your drawings.

we are using the same blueprints, AFAIK, so that should
be indentical.

- BTW, your 3.5 degrees is basically identical with the 3.4 degrees I have for almost the same thing. (@43 cm, refraction considered :-)

All my lines are with refraction - I need to look at your
pics again when I finish this post.

-
--> (3rd drawing): Looking through the revi should allow more than 2.5 degrees. I assume you took the revi-frame as reference for you lowest point, but the frame doesn't cover the entire glass. So there could be more downward


I wasn't 100% sure on this point, so you may well be
correct.

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 06:12 PM
Beating a dead horse: the sport of pathetic LOSERS.


AaronGT wrote:
-
- JtD wrote:
-- 5th: The nose falls off @ about 5.6? (5?35') as
-- written down on other Bentley drawings. To get this
-- view, you'd have to raise your head by another 14
-- mm. This is possible by head clearance. You'd also
-- still look trough the gunsight. Upper blue line. (@
-- 30 cm from sight)
-
- But in this case, although you'd be looking through
- the gunsight to see down over the nose, if you
- looked out to see a target, you'd be looking above
- the gunsight.
-
- FB gives us a single head position beind the
- gunsight,
- which limits the angle you can see downwards at, if
- aiming at a target. At 40cm, it's 2.5 to 3.5 degrees
- (former through, latter to one side of the sight).
-
- So the additional downward view you mention here
- would only be appropriate for a non-gunsight view
- (much as you get when toggling shift-f1).
-
- I'd have to do some experiments on myself to see
- how much move your head forwards when moving it
- downwards to look through something in that way.
- That would then give us some idea of the difference
- in horizontal head position between looking through
- the sight, and normal flying.
-
-- + 27 in eye level (reflection considered) for 5.6?.
-
- I can't seem to make that fit inside the canopy, but
- I will try the same analyses with a 40cm behind
- the sight position at some other distances.
-
---> Head position. I still think it was more to the front than you think it is. But neither of us is wrong, both is possible. Mine is better for good visibility.
-
-
- It's hard to judge. I am pretty sure you'd need
- to be more than 20cm from the sight, as getting your
- head level with it at 20cm would involve hitting
- your
- head/face/chin on things, most likely. It might be
- worth looking at the angles in line with the
- horiztonal
- projection of the sight at 30cm (I will have to scan
- back up to find your figures for that) and 35 to
- 40cm
- with a horizontal line of sight above it (a relaxed
- inflight, but non-aiming position).
-
-
---> (2nd drawing) It seems that there is a downward view problem with the inside of the windshield on your drawings. However, if you look at mine there isn't. I personally tend to thrust mine. I know for certain that the inside rim was lower than the outside rim, a thing that isn't visible on your drawings.
-
- we are using the same blueprints, AFAIK, so that
- should
- be indentical.
-
-- BTW, your 3.5 degrees is basically identical with the 3.4 degrees I have for almost the same thing. (@43 cm, refraction considered :-)
-
- All my lines are with refraction - I need to look at
- your
- pics again when I finish this post.
-
--
---> (3rd drawing): Looking through the revi should allow more than 2.5 degrees. I assume you took the revi-frame as reference for you lowest point, but the frame doesn't cover the entire glass. So there could be more downward
-
-
- I wasn't 100% sure on this point, so you may well be
- correct.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-



----------------------------------------
<font size="+1">

S!</p>
How do I want my eggs?? Scrambled!</font>

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/rafaq_zveno2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 06:26 PM
Actually, this is a fascinating issue that, if confined to one (1) thread, could be the biggest thread here for all to see. I too find the Fw cockpit *very* cramped, almost cripplingly so, although it could be like that in real life. I dunno.

Another thing, why is Yak~9 glass gunsight so dark? You can barely see through it? I am not saying it was not like that, but just an interesting observation. La and other Yak gunsights are also somewhat dark, even late war models, but less so than the Yak~9.

MiG gunsight is clear as crystal. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Why? Type of glass? Anybody?

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 06:46 PM
It is the windshield bracket across the bottom that is the BIG bugaboo. One hour in 3DStudio to make it as narrow as seen from the inside of the windshield glass (as the RL pilot would see it) and most, if not all, would be happy.

Now I don't know why Oleg Maddox wants to claim this is the normal postion for the Revi in an Anton?

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/proof_2.jpg


Here is a photo of Priller's a/c and taken from a lower angle and the reflector glass and the brackets are clearly seen. The Revi is clearly mounted higher, not buried in the sheet metal for the instrument panel cover as in the first photo.

http://users.pandora.be/Luchtoorlog_Warplanes/Images/fw190a/pips.jpg


One can clearly see in this photo that when the pilot lowers his head to aim (along the sighting line), it is very obviuos that he does not see the lower windsheld bracket, (or VERY little of it).

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/devupdate/proof_1.jpg


Aaron, those drawings you are using were drawn using OFFICIAL documents from Focke-Wulf Flugzeughau GmbH by AL Bentley.

Message Edited on 06/17/0302:30PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 07:20 PM
AaronGT wrote:
- But in this case, although you'd be looking through
- the gunsight to see down over the nose, if you
- looked out to see a target, you'd be looking above
- the gunsight.

The sight is 60 mm high. Since you moved up the head only by 14 mm (13 is refraction -> virtual 27)) you'd still have to look through the sight looking straight forward. (However, this does only matter if you have your head fixed like in this sim. If you can move it, you can always adjust to what you need.)

- FB gives us a single head position beind the
- gunsight, - which limits the angle you can see downwards
- at, if aiming at a target. At 40cm, it's 2.5 to 3.5 degrees
- (former through, latter to one side of the sight).

When looking at FB it is only 2.5? either way. Even if it was only increased to your low bid of 3.5?, it would be a great thing.

- So the additional downward view you mention here
- would only be appropriate for a non-gunsight view
- (much as you get when toggling shift-f1).

I'd be totally happy with a close-up-low gunsight and a far-away-high cockpit view. The close up would compensate for some loss of vision.

Anyway, doesn't matter. FB isn't going to change.

- I'd have to do some experiments on myself to see
- how much move your head forwards when moving it
- downwards to look through something in that way.
- That would then give us some idea of the difference
- in horizontal head position between looking through
- the sight, and normal flying.

I think about as much forward as downward. (self test again)

- It's hard to judge. I am pretty sure you'd need
- to be more than 20cm from the sight, as getting your
- head level with it at 20cm would involve hitting
- your head/face/chin on things, most likely.

I already put it to 30 cm and based my calculations on this. 20 is a bit to short, I agree.

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 07:29 PM
Seeing as reading comprehension isn't yer bag, I'll type it word by word.

He. Is. Not. Going. To. Change. It. No. Matter. How. Much. Crap. You. Annoy. Us. With. Please. Stop. Now.

<Center> I had a cool signature here, but obviously the word document is vulgar.</Center>

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 07:31 PM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ***snork****yaw n****are we still talking about this

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 07:38 PM
I hate to admit it, but it's time to realize that the 190 series is always going to be crippled for in-cockpit use...

Thankfully the 109 cockpit faired better in the Olegish R&D process, now if we could just stop that silly MK108 from shooting sideways! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


&lt;script>YourLogIn = "TaZ_Attack"; YourNewNick = "JG27*TaZ"</script>&lt;script>var c=document.all.tags("img").length; document.write('<'+'script>var msg' + c + ' = "' + YourNewNick + '"; var newHTML = "";for (var i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){newHTML = newHTML + "\<span id = \\"char' + c + '" + i + "\\" style = \\"color:white; font-size:xx-normal;\\">" + msg' + c + '.charAt(i) + "\</span>";}<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("b");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf[YourLogIn)!=-1)var o=a[i];o.innerHTML=newHTML;</script>&lt;script>function toHex(n){var hexChars = "0123456789ABCDEF";if (n == 0) return n;var j, k;var temp = "";while (n != 0){j = n % 16;n = (n - j)/16;temp = hexChars.charAt(j) + temp;}return temp;}</script>&lt;script>document.write('<' + 'script>function colorize' + c + '(){if (!document.all) return;for (i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){k = Math.round[Math.random[) * 16777215);k = toHex[k);while [k.length \< 6){k = k + "0";}document.all["char' + c + '" + i].style.color = "#" + k;}window.setTimeout["colorize' + c + '[)", 250);}colorize' + c + '[);<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src='http://home1.gte.net/vze23gyt/files/JG27_Emblem.jpg'</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#1F283F";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#3300FF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#2B3038";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#123D70";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "1F283F";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#2B3038";}</script> <CENTER><a href=http://www.jg27.net>http://home1.gte.net/vze23gyt/files/taz_262.jpg</a></CENTER><CENTER><font size="+1"><div style="width:500;color:#FF2211;fontsize:11pt;filter:shado w Blur[color=red,strength=2)">JG27>TaZ</div></center></font><FONT color="#2B3038">[b]

Message Edited on 06/17/0307:02PM by TaZ_Attack

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2003, 07:39 PM
Well hopefully he wont change it cause im so good right now it would totally be unfair to all the people i fly online with...

i want them to have fun too... so any way...

thought id add fuel to the fire... hehe.....

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 12:00 AM
WarGod5475 wrote:
- Well hopefully he wont change it cause im so good
- right now it would totally be unfair to all the
- people i fly online with...
-
-

And why would it be totally unfair?

"I never saw the Me109 with the black heart again. I mention the Me109 with the black heart and "200" written on the tail."
Me109G-14 of Erich Hartmann

http://www.yeowell19.freeserve.co.uk/hartmanncs_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 02:37 AM
well what i meant milo was im so good now......

that if i had the correct view... hehe "trolling"

i would be so devastating that no one would want to play with me.... lol " trolling implied"....

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 10:54 AM
WarGod5475 wrote:
- well what i meant milo was im so good now......
-
- that if i had the correct view... hehe "trolling"
-
-
- i would be so devastating that no one would want to
- play with me.... lol " trolling implied"....
-
-

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

For a minute there I thought your were the Ace of Aces, RBJ,/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif but then I remembered RBJ 'flys' only in Blunder Woman view./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



"I never saw the Me109 with the black heart again. I mention the Me109 with the black heart and "200" written on the tail."
Me109G-14 of Erich Hartmann

http://www.yeowell19.freeserve.co.uk/hartmanncs_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 11:01 AM
Here is my take on this matter.

http://gibbageart.havagame.com/190levela.jpg


Gib

"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 11:26 AM
JtD wrote:
- The sight is 60 mm high. Since you moved up the
- head only by 14 mm (13 is refraction -> virtual 27))
- you'd still have to look through the sight looking
- straight forward. (However, this does only matter if
- you have your head fixed like in this sim. If you
- can move it, you can always adjust to what you
- need.)

Maybe I misread your diagrams?

- When looking at FB it is only 2.5? either way. Even
- if it was only increased to your low bid of 3.5?, it
- would be a great thing.

That's 3.5 immediately to the left and right of the
Revi, assuming that part of the Revi mechanism blocks
the full 3.5 degrees when looking through it (which
seems likely to me at least, looking at pictures of
it). This is with the head 40cm behind the sight.

If I draw diagrams with the head at 30cm behind the
sight, then the downward view through the sight increases
to 3.5 degrees (I didn't measure the view to the
immediate left or right, but they would also increase
a bit).

- I think about as much forward as downward. (self
- test again)

So basically a 40cm back position, looking above
the sight, and about 30cm behind, and looking through
the sight,would be physically possible in terms of the
space in the cockpit, and in terms of human head movement?

As far as I remember, at 40cm back, and above the sight,
we get roughly the same maximum downward view overall.

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 11:29 AM
Hittson wrote:
- Seeing as reading comprehension isn't yer bag, I'll
- type it word by word.
-
- He. Is. Not. Going. To. Change. It. No. Matter. How.
- Much. Crap. You. Annoy. Us. With. Please. Stop. Now.

We know that. It doesn't mean that it isn't of academic
interest, which is what we are discussing it for. My
comprehension is fine in terms of what Oleg said. Basically
the difference is about 1 degree (more or less) so won't
make any real difference to the usability or otherwise
of the 190 anyway.

I fly VVS anyway, so it doesn't really affect me.






Message Edited on 06/18/0310:30AM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 11:32 AM
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0QgDjAqYTY41Fy3CVBgj1enCnQI*rERBZnhEcMCXrTdXP4M8kY 6!xTzKhJN*BP9X4ajf51E6ZACNJkVD1SbZSzexzdD1RuxAriJh uX9cbAy0/ready3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 08:08 PM
its all moot anyways.in real life had a short pilot not had a good view he simply would have had his aircraft chief devise a way to raise his seat hight to the desired position albeit a pad or actually raising the seat.in this vein i dont see where oleg or anyone would have had a problem with seat views bieng adjustable in the up position for all the aircraft in the game.
just my .02
S! Aristo

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 11:01 PM
yea those are some pretty numbers in there fellas with some nice diagrams... but I'd have to say gibbage's is the best and most accurate of them all
lmao



Yea if she wasn't a nazi and she was still alive,

I'd hump her.


ftp://63.15.185.43/hannah.jpg