PDA

View Full Version : Has anyone noticed this before?



liveforflying
04-01-2006, 11:39 PM
Hallo, every simer here, I am a newbie to this game just for few weeks, first of all I have to say "I LOVE THIS GAME"! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif It is the most realistic WWII air combat simulation software I've ever seen in the market. Thanks to the Oleg teams!

And I also want to address a small but annoying problems I found after trying several flights and even air-to-air combat, I found out that the appearance models of the Me109 series are not so "accurate" to the real aircraft,I have to say they really look a little tubbish from left and right sides. So did anyone notice this before? Is it changeable? I am just curious.

PS:and the looking straght forward in cockpit view gives me a somehow "strange" feeling, don't why yet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

S!

GreyBeast
04-02-2006, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by liveforflying:
...I found out that the appearance models of the Me109 series are not so "accurate" to the real aircraft,I have to say they really look a little tubbish from left and right sides...



You cannot change the outward appearance of the model. Maybe you're looking at the Emils (Bf-109E) while you're thinking of the Gustav (Bf-109G) models.



Originally posted by liveforflying:
...and the looking straght forward in cockpit view gives me a somehow "strange" feeling, don't why yet...


Try pressing Shift+F1, that might make the strange feeling go away.

liveforflying
04-02-2006, 12:55 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gifWait a minute, are you saying that i am stupid? Of course I know the difference of Me109 models! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif So you mean you don't think the appearance model of Me109 is inaccurate?

Capt.LoneRanger
04-02-2006, 04:55 AM
Not saying you're stupid, but it would be better to post some pictures/screenshots, or at least name the version that is inaccurate.

WTE_Ibis
04-02-2006, 05:49 AM
Oh no, he's back!

.

reverendkrv1972
04-02-2006, 06:05 AM
fishing season?

tigertalon
04-02-2006, 06:07 AM
If I remember correctly there was (still is??) a problem with 109s indeed. When you look at the plane from distance, it uses a model with lower number of polygons (so less accurate) than other aircraft.

I can remember in 3.0x you could recognise 109 from far larger distances due to this "feature" of game. Dunno if it's still present.

VW-IceFire
04-02-2006, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by liveforflying:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gifWait a minute, are you saying that i am stupid? Of course I know the difference of Me109 models! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif So you mean you don't think the appearance model of Me109 is inaccurate?
Having seen some discussions of the 109 in reference to how close it is to the blueprints and the answer is extremely close. It was believed that the wing dihedral is slightly off but its not something thats going to have a huge impact on the visual of the aircraft.

The dimensions match almost exactly if you take a screen shot and then size the blueprints ontop. This game prides itself on being blueprint accurate (sometimes to a fault) and while its not 100% perfect its close.

Tubbish the 109s do not look.

BUT...if you have a 17in LCD (or 19 or widescreen whatever) monitor and are running at 1024x768 everything is going to be squished. You can use native LCD resolutions by modifying the config.ini. If this is the issue at hand then that may cause your impression.

liveforflying
04-02-2006, 01:08 PM
Okay, thx for the replies and recommandations from all above, I tried some visual comparations here, and hope you guys can understand what I meant. Well, I have to say I don't want to find a quarrel in straw, just want to express my own opinion about the models in game. It is a little sad that we cannot change them, but anyway again thx to develop team for their great job! I understand that nothing man-made is flawless.

E4
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i235/ChristofZ/e4comparecopy.jpg

F4
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i235/ChristofZ/f4comparecopy.jpg ]

G6
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i235/ChristofZ/g6comparecopy.jpg

K4
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i235/ChristofZ/k4comparecopy.jpg

PS: I tried my best to align the 2D color-filled linework with the screenshot which also took me quite a few time to make them as less distorted by perspective as possible(take a look at those gauges), and if you wanna blame me by this "inaccurateness", I am sorry, that's all I can achieve, maybe someone can help me to export the digital models in this game, then that's much easier. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Oh, by the way, thx to the color work of Rick Kent!

S!

liveforflying
04-02-2006, 01:46 PM
And I tried a little more by using G2 model,
because I found its line works on one of my disks.

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i235/ChristofZ/g2comparecopy.jpg

And that's what happens when I put the translucent blue print onto the screenshot.

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i235/ChristofZ/g2comparecopy2.jpg

Well, I found actually there r not 2 much gap between each other, maybe those nuance will not be considered as "inaccurateness" for a simulation game, but it's amazing that for my eyes when I was in this game, it looks so different! Just wondering why?

major_setback
04-02-2006, 02:44 PM
Your pictures aren't showing!
Just red 'x's.

liveforflying
04-02-2006, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by major_setback:
Your pictures aren't showing!
Just red 'x's.

Maybe it works when u right click on them and selet "reload", gotta be something wrong with yahoo brief case.

slipBall
04-02-2006, 04:55 PM
quote

PS:and the looking straght forward in cockpit view gives me a somehow "strange" feeling, don't why yet.

Have you tried switching between views, to find one that you like better

VW-IceFire
04-02-2006, 05:00 PM
You can't load those pictures...the domain refuses to resolve.

liveforflying
04-02-2006, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
quote

PS:and the looking straght forward in cockpit view gives me a somehow "strange" feeling, don't why yet.

Have you tried switching between views, to find one that you like better

No, I don't mean switching views, I just feel the space above piolt's head is a little low and the straight ahead view has been blocked by the bar in front, just a feeling though.

liveforflying
04-02-2006, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
You can't load those pictures...the domain refuses to resolve.

What the..., well, in my computer is no problem, can u recommand me a free webspace to strore those pics because this BBS don't have the ability to upload files and I also don't have problems to create an album here.

slipBall
04-02-2006, 06:39 PM
Try Photobucket, a free limited storage service http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

liveforflying
04-02-2006, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
Try Photobucket, a free limited storage service http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Already updated, hope this time it will work, thx alot! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mortoma
04-02-2006, 08:42 PM
Who's to say that those pictures you're comparing the game's 109 outline to are accurate? Maybe the game's 109 is right and the pictures you have are wrong?? Those are drawings. Maybe real side photgraphs ( not cartoonish drawings ) would be in order??

Also, even if you're right, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not concerned. The game has it close enough for me. Maybe you are just more nit-picky than I am. And possibly moreso than most everybody else too? No offence intended.

And besides, there is almost zero likelihood that Oleg is going to change anything like that at this late stage anyway. It would be a lot of work for just you and maybe a few other complainers.

VW-IceFire
04-02-2006, 09:22 PM
Keep in mind that even if you produce a 3D mesh that is accurate to the blueprints initially...when you start removing polys to keep the aircraft under the budget for displayable polys (polygones) per LOD0 (highest level of detail) you are bound to introduce some innacuracies.

BoB, because the poly limits are so much higher, is going to be even more precise simply because you can spend more per model. But the fact remains that it'll still be slightly inaccurate.

Another fair point is made that its possible the views your using aren't accurate either. When it comes down to it...the 3D mesh is nearly dead on with maybe a 1% or 2% variance. Thats awefully good for a few thousand polys.

liveforflying
04-02-2006, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
Who's to say that those pictures you're comparing the game's 109 outline to are accurate? Maybe the game's 109 is right and the pictures you have are wrong?? Those are drawings. Maybe real side photgraphs ( not cartoonish drawings ) would be in order??

Also, even if you're right, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not concerned. The game has it close enough for me. Maybe you are just more nit-picky than I am. And possibly moreso than most everybody else too? No offence intended.

And besides, there is almost zero likelihood that Oleg is going to change anything like that at this late stage anyway. It would be a lot of work for just you and maybe a few other complainers.

Hallo, mortoma, well, first of all, I have to say it is not a complaint at all, I will only complain about the mistakes in the game, so are you calling this a "bug"? "Inaccurateness" to me is just a neutral word, and I am not giving any pressure to any one to make any effort to change the game by doing so. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Secondly, avbout the pictures I used, I wouldn't say they are all authoritative, but they are precise data almost 95% authentic extracted from the blueprints or lineworks of Me109, if you want to verify this, I could email you those files and you can compare it with other exmaples.

Thirdly, recommand you try to build some models of Me109 or even go to the aircraft museum to have a real life experience of the beauty of these plane, no offense!

S!

liveforflying
04-02-2006, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Keep in mind that even if you produce a 3D mesh that is accurate to the blueprints initially...when you start removing polys to keep the aircraft under the budget for displayable polys (polygones) per LOD0 (highest level of detail) you are bound to introduce some innacuracies.

BoB, because the poly limits are so much higher, is going to be even more precise simply because you can spend more per model. But the fact remains that it'll still be slightly inaccurate.

Another fair point is made that its possible the views your using aren't accurate either. When it comes down to it...the 3D mesh is nearly dead on with maybe a 1% or 2% variance. Thats awefully good for a few thousand polys.

I agree with your points. 3D models will never be the same as the real ones, especially when you are using the simulation game to generate reality with acceptable framerate on nowadays PC.

And about your last point, I just want say, at the beginning of my comparation test, I also worried about the distortion of perspective effect on the model, so I use the narrowest view angel at a fair distance to minimize the shrink of the aircraft nose and tail, which are 2 parts farest from viewpoint. But when I put those pics and the linework data together, align them and resize the length, I found actually they can match, which means the distortion can be acceptable or ignored, because actually I only want to compare the virtual section perpendicular to the line of view, isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But somehow I found some "inaccurateness" in the comparation which are not explainable by the perspective distortion. Maybe you can find it yourself. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

At last I want to say I also found that the later models of Me109 are more accurate than the earlier ones, I presume perhaps it is because they are released in the stage which the dev. team had already pay more attention to the accuracy of aircrafts' models.

Breeze147
04-03-2006, 07:56 AM
Why is it that when you blow up a plane and fly right through the exploding wreckage, you are never damaged in any way? This is a real immersion killer for me and could cause me to defect to EAW if not corrected immediately.

I doubt I will invest in BOB if these inaccuracies are not corrected. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

AFJ_Locust
04-03-2006, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
Why is it that when you blow up a plane and fly right through the exploding wreckage, you are never damaged in any way? This is a real immersion killer for me and could cause me to defect to EAW if not corrected immediately.

I doubt I will invest in BOB if these inaccuracies are not corrected. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I wish I had your plane about 50% of the time I fly through an explosion It takes me out also.

Especialy if your near the deck & the bandit smashes into the ground after a good fight and your right on top of them.

BOOM

liveforflying
04-03-2006, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
Why is it that when you blow up a plane and fly right through the exploding wreckage, you are never damaged in any way? This is a real immersion killer for me and could cause me to defect to EAW if not corrected immediately.

I doubt I will invest in BOB if these inaccuracies are not corrected. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifThat's interesting, it just happened today when I was fighting a Spitfire using Zero, he is diving and I followed so close, after my shell hited his engine, I heard a strange sound at the same time he exploded, but nothing happened after I flew through the fireball, it was when I touched the ground and my plane leant to one side immediately, did I found out I lost the left gear already, hehe, surprising!