PDA

View Full Version : We need definitely new rear view in Tempest!



Kwiatos
05-29-2006, 04:16 PM
Actually in game rear point of view in Tempest is ridicules. in RL Tempest have the same rear plate and canopy like P-47D and should have not worse rear view. In game P-47D have better rear view -you could see piece of horizontal stabilizer but in Tempest you couldn't see it. Now even formation of bombers could sneek behind Tempest rear plate and you dont see it dont even speaking about single fighter. I love these plane but at the same time i hate it beacuse these stupid rear view in game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

See how looks like rear view in RL Tempest :
http://user.tninet.se/~qbc513r/nv778tw-14.jpg (http://user.tninet.se/%7Eqbc513r/nv778tw-14.jpg)

And original notes from Tactical Trials:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tempestafdu.html

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

I think actuall rear view in game is not acceptable and should be fixed.

It would be fine also if we could get Tempest with 11+ Boost in game not olny the weakest version.

Any interested in these sing here.

Kwiatos
05-29-2006, 04:16 PM
Actually in game rear point of view in Tempest is ridicules. in RL Tempest have the same rear plate and canopy like P-47D and should have not worse rear view. In game P-47D have better rear view -you could see piece of horizontal stabilizer but in Tempest you couldn't see it. Now even formation of bombers could sneek behind Tempest rear plate and you dont see it dont even speaking about single fighter. I love these plane but at the same time i hate it beacuse these stupid rear view in game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

See how looks like rear view in RL Tempest :
http://user.tninet.se/~qbc513r/nv778tw-14.jpg (http://user.tninet.se/%7Eqbc513r/nv778tw-14.jpg)

And original notes from Tactical Trials:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/tempestafdu.html

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

I think actuall rear view in game is not acceptable and should be fixed.

It would be fine also if we could get Tempest with 11+ Boost in game not olny the weakest version.

Any interested in these sing here.

96th_Nightshifter
05-29-2006, 04:22 PM
Yeah I was and still am really dissapointed in the rear view - before flying it I was thinking "tear drop" canopy will be great for rear view but soon realised I couldn't see anything at all.
I could be wrong but isn't the whole idea of the tear drop canopy to promote a better rear view?

VW-IceFire
05-29-2006, 04:46 PM
We're going to ask to have this fixed along with adding a Tempest Mark V, 1945 model at the same time I think.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-29-2006, 04:58 PM
Actually the cockpit of the Tempest is excellently modelled and absolutely correct.

That does not apply to the games view, which actually removes the complete head and places a single eye on the neck, that is able to turn almost 360 deg. Pitty, though, that means if you turn your magic eye to the back, you literally look at the headrest.

A view system like in GhostRecon3 would be better, but with BoB we get 6DOF, free movement inside the cockpit. That will eliminate all those little view based problems.

On the other hand, there are still plenty of plainly wrong modelled pits, that were in the initial release and not fixed in 7 years. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

HellToupee
05-29-2006, 05:09 PM
even with 6dof tho i hope it has a clever system for us people with hatswitches so we dont need a million and one keys mapped to just to look around, eg when u look back ur head moves as if a real one would.

Brain32
05-29-2006, 05:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Actually the cockpit of the Tempest is excellently modelled and absolutely correct.

That does not apply to the games view, which actually removes the complete head and places a single eye on the neck, that is able to turn almost 360 deg. Pitty, though, that means if you turn your magic eye to the back, you literally look at the headrest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes but if I understanded the whole deal correctly, the viewpoint could be moved to achieve better rearward visibility. I hope they will try to do something about it.
All in all I hope issues such as this will be resolved in BoB, currently we have two extremely unhistorical view problems, FW190's front view and Tempest's rear view, both were exceptional in RL, but both are the worst in the game...

AKA_TAGERT
05-29-2006, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Actually the cockpit of the Tempest is excellently modelled and absolutely correct.

That does not apply to the games view, which actually removes the complete head and places a single eye on the neck, that is able to turn almost 360 deg. Pitty, though, that means if you turn your magic eye to the back, you literally look at the headrest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree 100%
But you and I must be wrong, in that several years ago when this came up in a topic about adding the ability to lean while looking back Stigler stated that was not necessary in that you only have to back the plane. Since Stigler is the alpha and beta athority on flight sims we have to conclude that we are in error.

JG53Frankyboy
05-29-2006, 06:58 PM
H*E*L*L , in a Tempest and Ki-43-I you have to bank so much that you are almost flying backwards before you are able to see something behind these walls !

that planes are programmed very different you can see in the Ki-61 and Ki-100 - VERY different point of views are programmed in them , and they should rearly be almost identical.

leitmotiv
05-29-2006, 07:57 PM
When you slam into a problem like this rear visibility business, you suddenly realize your simulator has turned into a game and it is infuriating! One reason I like the Yak-3---that big slab of clear armor-glass!

RAF_Loke
05-30-2006, 02:46 AM
The problem is that you can't lean to the side. That would also improve you view forward if you could. Especially when taxiing.
I have tried to sit in a real Spitfire, and it improves your view a LOT that you can move/lean in the cockpit.

Wether we will get that option in BoB and FS X for that matter I don't know - can only whish.

danjama
05-30-2006, 04:56 AM
shiftF1 moves the headrest a tiny bit, but it isnt enough

Gitano1979
05-30-2006, 06:26 AM
IMO this problem affects also the Macchi C202 and C205...

The-Pizza-Man
05-30-2006, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
even with 6dof tho i hope it has a clever system for us people with hatswitches so we dont need a million and one keys mapped to just to look around, eg when u look back ur head moves as if a real one would. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need to worry, all they have to do is make it so that as you look to the left of the right you lean left or right. So if you imagine you in game head sort of following a horse shoe shape.

mrsiCkstar
05-30-2006, 07:37 AM
it would also be cool to be able to lean while looking out the sides of the cockpit... for spotting targets more or less directly below you... or watching it while you pass. maybe not for BOB but maybe for some of the later add-ons

p1ngu666
05-30-2006, 07:49 AM
dont some of views seem to have a slight lean in, when u move? i cant remmber the planes...

u forgot i16, and presumeably the italian open cockpit planes. i16 pilots said they could look around and see there tail wheel...

leitmotiv
05-30-2006, 05:34 PM
Cheers to Kwiatos for a terrific post. This is such a fundamental error it is embarrassing. I've been playing OVER FLANDERS FIELDS a bit recently and I noticed the greater head play you have with CFS3 while using the TrackIR Pro (yes, one thing that dog did right)---you can look over the side of the nose and aim through a side sight or look right behind you (not the half rear view we get with IL-2 COMPLETE). You can look around the frames of a windscreen. In other words, it is "natural." With our favorite sim we are stuck in a coffin in the I-16, MC 202 or 205. I really think it is a matter of high importance to fix this before Oleg leaves IL-2 behind so that the series will retain a high degree of play value. I had adjusted to the game's problems so much I stopped noticing how fake the views were. I have to zig-zag or suddenly climb all the time to overcome the visibility restraints in most aircraft. Of course, this is "historical" behavior!

Platypus_1.JaVA
06-01-2006, 11:57 AM
In real life, you could look around the armored plate I suppose... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Ugly_Kid
06-01-2006, 12:40 PM
So very touching - hopefully the guys with the dead horse pictures from FW-view threads have time to pass by and spare one for this too...

Hetzer_II
06-02-2006, 12:28 AM
-wrong thread-

BigKahuna_GS
06-02-2006, 11:26 AM
S!


For some reason several aircraft have improper size head rests/armor that restricts the rearward view. Bubble top canopies were known to offer exceptional all around visisbility especially to the rear. The Tempest's rear view is very bad, the P47D bubble tops also have restricted rearward views from the armoured head rest. Shift-F1 does help but you would exspect
better visisbility from bubble top canopies.



__

Willey
06-02-2006, 11:56 AM
http://home.arcor.de/eldur/smilies/128_smiley-surprised.gif

OAC_Kosh
06-02-2006, 04:37 PM
S!

This whole business of being stuck in one spot is maddening to me.

We do not necessarily need the 6DOF, but at least some ability to shift position.

While in a Spitfire one can press Shift-F1 and move the pit frame out of the way to reveal the tracked target, the Shift-F1 in a BF-109 is utterly useless and needed the most. It is bad enough that the bars in 109s and 190s are big enough to cover several planes at close range and never find them again until they get behind us, but on top of it there is no way to move them out of the way, like in a Spitfire.

Oleg says that 6DOF is not possible in this game because of cockpit design, and yet I routinely witness free movemement every time I man a gun turret, or limited movement when using Shift-F1.

I am sure there is some way to improve the current state of affairs rather than say "BOB will have everything".

Other than that, things are great, lol

S!

Feathered_IV
06-02-2006, 11:56 PM
Comparing the Ki-43 headrest to real life photos and measuring against the width of the seat back; the headrest is about 50-60mm too wide either side and 175-200mm too high. Very foolish indeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-03-2006, 12:58 AM
How can you tell the width of the headrest if you don't know the measured position of the POV?

And how far does a pilot lean strapped in with a 4-way harness?

Eyes are on the front of the head a handwidth from the neck and neck can move estra too though.
Instead of 1 point pivot the view should move along a C shaped path left and right as well as
up and down. Movement path left and right should stop at about 80 degrees but from there the
POV should turn in place to about 150 degrees back of front center. Upwards path perhaps 45
degrees and end with POV able to rotate from there to 90 degrees up. But if there are goggles
then final angles less. All that to simulate eyes on front of face with no need for extra
control than mouse or HAT or keys.

Why it won't happen is that the cockpit interior has not all the polys filled in. The ones
filled in and rendered are the ones that can be seen from the POV of that cockpit and they
are differently placed for that reason.

OAC_Kosh
06-03-2006, 01:37 AM
So if we were allowed more movement, we would be seeing the outside through holes in our planes?
Just like Fs2004 once they put 6DOF in, lol.

That's really too bad.

VW-IceFire
06-03-2006, 10:14 AM
I'm told on good authority that the camera positions in the Tempest were not what was recommended...so they are "in error". If we can get them fixed is another story.

JG53Frankyboy
06-03-2006, 10:25 AM
you are not the only one who can remember the cockpits modeller post about this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
06-04-2006, 02:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:


Why it won't happen is that the cockpit interior has not all the polys filled in. The ones
filled in and rendered are the ones that can be seen from the POV of that cockpit and they
are differently placed for that reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm pretty sure originally the pov was in a different place but was moved by Oleg because the original position was not right, then it got moved to a postition which is even worse. The modeller himself said the position is wrong.

Feathered_IV
06-04-2006, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
How can you tell the width of the headrest if you don't know the measured position of the POV?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry if I wasn't describing it properly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

What I meant was the height and width of the real life headrest in relation to the real life seatback of the Ki-43 is not accurately represented by the height and width of the virtual Ki-43 headrest in relation to the virtual seatback. *gasps for air*

WWMaxGunz
06-04-2006, 02:18 PM
I don't know much error you see but I can tell you that 3D perspective graphics don't scale
evenly onto a flat image. You can't stick a scale to them as they are not orthagonal
projections. However near center of vision is less distortion but only on a perpendicular
surface to the angle of view. Get that angle off a bit and you are measuring secant x width
instead of width.
If you have something that you know is a set small angle you can move like ferinstance the
gunsight then you can measure small angles by that.
Find out where the POV is in relation to cockpit controls. In gunsight view it should be
straight back behind whatever sight at whatever distance it's supposed to be. Revi has a
focus distance doesn't it?

This does relate to reality and problems of estimating distances and speeds of other planes
although LOD's and pixels do make that problem harder.

Also the missing textures are like the sides and/or rear of the box of a gunsight or other
sight blocking thing. Move head to the side and maybe you see through, maybe not. How to
find out? Wasn't there once such an error got found and fixed?

DmdSeeker
06-05-2006, 09:27 AM
One area Aces high certainly beats IL-2 is the view system; wither you use a hat switch or track IR.

bazzaah2
06-05-2006, 10:22 AM
I'd be happy if they just fixed the stupid overheat times with the Tempest.

MonkeyHero
06-05-2006, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OAC_Kosh:
S!
Oleg says that 6DOF is not possible in this game because of cockpit design, and yet I routinely witness free movemement every time I man a gun turret, or limited movement when using Shift-F1.
S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The main problem with having free moving views is that not all of the cockpit pieces are fully 3D. In almost every cockpit in game, there are a lot of 2D 'billboards' as they're called. They're basically pictures rendered in higher detail externally, and then placed as a flat object into the game. They work great as long as you always look at them from the same point. But as that point begins to move around they'll begin to look horrible.

This is an example from the I-185. This is one of the newer cockpits put into the game and makes extensive use of the technique. Look carefully at the blue gauges and the nuts at the upper right and you can see that they're not actually a 3D object. They are done extremely well so that during normal play you don't even notice, and they've achieved a very high detail look without sacrificing performance. The drawback is that they only look convincing from one viewpoint. If you look at them from any other angle it would be very apparant that they're just flat objects painted to look 3D.
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3193/i1852iz.jpg

Many of the other cockpits use this same technique, though usually to a lesser degree. Especially look for nuts on the inside of the canopy frames, that's one place I've seen it very often.

Since we've been told that BoB will support 6DoF we'll see fully 3D pits that will look right from any perspective. That means you'll be able to lean around those headrests and engines to get a better look at things just as pilots have to do in real life.

edit: I should also respond to the statement I quoted :P

I'm sure the gunner's positions were done without using this 2D technique for the exact reason of needing the view to move around to stay aligned with the gun. Obviously it is technically possible to move the viewpoint around. The work required to convert all the old cockpits to full 3D would probably take far too much time and effort at this point in the game's life. IMO it's better to just deal with this while we have to, and look forward to BoB which will be even more immersive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ratsack
06-07-2006, 01:23 AM
The Tempest view is the worst offender, but there are others that illustrate the same problem to some extent. I sincerely hope that the POV for Battle of Britain is modelled better than this. The rear view in Targetware is a good example of how it could be done, even without 6DoF. It will support players with or without Track IR, too.

The unrealistically poor view to the rear is one of the most annoying things about this otherwise excellent game. Aircraft like the Tempest, Focke-Wulf, A6M, and bubble-top P-47s & P-51s should have a real advantage in this area, but they don€t in this game. It€s infuriating to have a better rear view in a high-backed plane like the Bf109 than in a Tempest.

While I really hope Oleg consents to fix this in FB, I don€t have any real expectation that he will. I can€t say how much this needs to be addressed for BoB. The fix must be a fix for those without 6DoF, too!

Cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
06-07-2006, 04:51 AM
If you think the lack of response to the Tempest issue is bad, consider that the framing on all late war 109s is bad as well... it appears the Erla canopy was modified from the old model except - they forgot the remove the thick bars of the old one.

Check it out yourself, the Erla canopy of the ie. G-6/AS have rectangular bars on the top side, without any function, and they abruptly end *coincidentally* where the old canopies bars did.. and they block a hell of a lot of vision, making the bars 3 times as thick.

And we are complaining about that since original Il2..

The-Pizza-Man
06-08-2006, 12:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OAC_Kosh:
So if we were allowed more movement, we would be seeing the outside through holes in our planes?
Just like Fs2004 once they put 6DOF in, lol.

That's really too bad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhhh...no. Having total freedom over the camera position as in FS9 is not neccesity of 6DoF. It can be limited the realistic movement possible by the pilot in the cockpit of the particular plane. If holes start to appear in the model, it would be due to lazyness on the developers part, not some inherirent problem with having 6DoF.

Feathered_IV
06-08-2006, 07:01 AM
Maybe there would have been more wisdom in shaving a few inches off the width of the virtual headrests to better compromise with the real life view...

Diablo310th
06-08-2006, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Maybe there would have been more wisdom in shaving a few inches off the width of the virtual headrests to better compromise with the real life view... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Kocur_
06-08-2006, 08:36 AM
+1!
For installing armoured glass behind pilot was NOT THE ONLY effective way of providing pilot with good backward view. For humans do not have their heads just pivoted! We cant rotate head much more than 90deg without leaning a bit - leaning away from headrest! Doing what Feathered_IV says (while keeping protection offered by headrest/armour unchanged) would efectively simulate that, without adding entirely new movement of POV.

Ratsack
06-08-2006, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Check it out yourself, the Erla canopy of the ie. G-6/AS have rectangular bars on the top side, without any function, and they abruptly end *coincidentally* where the old canopies bars did.. and they block a hell of a lot of vision, making the bars 3 times as thick.

And we are complaining about that since original Il2.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not even vaguely in the same class as the Tempest rear view.

They block 'a hell of a lot of vision'? Bollocks! You have no shame, do you?

cheers,
Ratsack

Brain32
06-08-2006, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This is not even vaguely in the same class as the Tempest rear view.

They block 'a hell of a lot of vision'? Bollocks! You have no shame, do you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What's the reason of such reaction? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Yes, Tempest rear view is uncomparable with those of the 109's, but if something is wrong, it's wrong it doesen't matter(or atleast it shouldn't) which one is porked more or less.

Ratsack
06-08-2006, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This is not even vaguely in the same class as the Tempest rear view.

They block 'a hell of a lot of vision'? Bollocks! You have no shame, do you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What's the reason of such reaction? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Yes, Tempest rear view is uncomparable with those of the 109's, but if something is wrong, it's wrong it doesen't matter(or atleast it shouldn't) which one is porked more or less. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because this thread is concentrating on a particular aircraft - the Tempest - and the problems with the view caused by the way the pilot's PoV is modelled. This last issue has served to broaden the discussion to include other types suffering the same problem.

Kurfie's contribution is to simply to say, 'Oh, but the 109 is porked, too!' Well, bollocks to that, because the (very minor) problem with the 109 is nothing to do with the PoV issue that is at the heart of the Tempest problem. Remembering here that this thread is about the problems with the Tempest's rear view.

Kurfurst is way OT.

cheers,
Ratsack

Von_Rat
06-08-2006, 06:03 PM
after they fix fw then they can fix tempest. fws been porked longer, and is just as bad as tempest.

sorry but some of the attitudes here made me say that.

Buzzsaw-
06-08-2006, 06:53 PM
Salute

Kurfurst neglects to mention that the 109's cockpit was so cramped, the pilot's shoulders were brushing the walls, and with all the straps etc, he couldn't turn to see out the back.

Ratsack
06-08-2006, 08:25 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von_Rat:
... fws been porked longer, and is just as bad as tempest.

[QUOTE]

I agree with you that the Fw forward view is bad. I'll add that it's the plane I fly the most, particularly on line.

But I completely disagree with your appraisal that it's as bad as the Tempest. The head rest of the Tempest covers more than half of the monitor when you look to the rear. You guys need to get some perspective when you mention the FW and the 109 canopies in the same context as the Tempest. They are not even close.

cheers,
Ratsack

Von_Rat
06-09-2006, 01:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von_Rat:
... fws been porked longer, and is just as bad as tempest.

[QUOTE]

I agree with you that the Fw forward view is bad. I'll add that it's the plane I fly the most, particularly on line.

But I completely disagree with your appraisal that it's as bad as the Tempest. The head rest of the Tempest covers more than half of the monitor when you look to the rear. You guys need to get some perspective when you mention the FW and the 109 canopies in the same context as the Tempest. They are not even close.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


tempest is wrong i agree, but some fighter planes have alot worse rear view than tempest, mainly because thats the way those planes were designed.

no fighter plane has a worse forward view than fw, no matter what the design.

Ratsack
06-09-2006, 01:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von_Rat:
... fws been porked longer, and is just as bad as tempest.

[QUOTE]

I agree with you that the Fw forward view is bad. I'll add that it's the plane I fly the most, particularly on line.

But I completely disagree with your appraisal that it's as bad as the Tempest. The head rest of the Tempest covers more than half of the monitor when you look to the rear. You guys need to get some perspective when you mention the FW and the 109 canopies in the same context as the Tempest. They are not even close.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


tempest is wrong i agree, but some fighter planes have alot worse rear view than tempest, because thats the way those planes were designed.

no fighter plane has a worse forward view than fw, no matter what the design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Razorback P-47s. They're atrocious.

cheers,
Ratsack

Von_Rat
06-09-2006, 01:28 AM
let me get this straight, a p47 razorback forward view is worse than a fw??

i amend my earlier post, i should of said no mono plane fighter has worse forward view. some of the bi planes are worse.

Kurfurst__
06-09-2006, 02:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Kurfie's contribution is to simply to say, 'Oh, but the 109 is porked, too!' Well, bollocks to that, because the (very minor) problem with the 109 is nothing to do with the PoV issue that is at the heart of the Tempest problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Listen sunshine, I merely noted what are the chances of fixing the Tempest rear view.

The late 109s are wrong for half a decade and weren't fixed.
The 190 front is wrong for half a decade and weren't fixed.
In both cases there were dozens of complains about it.

We know Oleg, he won't change the actual dimensions of the headrest (which are correct, just too close), nor reprogram the whole stuff to allow to lean left/right if he had not done it so far.

Briefly, you're wasting your time, sooner or later you will find out that.

Ratsack
06-09-2006, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
let me get this straight, a p47 razorback forward view is worse than a fw??
. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try it, it's true. More of the bottom of the gunsight is obscured by the cockpit combing than on the FW190.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
06-09-2006, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Kurfie's contribution is to simply to say, 'Oh, but the 109 is porked, too!' Well, bollocks to that, because the (very minor) problem with the 109 is nothing to do with the PoV issue that is at the heart of the Tempest problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Listen sunshine, I merely noted what are the chances of fixing the Tempest rear view.

The late 109s are wrong for half a decade and weren't fixed.
The 190 front is wrong for half a decade and weren't fixed.
In both cases there were dozens of complains about it.

We know Oleg, he won't change the actual dimensions of the headrest (which are correct, just too close), nor reprogram the whole stuff to allow to lean left/right if he had not done it so far.

Briefly, you're wasting your time, sooner or later you will find out that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Listen, china, I just pointed out that you're adding nothing of value to the discussion by raising the piddling problems with the 109 canopy in this thread, and you've just confirmed it for us. Cheers, mate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ratsack

Kocur_
06-09-2006, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
let me get this straight, a p47 razorback forward view is worse than a fw??
. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try it, it's true. More of the bottom of the gunsight is obscured by the cockpit combing than on the FW190.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Luckily" no primary school level optical phenomenons are involved - its just cocpit modelling SCREWED UP - gunsight is just "modelled" way too low - in RL it was mounted at the same hight as in bubble top P-47s. Or lets just belive Oleg, that those tens P-47s used by Brazillian AF and VVS were pulled from assembly line, waited until designing and producing totally different gun sight mountings was done, and only then were sent away. B(e)S(ure)!

Buzzsaw-
06-09-2006, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
no fighter plane has a worse forward view than fw, no matter what the design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong Von Rat

Take a look at the view of the P-47D-10 and D-22.

Both of those have much worse views than the 190's, and they are inaccurate. The gunsight for the Razorback P-47 was mounted high in the center of the forward view, not low as it is shown in the game, as you can see from this photo:

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/78/78th-02.jpg

And the Tempest rear view is much worse than the 190's as well. The 190 rear view is among the best in the game.

OD_79
06-09-2006, 11:01 AM
But we all know the 109 and 190 won the W...hang on a sec!

Basically we have the view point of a garden gnome from the Tempest...I could see as much behind me if I closed my eyes...and the argument about the 190/109 here is irrelevant, we're talking about the Tempest, while the others are annoying they aren't as blatantly bad or damaging to gameplay than the Tempest. Hence no real need to change it (lets make this Kurfurst style dramatic) in the last half decade...(just saying 5 years doesn't sound quite drama queen enough does it).
Forward view in the Tempest is great, the cockpit is fantastic until you get to 90 degrees either side. I said before why not just cut the thing down to size to simulate the real view, leaving the protection in place...just got a sarcastic answer.
To be honest I just refuse to fly the Tempest whileit is like that, yet I love the plane and I like the way it flies...not saying it couldn't do with some work, but that's OT. Until the cockpit issue is resolved I'll be sticking to anything but the Tempest.

OD.

Brain32
06-09-2006, 12:22 PM
Look guys I was whining about Tempest's rear view since the beta(but don't tell anyone http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif) BUT implying that ANY plane in the game has worse foward view than FW190 is simply idiotic, P47's problem is merely esthetical, as in the place of those hidious framing on a real plane you have a nose that covers the same amount of vision that inaccurate framing is now, bottom line is, the P47's razorback foward view is as porked as 109's rear view.
And FW is pretty much in the same position as the Tempest, while you can't see anything looking behind in a Tempest, you also can't see anything in front while in FW. So if you are all going OT then please cut the bulls***. Thank You!
=S=

pourshot
06-09-2006, 02:36 PM
While I agree the 190 forward is not good it is not in the same class of pork that the Tempest rear view is, lets face it you are missing only a few degrees of gun sight angle where as the Tempest rear view can hide a whole formation of 190€s.

Brain32 I respect your opinion but I cant agree with it sorry.

Brain32
06-09-2006, 05:42 PM
Well, yes I actually did not mean that literary and yes it's true that bad shooting never killed anyone, bad rear view did. I just don't like, "my planes cockpit is porked your's is perfect" statements, if it's wrong it's wrong...

Ratsack
06-09-2006, 08:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Look guys I was whining about Tempest's rear view since the beta(but don't tell anyone http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif) BUT implying that ANY plane in the game has worse foward view than FW190 is simply idiotic, P47's problem is merely esthetical, as in the place of those hidious framing on a real plane you have a nose that covers the same amount of vision that inaccurate framing is now, bottom line is, the P47's razorback foward view is as porked as 109's rear view.

=S= </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you actually had a look at the P-47D-10 or 22? The cockpit framing covers as much of the bottom of the gunsight GRATICLE as the notorious bar on the Fw190. This is not an aesthetic issue, it is as bad as the Focke-Wulf. I'd like to see both fixed, but it's highly unlikely either ever will be.

The Tempest rear view, on the other hand, is a new matter that is actually worse than either Fw190 or P-47. There exists a small chance that the PoV for the Tempest might be modified. With that in mind, all the comparisons with 190s and 109s are irrelevant and pernicious. In the case of the 109, they're trivial, too.

cheers,
Ratsack

p1ngu666
06-10-2006, 07:37 AM
p47 razerback IS worse than 190, just not as famous http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

plus u have the rad flaps, and the vertical bar...

109s are imo, one of the lesser hampered by static view, because cockpit is small box in 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

least affected is yaks with the all round canopy. armour glass ftw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Brain32
06-10-2006, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> p47 razerback IS worse than 190, just not as famous </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Complete and utter Bullsh*t, if you want to really mention another plane then mention razorback P51's as they really have slightly impaired functionality, when it comes to razorback P47's the problem is purely esthetical as you can see in this thread: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5351020214
DaimonSyrius pointed that up in that thread in a way even a blind man can see, P47's cockpit is indeed modelled wrong, BUT if it was modelled right you would still have a same amount of foward visibility, only different objects would block it. For a FW190 you know you will have a chance of hitting a target when you completely loose sight of it, and FW190 was known to have had an exceptionally good foward view, that's porking at it's finest, an extreme case of inaccuracy...

EDIT: That's why I compared it with Tempest's rear view, both planes were know to have had an exceptionaly cockpit visibility and both are porked beyond belief, only on different sides...

Kocur_
06-10-2006, 09:02 AM
Brain!
DaimonSyrius is just wrong in his assement. P-47D-10 and D-22 view over cowling should be IDENTICAL to that of P-47D-27 - simply because gunsight was mounted exactly at the same height in both Razorbacks and Bubbletops.

Ratsack
06-10-2006, 10:24 AM
Yeah, I read that thread too, and I don't agree with you that DaimonSyrius demonstrated anything of the sort.

I do, however, agree with you regarding the rear view of the Tempest. It partakes of the highest order of suck.

cheers,
Ratsack

LT.INSTG8R
06-12-2006, 04:27 AM
Tempest has a rear view?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

WOLFMondo
06-12-2006, 06:27 AM
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/material-command-tempest.pdf

An assessment by US pilots in late '43, note the bit about the bubble canopy:

"Vision is good for most conditions except for restrictions over the nose and leading edge of the wings" And
"The bubble canopy on this airplane is the finest one of its type ever seen by these pilots".

jamesdietz
06-12-2006, 10:04 AM
I agree- I can see better out of a 109 than the Tempest...and that jes't ain't right!

BigKahuna_GS
06-15-2006, 08:51 AM
S!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kocur_ Posted Sat June 10 2006 08:02
Brain!DaimonSyrius is just wrong in his assement. P-47D-10 and D-22 view over cowling should be IDENTICAL to that of P-47D-27 - simply because gunsight was mounted exactly at the same height in both Razorbacks and Bubbletops. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree with Kocur.
Daimon did not demonstrate his point. The gunsights are mounted too low in the P47 & P51 RB models.

Brain32
06-15-2006, 10:06 AM
Look guys you understanded me wrong, I know that gunsight is mounted too low only a blind man could say it's not so, BUT also according to that B/W picture, even if cockpit is modelled correctly you wouldn't get more visibility as other objects would block it, now the situation with the P51 razorback IS different and we would indeed get greater view with gunsight mounted correctly. Now don't start the witch hunt, because that B/W picture is the only cockpit shot from P47 razorback I ever saw and it really does not show greater visibility, only the fact that our interiour is modelled wrong and gunsight mounted lower than it should be, now higher mounted gunsight and seeing more of your nose could be benefitial to orientation and thus improve shooting so in a way you can say that functionality is indeed impaired.

HellToupee
06-16-2006, 07:17 AM
just like on the 190 if they moved the view all u would see is the engine aye brain?

Brain32
06-16-2006, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> just like on the 190 if they moved the view all u would see is the engine aye brain? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where is teh engine, where is teh bar?
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/8944/a45bc.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

HellToupee
06-16-2006, 07:56 AM
and where is the view, shot looks like and upwards angle, any decent view over the nose u see the nose.

WOLFMondo
06-16-2006, 08:19 AM
How about, go start another thread about the P47 and Fw190 and leave this thread about the Tempest?

HellToupee
06-17-2006, 04:05 AM
because they all have one thing in common, they wont be fixed

Ratsack
06-17-2006, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Look guys you understanded me wrong, I know that gunsight is mounted too low only a blind man could say it's not so, BUT also according to that B/W picture, even if cockpit is modelled correctly you wouldn't get more visibility as other objects would block it, now the situation with the P51 razorback IS different and we would indeed get greater view with gunsight mounted correctly. Now don't start the witch hunt, because that B/W picture is the only cockpit shot from P47 razorback I ever saw and it really does not show greater visibility, only the fact that our interiour is modelled wrong and gunsight mounted lower than it should be, now higher mounted gunsight and seeing more of your nose could be benefitial to orientation and thus improve shooting so in a way you can say that functionality is indeed impaired. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110...331096454#7331096454 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=7331096454&r=7331096454#7331096454)