PDA

View Full Version : Additional view: faded out cockpit



XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 02:18 AM
I was wondering if there would be a way to simulate looking over the edge of the cockpitI believe, given the limitations of the 3d modeled cockpit and the inability of the Maddox gang to allow leaning to one side, fading out the cockpit might be a good idea here.

I am thinking that the cockpit could be faded out enough to give a general idea what someone might see if leaning or stretching...I like full real but it's a bit unnatural not being given a realistic range. (this isn't the fault of the oleg team but a 3d model quality issue) Perhaps future changes to the models will correct this modelling issue and we will receive the ability to move around the cockpit but until then, I would like to see a faded out **** pit...

Before you say it, I understand that actual pilots were strapped down pretty well.

This is an image of what I am thinking...roughly done.

http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/IMAGES/ideafade01.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 02:18 AM
I was wondering if there would be a way to simulate looking over the edge of the cockpitI believe, given the limitations of the 3d modeled cockpit and the inability of the Maddox gang to allow leaning to one side, fading out the cockpit might be a good idea here.

I am thinking that the cockpit could be faded out enough to give a general idea what someone might see if leaning or stretching...I like full real but it's a bit unnatural not being given a realistic range. (this isn't the fault of the oleg team but a 3d model quality issue) Perhaps future changes to the models will correct this modelling issue and we will receive the ability to move around the cockpit but until then, I would like to see a faded out **** pit...

Before you say it, I understand that actual pilots were strapped down pretty well.

This is an image of what I am thinking...roughly done.

http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/IMAGES/ideafade01.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 02:49 AM
Sweet! Just like an ultralight sim.

Well this is one way of letting us "say" we really really do fly with cockpit on, honestly.


Triplane aces. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif 3 wings and a slider.

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 04:23 PM
If you think that something like this faded cockpit is a bad idea and only full real is "realistic" you have simply adapted to the unrealistic constraints of the simulation, you have fooled yourself into believing something that is ficticious. Real pilots were never forced to sit completely still with no stretching, no leaning. Real pilots had peripheral vision.

It's my belief that the wonder woman view is only needed to compensate for the constraints of flying while looking at a computer screen. I think that the WW view is too unrealistic. My Idea here is to have something that is somewhat more "realistic" than either the cockpit on and the Wonder Woman... I am only saying that it is more realistic in terms of what pilots could actually see outside the cockpit. If given the ability to lean and stretch upwards, then yes, sure...give me cockpit on mode but as it stands, the range of vision in this sim are very limiting.

If you have ever sat in a FW190, you soon realize your disadvantages. This cockpit is very difficult in a simulation because the visual obstructions are significant and not to be taken lightly. But given the ability to move around in the cockpit, you soon realize that these obstructions were not so severe. To real pilots, these obstructions were probably accepted as a good way of protecting the pilot... they could lean and tilt their heads to look around the cockpit obstructions.

All that I am saying is don't assume that you are flying more realistically by flying cockpit on. Real pilots never had those constraints.

Below is actually more of what I was looking to have.

http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/IMAGES/VIEW02.jpg





Message Edited on 10/22/0310:30AM by artjunky

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 04:36 PM
There is nothing 'real' about pushing a plastic stick around while a machine calculates your chances of shooting something that does not exist.

As your skill level increases, you too will see why this suggestion is unwise.

<font face="Courier New">

‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ _____ | _____
‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ _\__(o)__/_
‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 04:58 PM
hi,

..old stuff..have a look at X-plane 6.7/7.1..
,,but a good option for training ..and much more better than 'without cockpit' we have now...

by the way: this view shows the problem of the camera view in game and of course many mistakes in height of pilots view, seat,revi/gyroscope gunsight view in game at some planes..even at the FW 190...including overframed 3D design of the armored windscreen...

..if You want a 3D analyze to this.. run a spezial tool in game and take pics ...(link soon..)

...just follow my wingman...
http://www.ss.iij4u.or.jp/~jime/images/Me109G6Anim/messer04LAN2.wmv
http://www.roedelmodell.de/original/Me109/me109-4s.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 05:19 PM
Cool, after the Linda Blair view, a Casper (I see through the walls) the ghost view /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 05:38 PM
I sort of agree here with the general idea. A pilot in a real whatever you'd prefer to fly did/does have the ability to lean/stretch and get a better view. I've never witnessed a pilot sit completely still to fly any aircraft. Maybe a better idea than a casper cockpit would be a point of view manipulation put into the sim itself. Even if it were a generic setup that could be used in every plane, where you could lean a bit to each side, and stretch up to get a slightly better forward view.

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 05:48 PM
artjunky wrote:

<img
src="http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/IMAGE
S/VIEW02.jpg">



I like that "casper" view alot. might make a passable replacement for the no cockpit view or a 3rd view option. Red Baron 3D had it. Tho I still like to have the arrows as an option

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid84/pcf14831e07273a1e01a33fb0e5650ffa/face10c7.jpg


Lead Whiner for the P-47D-40, M and N and Hvars

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 06:01 PM
Flood is not autorized..../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<font color="black"> Notre Gates oui est a Seatle
Que ton Windows soit débogué
Que ton monopole s'impose
Que tes commandes soient éxécutées

Sur le web comme sur le disque-dur
Donnes nous aujourd'hui
Nos mise a jour quotidiennes
et pardonnes nous nos utilisation de linux
Comme nous pardonnons aussi
A ceux qui ont utilsé des Macs
Mais délivre nous du plantage
Car c'est a toi qu'appartiennent
Le copyrigth,les megahertz et les capitaux .

Amen(ne le fric)</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 07:38 PM
- If you think that something like this faded cockpit is a
- bad idea and only full real is "realistic"
- you have simply adapted to the unrealistic constraints of the simulation,

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Better they work on the eliminating constraints instead of making a cockpit for the no-cockpit aces.


-- "Hey now I fly with cockpit on too, see? Just like you." /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


I can hear that song...Ghost fiiighters iinnn...the sky.



Triplane aces. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif 3 wings and a slider.

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 07:53 PM
I like your second screen shot with parts of the cockpit being transluscent. I think the general idea has some real merit. It would be nice to be able to switch between this veiw and the existing 2 views.

:FI:SnoopBaron

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 08:22 PM
This would be a very good idea for BoB (the 2nd pic)....
3 cockpit views full or Casper or LB...this would make a lot of folks happy...Fly in the servers that have the settings you like ....

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 08:39 PM
If the Casperview could be limited to the canopy and just a little down at the edges then it would be more realistic than the flying while wearing a body cast view. Other sims that had a fixed point view did allow some ways around the fixed position limitation to make up for the unreality of it. Here there is gunsight view position change and that's it. I don't know how anyone can call it "real". I can say that ghosting the entire cockpit is less real than what we have though.

I wonder how many people would fly a mode where the canopies were just not there? Or how many servers would run that?

How much of a handicap on reality should full real be? Well, we don't get multiple G's in turns or loops so I guess that justifies anything else.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2003, 08:45 PM
artjunky wrote:
- you have simply adapted to the unrealistic constraints
- of the simulation

Thanks! I feel so 'evolved'!

<font face="Courier New">

‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ _____ | _____
‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ _\__(o)__/_
‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 12:42 AM
Ghosting the cockpit. Nice bit of terminology.

Being able to ghost the cockpit struts would be good. . The rest should stay solid though. This would produce pretty realistic flight and combat behaviour, still requiring belly checks, etc. but eliminating the need to jink slightly to maintain visual contact with a bogie when it goes behind a strut, which is not very realistic.

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 08:04 PM
Lexx, from what I have heard, they are not planning to redo all the 3D models any time soon...From what I have heard, this is what would be needed.

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 08:11 PM
It wont happen and has been said by 1c in previous posts about this.

I think it would be nice and completely remove the nocockpit view but the ammount of work is way to much for ez settings.

PS learn how to fly in full real servers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<center>http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 09:10 PM
You think that everyone wants to play online ..
why make such a stupid assumption.....
why would you have it forced on everyone ?
(cockpit always on)....

"PS learn how to fly in full real servers"


What for ? (If im flying offline).
You play it in your make believe way and ill play it in my make believe way .......
Or is it that it makes you feel like your something special?


A casper view for the struts would be a good go between
for the no neck views...

XyZspineZyX
10-24-2003, 10:39 PM
becuase offline and even online you have nocockpit or cockpit, whats the difference of having a low opacity cockpit which you cant read gauges on and no cockpit?

<center>http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 12:09 AM
I think the picture with the transparent struts is wonderfull, and a look at the future. I do think the transparency should be limited to the struts alone, and this would be a wonderfull addition to any sim's feature set. It would give one the versatility of being able to see behind the struts (since you cant move your head) while retaining a large amount of realism.

Most of the arguing in this thread are matters of taste. There can be no solution to this.

The benifits of such a feature are clear. I personally would have this switch toggle programmed into my stick!

Is it not ironic that to get closer to realism one has to move away from it a little?...very zen indeed.

S!
Cirx

http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 12:26 AM
I believe the point would be to gohst only the struts so you could still read the instruments just fine.

:FI:SnoopBaron

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 01:38 AM
-- being able to see behind the struts (since you cant move
-- your head) while retaining a large amount of realism.

Moving pilot head is a better idea, I got the idea from RBJ's old sig.



Triplane aces /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif 3 wings, 1/3 cockpit, and a slider



Message Edited on 10/25/0312:39AM by LEXX_Luthor

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 01:43 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:

- Moving pilot head is a better idea, I got the idea
- from RBJ's old sig.
-

Perhaps better, perhaps just different. I am sure it would be good to have both options. But either would be a step forward and welcome.

S!
Cirx

http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 04:06 AM
I could imagine that having to keep pressing buttons to shift your view around struts would get tiresome after a while. In real life it's not such a bother. I'd prefer to have both options (could even use both at the same time since head movement would still be useful).


:FI:SnoopBaron

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 04:44 AM
test

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 11:02 AM
Hi all!

The ghost view (2nd picture in this thread) is very good, if not perfect for the hardware we have today.

My opinion is that the struts and part of the cockpit (near the edges of the canopy) should have transparency.

Real pilots can overcome not only the struts but also the cockpit to a certain degree, by leaning and moving the head.

This 'overcome' can translate in many miles of more ground seen when looking down at a certain altitude or the ability to keep tracking an air object that is obstructed by the cockpit, especially at close distances; talking about real life.

Then we would have 3 options:

1 - Full cockpit view;
2 - Realistical transparent cockpit view;
3 - No cockpit view.

The amount of transparency should be such to allow for the sighting of the outside world and objects and to allow for a decent instrument readability, which would be improved with practice.

I can say that the 2nd option (Realistical transparent cockpit view) is the most reallistic for this kind of simulations with affordable technology.

Bear in mind that having to press buttons to move heads and lean the point of view is not a good option because it is not simple and distract virtual pilots efforts from the purpose of the simulation. It will kill the immersion.

The only perfect solution is to have a real cockpit of each aircraft in a big (BIIIIIGGGG) room with working instruments and have a 360 degree screen around each cockpit with several projectors. Then, and only then, you could move your head and lean any side to get a better view.

Now, do you think this is doable for everyone?

Thanks for reading all this.

Bye!

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 01:13 PM
Shrimp2 wrote:
- The only perfect solution is to have a real cockpit
- of each aircraft in a big (BIIIIIGGGG) room with
- working instruments and have a 360 degree screen
- around each cockpit with several projectors. Then,
- and only then, you could move your head and lean any
- side to get a better view.
-
- Now, do you think this is doable for everyone?


Not at all! WHich is why you should keep a close eye on retina projection technologies, and dot-tracking techs as well. Within the near future you will strap on a helmet and have the whole 3d environment right there, with the laters equasion algorythms doing a more accurate surround soud through headphones and everything you want to see there regardless of where you move your head. Track IR is just a small prediction of what is to come.

The real problem facing designers is not simulating the 3d environment, it is how to merge the immersed 3d environment with real world controllers.(in other words if your eyes are covered by goggles how will you see your keyboard) but there are some great workarounds and sollutions in the pipeline. The future is very exiting. Believe me when I tell you that within 10 years IL2FB as it is today will look unplayably unrealistic and simple to you, just like FS1 from the mid 80's looks to you now.

In all sollutions for problems facing computing, the approach is not to think big (cbuild cockpits ect.) but to think SMALL.

All can go ahead and laugh now. In 1990 everyone lauged when I said we would have full colour flight sims before I died. That only took 2 years to happen. All the stuff I mentioned above are happening NOW. Be patient,tomorrow's simulations are going to take your breath away for less money and effort than a 19' flatscreen would cost you today.

S!
Cirx

http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 02:10 PM
]http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/IMAGES/VIEW02.jpg (http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/IMAGES/VIEW02.jpg[/img)

Shades of RB3D! Excellent.

A nice compromise, I would think, especially when the floor isn't transparent.

Devil's advocate points: A) planes with historically better views would have it rendered moot (bringing a completely different set of whines), and B) it would be monster hard on resources, I think - you have to write this stuff to run on "average" systems, not just P4 3.0 machines.

I do wish they could make one adjustment to this (speaking next generation, now) - that the struts would turn solid on the periphery. In other words, if you looked right, the left struts would lose their invisibility or become thicker!

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 02:28 PM
"you have to write this stuff to run on "average" systems, not just P4 3.0 machines"

Yes I agree, but I also think this is what is wrong with the world. Everything gets made for the lowest common denominator, everything from politics to websites to TV programs, movies...the lot...it's all tailor made for the stupid and the poor. There is no rewards anymore for being better equiped or more intelligent.I agree you have to write your software for the average joe with his average machine, but please give a reward to the guy who invested in a better machine.The term "user friendly" is assuming some evil proportions in our world.Most people, when watching a movie, working with a program, reading a book or even just viewing a web-page, are sub-consiously thinking "if it is not fed to me on a spoon, it's not good enough" when in fact the real truth is closer to " if it comes on a spoon it's probably not good enough".

Sorry about this off topic rant. I am just getting tired of having to dumb down everytime I switch on my computer or turn on the TV.I am also tired of working on apps with a $10 000 machine that my neighbour's celeron runs just as well.

There are only very few people in the world not satisfied with playing down to the weakest links in society. These people are easy to spot, as most of them are self made millionares.

S!
Cirx

http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 02:30 PM
Although I believe the example you've shown to be a little too much, this is really an excellent idea! Recently, I've been trying to fly Stukas online. Very often, I have to manuever the plane as my flight leader becomes invisible behind a cockpit strut. Using your idea would be an excellent way of "assuming" the pilot would just glance around the obstacle.

<center>
http://members.verizon.net/~vze2cb22/KosSig.gif

Is the Bf-110C-4/B ready yet?<center>

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 02:48 PM
I think the cockpit bars should be semi-transparent.

That way, it would be an even better simulation, because it would simulate a pilot with 2 eyes instead of 1.

"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 03:14 PM
Awhile back some one posted, at Sim-hq, a cockpit with the framing modified to be semi-transparent on the edges but still solid in the middle. I thought this to be an excellent way to simulate binocular vision.

Does anyone recall these pics, or who did them?

I did a search without success..... needless to say.



Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 04:10 PM
I think the cockpit edges need to be faded in order to simulate the ability to lean to one side, one can pretty much look straight down...well, except for the wings being in the way. Having readable gauges is also high on my own list...

Well, as with so many other ideas that have been put forward, this one, for one reason or another, usually technical reasons, will probably get dumped...so it's probably not worth spending too much time on this. The team probably already understands the push of this thread.

Checking out

S!



Message Edited on 10/25/0310:28AM by artjunky

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 04:19 PM
Talk to the modelers and see how much work is required of this. I think it looks cool as well but the ammount of work is astonishing.

<center>http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 04:38 PM
All they need to do is use the existing cockpit bars and make them semi-transparent.

Someone posted a sceenshot of a game from like 10 years ago that did this (except it was the whole cockpit)

It will never happen in this sim but hopefully in the next.

"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 05:56 PM
We already have pilot motion forward and back past struts in the toggle gunsight view. A pilot lean toggle switch would be just as easy for the FB simmer/simerette to use.

It is interesting that the "pilot lean" argument for see~through struts here is the same as with the binocular vision, which requires multiple see~through struts but solid where they overlap. The definition of propaganda is to achieve a goal without stating that goal. If we look again at the original first pic in this thread, we find that the goal is a cockpit without a cockpit. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Notice the sharp contradiction in two (2) posts by Cirx....

-- In 1990 everyone lauged when I said we would have full
-- colour flight sims before I died. That only took 2 years to happen.
:
-- Everything gets made for the lowest common denominator,
-- I am just getting tired of having to dumb down everytime
-- I switch on my computer or turn on the TV.I am also
-- tired of working on apps with a $10 000 machine that my
-- neighbour's celeron runs just as well.

Well, I *can* agree with the part about USA TV and StarTrek. Once you go Canada's LEXX, you never go back. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Triplane aces /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif 3 wings, 1/3 cockpit, and a slider.

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 06:38 PM
I don't think we need ultralight view like that one picture showed, but semi-tranparent cockpit bars is a must for this sim to go forward.

It's intersting that the definition of communism is to restrict the views of others. I think the current implementation of full real does this quite well (winkysmileyface.rbj)



"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 07:12 PM
Well done artjunky!

Your 2nd view is by far more realistic given our 2D screen limitations.

It is not a compromise between open cockpit,and full cockpit... it is in fact better than both.. a synergy !

It would be great to see this brought forward.

S!

" The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down ": General Chuck Yeager, USAF, describing his first confrontation with a Me262 - - -
" Aggressiveness was a fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting ": Captain David McCampbell, USN, leading U.S. Navy ace in W.W.II.

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 07:31 PM
A move toward transparent bars is a move away from reality. The development of the ability of a pilot to lean forward and to the side would be more realistic and solve the binocular problem to a large extent.

Is it true that there already exists the ability for the pilot's view to shift? When an a/c flies through turbulence, etc, the POV rattles around a bit. Can't THAT ability be augmented and used to better control the pilot's view?


Falcon

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_09.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 08:13 PM
RayBanJockey wrote:
- I don't think we need ultralight view like that one
- picture showed, but semi-tranparent cockpit bars is
- a must for this sim to go forward.
-
- It's intersting that the definition of communism is
- to restrict the views of others. I think the
- current implementation of full real does this quite
- well (winkysmileyface.rbj)
-
-
-

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
-- Karl Marx, Communist

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."
-- John Kenneth Galbraith, Economist

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-- Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40th US President


Funny, I don't see where politics has anything to do with the simulated cockpit view except as some distant, WWII historical backdrop to IL2 that we're not supposed to talk about on the forums. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif But, since you already broached that topic here... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If you want to have transparent ________ (insert your favorite view obstruction here), that transparency is going to cost some FPS. I would rather preserve FPS and have pilot head tilt, and leaning modeled (may cost FPS when transitioning to/from leaning/tilting, briefly). That probably means I will need an extra hat switch on a controller; but for me, it will do a better job simulating a realistic cockpit view. [i]Tilting/Leaning on a slider might be practical as well<i/>. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_potter_anim.gif (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 08:47 PM
Lexx, I have no idea what you are on, but I am sure it makes you happy, so enjoy. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

S!
Cirx

http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 11:26 PM
Interesting idea, although seemingly unacceptable at first /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

Have you played Aces High ? I that sim you preprogram head positions for different views, so when you press your hat switch, it rotates your head and moves it to the preprogrammed position.

Still, this will hardly work with modern view control devices as TrackIR, so my choice would be faded struts.

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 02:31 AM
With some 3D cards and graphics engines, ghosting is just a matter of what 'color' something is painted. What's more, with a change in palette the ghosting becomes solid since it's the palette that determines translucent or not. The cost is zero or negligible with videocards that support the feature, which is probably every card made in the past few years. Anyone running IL2 on a Viper or Savage card... or worse?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 11:08 AM
Correct this would couse zero loss in FPS.

And tranparent cockpit bars (with some parts more solid than others) would be more realistic because thats how they looked to real pilots who looked beyond them. Maybe the FW cockpit would become more bearable.

"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 12:46 PM
Excelent idea artjunky if this could be integrated into game would solve alot of view probs.



http://www.btinternet.com/~jlblat1/avatar.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 12:58 PM
Wait, screw the cockpit or struts, anybody want an option to put the entire plane in a ghost view? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.80snostalgia.com/classictv/airwolf/pic1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 03:54 PM
Gunz can argue, rightly, about whether there is negligible impact, but there is no such thing as "zero" cost in software or any other kind of engineering. There is always a tradeoff; in real-time computer graphics, usually, it can be measured in the frame rate (loss). Your perception all depends on your tolerance to this. IMO, Oleg & Co. did not give us transparency as a no cockpit view option this time around because the current generation 3D cards (when IL2 was introduced) just could not handle it even with a dedicated function in the hardware. It would have resulted in performance far worse than flying with cockpit view (which people complained about, then...and now).

I think I understand what Gunz was trying to say about these effects being optimized in the hardware of 3D graphics adapters. Transparency is most frequently handled, in OpenGL, as a blend function. Alpha Blend is used now for many of the weather effects in IL2:FB such as fog using dedicated circuitry in the "GPU" (Graphics Processing Unit--at least that's what nVidia calls it).

Still, to do this Alpha Blend for a cockpit will require rendering the background scene (3D terrain + external objects) in part of the frame buffer, then rendering the cockpit in some other--once finished, the Alpha Blend can be applied to the cockpit foreground scene pixels to merge the background colors with the foreground colors to create the blended scene and an illusion of transparency. This would not be so bad except, except that it adds an extra step to the process which is not easily "pipelined" in the GPU. You still have to wait for the finished foreground and backgrounds before you blend. As fast as Alpha Blend is in hardware currently, I still see some people complaining about the drag on frame rates whenever they have flown in an IL-2/FB mission with inclement weather, morning fog, or the new dust effects.

With the addition/anticipation of more effects ("more graphic realism") in the BoB sim (shadows, reflections, glint, multiple illumination sources, higher detail texture maps, etc.), I expect that graphics hardware manufacturers will be playing catch up, again, like they did at the release of IL-2. In otherwords, we may start out playing BoB with greatly reduced FPS than what we were used to with FB because of all the additional "eye candy"--I think people will be more sensitive, then, to any additional hits on performance that are extras such as cockpit transparency. As new graphics cards are introduced in time (i.e., mid/late 2005): less of an impact.

Nevertheless, if some level of cockpit transparency functionality is added to BoB, I fully support your right to use it offline, and on online servers where that option is enabled--otherwise, I run the risk of being labeled a "Communist" by some here. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_potter_anim.gif (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 04:57 PM
Thanks rbst44. If so then the pilot side lean is the only way to go--given we already have toggle gunsight for leaning forward. Leaning won't hurt any performance if what you say is true, although think how the contrails don't hit fps yet dust does and so maybe ghost struts won't hurt performance if they do it right.

If there were two struts for every real strut, and solid where they overlap, I could fly with this. Hold finger straight up in front of your face and look at the wall beyond. You see two transparent fingers. This is as realistic as you can get. Although as RBJ long ago noted, the binocular vision is dependent on the angle the struts make with the line between the eyes. When the strut is parallel to the eye line, there is only one solid strut seen.

Just what me need, *double* the number of canopy struts. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif But that's what you get with two eyes. Of course this should also be optional, as some may wish to sim Saburo Sakai who flew Zero with only one eye after he lost the other. To just make cockpit struts as they are now see-through is only the first step on the slippery slope of eliminating the pesky cockpit. Next, transparent wings and cockpit floor.

The biggest problem, jugding from the fist pic in the thread, Oleg never should have made a no~cockpit view in the first place. Give the Tripane Aces one invisible wing, and they want another and another until they can out~turn a Yak~3. For the "pure enjoyment" thing, one need only fly He~111 from the bombardier or nose gunner positions with full cockpit for the ultralight aircraft simming experience for pure enjoyment, and it is fun to do. But you can't out~turn a Yak~3 with He~111 so you see the real reason for slowly eliminating all cockpits, piece by piece so that nobody notices. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 05:34 PM
Hey Lex why would you want it limited to just what you like (view wise)...Some of you plp are just plane selfish..
There are others that want no strut (casper) views and you make it sound like the game would be ruined with this view system..
That full real bull$hit is just that ...bull$hit...Making something harder dont make it realistic ....
Leaning would be just more switches or buttons to fumble with .....Linda Blare view is overkill and full cockpit
is for the peeps that think thay are looking at it thru the eyes of a real pilot ...Thay are both bull$hit views..
Transparent struts is the way to go...

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 05:50 PM
RayBanJockey it is alot more work then putting transpartent textures on the model you would need 2 seperate cockpit models and all the models cockpit walls and, struts etc with out any texture would have to be changed and given a low opacity. Theres also the problem of having a transparent cockpit that would show clipping of wings nose etc.

Its almost as much work as building a whole new cockpitand external model not as easily done in photoshop with a image manipulation.

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 06:04 PM
Hi all,

Looks like many people agree that having those struts transparent would be great.
I wish to add that this 'transparency' should be extended to all the objects that obstruct proper instrument reading (clocks, compass, gauges...).
See you...

DaCool (Himself)

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 06:07 PM
In fact, the problem is simple.

FB is a sim, a great sim.

What's the aim of a aviation sim on a PC: to recreate reality as much as it is possible, according to technical limitations of our current computers.

Can a human head turn to 360”ö‚?? No.
Can a pilot look directly in his six, firmly strapped on a seat, with fuselage structure or armor obstructing his view? No.

So, if FB is judged as a SIMULATION of the real world, something that cannot be simulated in the real world has nothing to do in FB.

Simple as that and there are other sims available for phantasy players.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 06:14 PM
Bubble canopies are the solution to ALL problems raised about cockpit struts. Japanes pilots hated the first framed canopy of Ki~43 and so the canopy was re~designed. There is nothing new about real pilots whining about and *hating* heavily framed canopies. The Japanese pilots could move their heads to see around struts but they didn't like to do it either but they had to. Great, this is just the way it was. So if we don't like canopy struts and don't want to lean then we do what the pilots did and fly aircraft with less framed canopies, like the later Ki~43.


J18_Weed::
-- There are others that want no strut (casper) views and
-- you make it sound like the game would be ruined with
-- this view system..

Exactly:: no strut = (caspar) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Another issue never mentioned by Triplane Aces is the need for AI programming to take into account visibility from inside the AI cockpits. Right now AI can see the humanoid player as if AI have the no-cockpit cockpit View in the first pic. So instead of making AI more human, we become the AI. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif There is a wonderful amount of science fiction exploring that theme and it is worth a look.

I would personally like to become 791. A pilot skin with robot head...Awsum.

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 07:09 PM
Go to Boeing or or USAF training center.. there you will find a flight simulator....FB is a game calling itself a flight simulator...And my all time fav game at that..

This game has differnt settings for those with differnt playing styles or what ever you want to call it.

Im not saying thay should add it to FB but it would be a good thing to consider for BoB ...

Not everyone plays online I like both for differnt reasons..so whats it to you what settings anyone uses to have fun with it...
I like limited icons and to be able to switch cockpit on or off when it suits me ...I bought this game to play it the way I want to and could care less how you play or deside what is as close to real as the PC can give you.
I don't want it set to horse with blinders on mode all the time (its not even close to simulted with a freakin monitor)

Your way is no less some user created phantasy than mine ..hehe and you wanna call that real ....And nothing you say will change that FACT..



CHDT wrote:

- So, if FB is judged as a SIMULATION of the real
- world, something that cannot be simulated in the
- real world has nothing to do in FB.
-
- Simple as that and there are other sims available
- for phantasy players.
-

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 10:09 PM
-- This game has differnt settings for those with differnt playing styles

-- ...I bought this game to play it the way I want to

Okay, we agree! And the more Options the better. What made me go off was the first pic, although the poster did say until pilot movement was offered. The pic was an embarassement. The pilot movement thing was pure gold. I should have focused on that.

But when we "say" faded cockpits are more real than pilot movement we are using trickery and deception, and we will be made fun of. When we say pilot movement is too difficult, we are correct, it was, and so they started making bubble canopies--invisible canopies we should say--and that was the idea.

Faded canopy struts are fine if used to model binocular vision, but even then only half the canopy frame will be affected (the vertical members). Also, I do love the thrill of flying no~cockpit but I have never tried the FB feature. I fly no~cockpit from the nose gunner of He~111. This is also fake, cos the nose gunner could not totally control the aircraft....or could he/she? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif I dunno. But it is a fun option. Anyway the pics I see of faded cockpits are just butt ugly, wretchfest maximus.

btw I only fly offwhine, at least now but I probably will sign up eventually and be onwhiner too. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 04:15 AM
In the late 109s and the new La's there is a lot of 'glass' between the pilot and the outside world. This 'glass' must be a transparent layer of something?

If that don't cost too much in framerates - why would semi-transparent struts?

The nasty clipping is something I could totally live with. I am already able to peak under the hood on the Lagg3, and see through the wingroots of the 109. It doesn't bother me the least bit. What bothers me is not being able to follow a bandit because I can't see him all of a sudden, or having to fly in awkward angles in order to keep an eye on the planes I am escorting.

BTW. Interesting, this communism thing some of you guys got going. Wondering which marvellous educational systems can take credit for such enlightened citizens ?

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 05:30 AM
PLS NO WONDER WOMAN VIEW IN IL2 FB or BoB.

warriorbear

CRAPOLA!!!!!!

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 10:58 PM
warriorbear wrote:
- PLS NO WONDER WOMAN VIEW IN IL2 FB or BoB.
-
- warriorbear
-
- CRAPOLA!!!!!!
-


Then don't use it and let others fly how they like! Maybe some can't take the frame hit of the cockpit,hmmmm? Not everybody shares you elitist views
-



http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid84/pcf14831e07273a1e01a33fb0e5650ffa/face10c7.jpg


Lead Whiner for the P-47D-40, M and N and Hvars

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 12:04 AM
I think that the second picture (maybe a bit less faded away) could be a very good extra option, beside the full cockpit, the wonder woman and the arcade view. I might be wrong, but it looks like of easy implementaton.

This leads me to another argument: the padlock breaking when the plane is behind the cockpit frames: it was not like this in the first IL-2 release, and it has been adopted because assumed to be "more realistic". Well, I think it was a bad move: one can keep track of a moving object behind a thin frame in real life, so that the contact should not be lost.

My opinion.

Aero out

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 12:34 AM
One more thing: Oleg just stated that in BoB's engine there will be the option to move/lean the head in the cockpit...

A.

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 08:54 PM
Being able to move the view is great news! It may, probably will, require hand actions by the user with associated keys and buttons/hat taken up as well as memorising more controls for something that's naturally done without much thought at all.

What is simulation? It's not real. In the meaning of the word the is implicit compromises. The better the sim, the less degree of compromises but don't anyone fool themselves into thinking that the state of PC sims is near completely realistic. Every step such as head movement brings us a little closer. How we move the head/view is another matter where some other compromise such as translucent frames may fit as well in terms of function. Note the word translucent, not transparent. It entails things like not being able to see a dot in the sky behind it while not blocking a nearby plane, for instance. It means that the frame members may have color if done that way. The look and some of the blockage can be there and still no need for fussing with buttons.

I played my first simulation back in 1969 and got more and more into them over the years. Then they were cardboard with rules books. Every good sim had a section called The Designers Notes where what, where and why was explained as far as the quantization and neccessary compromises were made. Understanding these things was to understand the sim and the qualities of different sims could be compared on that basis. One example of that kind of thing is what different flight sims now include in the flight models and what is left out in favor of other elements. Or the AI's, terrain, weather, etc.

Simulations are shortcuts of reality. A really good sim illustrates and teaches about aspects of some reality more than just dumping model toys into your hands. I would say that IL2 and FB have come farther along that way than some, well many sims I've seen yet. I'd purely love to see a sim someday that has all the best elements and geared towards making or improving learning of historic conditions to the point of exposing the unwritten parts of good historic accounts as well as the errors in the bad ones. Previous sims have done that for me already but greedy ole me, I wants mo!


Neal

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 10:28 PM
http://www.boardy.de/images/smilies/kopfpatsch.gif



WWMaxGunz::
-- Being able to move the view is great news! It may,
-- probably will, require hand actions by the user with
-- associated keys and buttons/hat taken up as well as
-- memorising more controls for something that's naturally
-- done without much thought at all.

Pilots thought alot about how they were forced to move their heads, enough that they forced the Japanese Army to back off and replace framed canopies with almost bubble canopies.

Once you learn how to use the head movement, you will do it without thinking, like we did with all your other controls, or did we? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Real pilots had to remember to force themselves to move in the cockpit to look around...we should read more about pilots not bothering to look around them and what happened to them because of it.


Otherwise, there are some great thoughts happening here now...http://www.boardy.de/images/smilies/ylflower.gif



Aeronautico::
- the padlock breaking when the plane is behind the cockpit
- frames: it was not like this in the first IL-2 release,
- and it has been adopted because assumed to be "more
- realistic". Well, I think it was a bad move: one can keep
- track of a moving object behind a thin frame in real
- life, so that the contact should not be lost.
- My opinion.

Mine too, now that you posted it. Thanks.

What is really BAD is that padlock works against aircraft hidden under the cockpit floor. This is bizzare. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 10:38 PM
Neal, from what your saying I get the idea that a headset, with a monitor in the front of your face that you wear on your head, that detected you turning your head and turned your view inside the sim the same way, would help aleviate some of the "un-realism" you get from a sim. And I do agree, having to use either another hand or even finger to move your head around isn't realistic.

I don't know if making the cockpit transparent is the answer, but it certainly brings up good questions.

http://www.80snostalgia.com/classictv/airwolf/pic1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 11:34 PM
I was thinking about another thread on this and thout I'd test it out.

I sat in my car, which has rather thick door pillars, and I closed one eye and looked around, instant IL2 109 effect.

With both eyes, for me only the middle third of the lillat was actually blocking my view, the right third was completely invisable and the left ghosted.

That is reality.


For the verticals only of course.


Message Edited on 10/28/0310:37PM by Oboe

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 04:33 PM
Not being into track ir or hat switches, I use the 10 key for views. What I don't understand is why it can't simply be the case that one could pick a direction he wished to look via an input, and then the program perform a head sweep of the direction chosen. What is forgotten in this debate about head position is that real people can also alter views solely by moving their eyes.

My preference would be to pick a general direction, say--1 o clock to 2 o clock--using the 9 key on the number pad. The pilot would automatically move the "head" to the best vantage point in the cockpit to do so and then give me an eye sweep of what was visible from that vantage point--left to right, top to bottom--and then snap back to center when I hit 5. Also I see no great engineering feat to having the head and upper torso lean in the direction of a turn so that when following the arc of a turning target, one can follow the craft off centerline if one wishes rather than be forced to align the nose to the chase course to keep a good view.

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 06:23 PM
Aeronautico, If the ability to shift position is going to be added to BOB, this whole faded view thing is almost worthless to talk about. That is, of course, if it doesn't replace the current Wonder Woman View. I think this faded view would be a better option than WWview.



Message Edited on 10/29/0311:30AM by artjunky

artjunky
08-01-2004, 11:50 PM
This post has been resurected from the past. Has anyone at "The Company" given it any more thought?http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/IMAGES/VIEW02.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-02-2004, 02:02 AM
"Software, forces hardware change and direction."

My$0.02

Let people fly how they choose to fly.
If people want to fly Wonder Woman (gawd what a terrible phrase that is, imo) let them fly Open Cockpit and let them get on with it.
Lose the bullsh*t involved with this mentality,
let people fly the way they like to fly.
I can't get over Full Real pilots having to have Speedbar on but that is their choice.

If, in BoB head movements up/ down, left/ right, will be available....fantastic.
This could force hardware developers (as other 'sims could well follow suit) to include a simple to use function switch in even base model sticks to enable such.

Just because someone has a preferred way of flying, doesn't make them right and people who prefer other settings wrong, it is a choice.

Me personally (as put earlier), I like the "buzz" of open cockpit (WW) and this gives a set of manouvers to shake the guy on my six.
A reflex game
I also enjoy flying Full Cockpit and the different strategies involved.
A tactical game
I don't think pilots were ever strapped in that tight they could not move at least their shoulders. They would have been in tight enough to hold them but loose enough to have mobility to rise and turn enough to at least get as good a look behind as they could.

For the idea of a ghosted canopy...good thinking there and it too, does deserve to be looked at seriously

I've only ever had 2 instances of vertigo;
1 Was in a cessna (or a twin engine something) co-pilot chair as a passenger, head against the glass peering almost straight down from 8,000ft
2 The other was in Tiger Leaping Gorge (Yunan, Ch),as a trekker, looking straight up at 3,500 m of sheer rock face.

[This message was edited by Vagueout on Mon August 02 2004 at 01:10 AM.]

[This message was edited by Vagueout on Mon August 02 2004 at 01:48 AM.]

RAAF_Edin
08-02-2004, 02:40 AM
... and some people want a fligh SIMULATOR?

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
Edin "Kuky" Kulelija
No76 Squadron RAAF

JAS_Gripen
08-02-2004, 09:10 AM
Yes, and not a view simulator as in "a high-fidelity simulation on how a pilot in a straightjacket would view the surroundings"

The presence/absence of cockpit frames was a very real issue of advantage/disadvantage between, say, 109G and bubbletop Pony but unlike the sim-Talibans I see no theoretical or moral reason why the ghost view should be banned simply because it is arguably "unrealistic". If it makes some players happy and is do-able without too much diversion from other stuff (!!) then it should be added as an option. There are a lot sillier options available and they have not destroyed the sim, eh?

ednavar
08-02-2004, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J18_Weed:
Hey Lex why would you want it limited to just what you like (view wise)...Some of you plp are just plane selfish..
There are others that want no strut (casper) views and you make it sound like the game would be ruined with this view system..
That full real bull$hit is just that ...bull$hit...Making something harder dont make it realistic ....
Leaning would be just more switches or buttons to fumble with .....Linda Blare view is overkill and full cockpit
is for the peeps that think thay are looking at it thru the eyes of a real pilot ...Thay are both bull$hit views..
Transparent struts is the way to go...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do have a few concerns regarding the style but I do agree on the substance. I still think it is and excelent idea to obtaing a more ergonomic approach to the head movement issue.

S!

artjunky
08-02-2004, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by artjunky:
This post has been resurrected from the past. Has anyone at "The Company" given it any more thought?http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/IMAGES/VIEW02.jpg <pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> </pre> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LEXX_Luthor
08-02-2004, 06:24 PM
You need Ultralight Flight Sim

ASH has the best non~head~movement idea.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ASH at S-MART
08-03-2004, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by artjunky:
This post has been resurrected from the past. Has anyone at "The Company" given it any more thought?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We just had a big thread on the topic..

TWO POINTS

1) In RL you could move your head.. thus look back L/R six instead of looking into the head rest.. i.e. LEAN and look.. Which also would help you see over the side a bit.. EZer to do in a big P51 bubble top cockpit then a little tight Spit or 109 flat glass cockpit

2) In RL you have two eyes.. Thus when looking off in the distance at a bogie you would not see the cockpit bar/brace in front of you.. Because you are focusing beyond it.. Thus the cockpit bar/brace would appear SEMI-TRANSPARENT.

CHOICES
WRT LEAN: I have been told by some 3D art guys that modeling LEAN.. i.e. moving the POV requires a lot more art work to be drawn up.. You would have to draw the sides of things which currently are not drawn. If true.. that means more time and money would have to be spent on each cockpit.. i.e. bad

WRT SEMI-TRANSPARENT: I have been told that it is not hard and that the current 3D cards can handle it.

SUMMARY
Your drawing of a semi-trans cockpit would account for both POINTS.. The inability to LEAN and how human eyes work (SEMI-TRANS) to see through things

http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/IMAGES/VIEW02.jpg

I hope we get both LEAN and SEMI-TRANS in the next sim (BoB).. Then you would only have to make the cockpit bar/braces semi-trans and not the front panel or side panels.. The LEAN would then account for that.. But if what the 3D art guys said is true and it requires a lot more art work.. Then I would expect he next sim to not have LEAN and maybe just SEMI-TRANS.. At which point I would prefer just the cockpit bars to be semi-trans.. And a lot HARDER (DARKER?) to see though then what you have drawn above.. That is too see through for my liking.. I know your drawing shows the panels fading too.. And that would account for the lack of LEAN.. But that is a little too Wonder Woman for me.. That and I *think* you would run into problems doing that.. In that if your 3D COCKPIT art panels are semi-trans you would then be looking into the 3D BODY art.. Thus not gaining much if any view.

I wish I was as good at art work as you are.. I would really like to see what the P47 Razor Back would look like with that forward bar down the middle made to be semi-trans like you did these cockpit bars.. Only a lot darker then you have done these.. I fear that your drawing will scare more folks away from the idea then draw them in because it is too much too see though.. They wont even give it a seconds thought and reply with Wonder Woman this and that arguments not even realizing that this is actually a good way to model how your eyes work.

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