All-Aircraft-Simulations
FW190 Gunsight - Printable Version

+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: IL2 MODS Download & Discussion (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=267)
+--- Forum: IL-2 4.09m (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=348)
+---- Forum: IL2 MODS Discussion Section 4.09m (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=292)
+---- Thread: FW190 Gunsight (/showthread.php?tid=50986)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

- Klemm - 03.11.2007

Quote:I think you missed a couple hundred threads at the UBI Zoo in which it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the view is incorrect and the bar wasn't visible.

Any more complaining?
No, I didn't mean it this way. I completely agree that the visibility is incorrectly modelled, while the cockpit (the purely physical aspects of it) is correctly modelled..
IRL, the bar would be very much smaller but a bit of it visible nonetheless, because through refraction not the whole of it disappears, but the most.
And I meant that in the dive the angle of deflection is so great that the target would disappear under your nose, not only under the "bar".
On the contrary, in a climb the angle of deflection is very small and you've got your target in view all the time, so it would be easier to hit the target. But I'm sure you already know this, not trying to mock you here.
So the real view would give a better view through the gunsight and on the target, it helps a little, but not that much, really.

But I've always wondered why MG would think that the bottom of the gunsight would be obstructed, that would be a major engineering mistake by the germans, and I don't think that they were that stupid, especially FW.

Raising the gunsight in the model would be the real solution IMHO. The bar would be still there, but the visibility would (nearly) be like in real life.
So if someone could raise it, most problems would be cured. Thats my take on it, anyway. 8)

- Aymar_Mauri - 03.11.2007

Klemm Wrote:
Quote:I think you missed a couple hundred threads at the UBI Zoo in which it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the view is incorrect and the bar wasn't visible.

Any more complaining?
No, I didn't mean it this way. I completely agree that the visibility is incorrectly modelled, while the cockpit (the purely physical aspects of it) is correctly modelled..
IRL, the bar would be very much smaller but a bit of it visible nonetheless, because through refraction not the whole of it disappears, but the most.
And I meant that in the dive the angle of deflection is so great that the target would disappear under your nose, not only under the "bar".
On the contrary, in a climb the angle of deflection is very small and you've got your target in view all the time, so it would be easier to hit the target. But I'm sure you already know this, not trying to mock you here.
So the real view would give a better view through the gunsight and on the target, it helps a little, but not that much, really.
Then we agree on most of it.

For actual low deflection shots the view would be much better.

Klemm Wrote:But I've always wondered why MG would think that the bottom of the gunsight would be obstructed, that would be a major engineering mistake by the germans, and I don't think that they were that stupid, especially FW.
Because Rusky know it all and never make mistakes, be sure...

Klemm Wrote:Raising the gunsight in the model would be the real solution IMHO. The bar would be still there, but the visibility would (nearly) be like in real life.
So if someone could raise it, most problems would be cured. Thats my take on it, anyway. 8)
Sorry, but I don't agree. The bar should be thinned/lowered and the MG hood retouched. Also the revis are incorrectly placed on Ta-152s and plain wrong on A4/A5/A6.

- Fisneaky - 03.11.2007

Klemm Wrote:But I've always wondered why MG would think that the bottom of the gunsight would be obstructed, that would be a major engineering mistake by the germans, and I don't think that they were that stupid, especially FW.

Reichmarshall Goering Wrote:There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war's over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked."

Bah Luftwhiners :lol:

- Aymar_Mauri - 03.11.2007

Fisneaky Wrote:
Klemm Wrote:But I've always wondered why MG would think that the bottom of the gunsight would be obstructed, that would be a major engineering mistake by the germans, and I don't think that they were that stupid, especially FW.

Reichmarshall Goering Wrote:There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war's over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked."

Bah Luftwhiners :lol:
That is why the best cars today are what? British? :roll:

BTW, G

- Fisneaky - 03.11.2007

Aymar_Mauri Wrote:That is why the best cars today are what? British? :roll:

.

Fair enough - Rolls Royce by BMW :wink:

- Klemm - 03.11.2007

Aymar_Mauri Wrote:Sorry, but I don't agree. The bar should be thinned/lowered and the MG hood retouched. Also the revis are incorrectly placed on Ta-152s and plain wrong on A4/A5/A6.
If thinning the bar is possible, that would be of course the real and best solution. I just want something so I can see something out front! The main problem I think would be the see-through engine cover, cause it is not completely modelled. So either somebody would have to model it/ place some textures or raise the gunsight, which would be the easier solution.

- Aymar_Mauri - 03.11.2007

Klemm Wrote:
Aymar_Mauri Wrote:Sorry, but I don't agree. The bar should be thinned/lowered and the MG hood retouched. Also the revis are incorrectly placed on Ta-152s and plain wrong on A4/A5/A6.
If thinning the bar is possible, that would be of course the real and best solution. I just want something so I can see something out front! The main problem I think would be the see-through engine cover, cause it is not completely modelled. So either somebody would have to model it/ place some textures or raise the gunsight, which would be the easier solution.
Remodeling the bar or the engine cover amounts to the same type of work. If one can be made so can the other. Same difficulty.

- Klemm - 04.11.2007

Ok, I see. So now somebody go and make it! :o
(I can't, since I have no clue about modelling.)

- Aymar_Mauri - 04.11.2007

Klemm Wrote:Ok, I see. So now somebody go and make it! :o
(I can't, since I have no clue about modelling.)
Well, first I'll need someone to make an import/export script for MAX or something similar for me to be able to work with it in MAX. Until then my hands are tied.

- Klemm - 04.11.2007

Bump

Teh bar's gotta be fixed!

- Guest - 04.11.2007

Big Grin

- Aymar_Mauri - 05.11.2007

MrJolly Wrote:Big Grin
???

- Daiichidoku - 05.11.2007

Aymar_Mauri Wrote:
MrJolly Wrote:Big Grin
???

jolly's just being...well, jolly

- ballenato - 05.11.2007

Quote:Well, first I'll need someone to make an import/export script for MAX or something similar for me to be able to work with it in MAX. Until then my hands are tied.

Did anyone try Orbiter tools Mesh Maker? At least .msh is a native Orbiter 3D. On the other hand there is a script for 3DMax that convert .3ds to .msh .
Check Orbiter wiki.
Dont use 3Dmax, im a "Blendenita", but not able to open it Sad

Greetings

- Aymar_Mauri - 05.11.2007

ballenato Wrote:
Quote:Well, first I'll need someone to make an import/export script for MAX or something similar for me to be able to work with it in MAX. Until then my hands are tied.

Did anyone try Orbiter tools Mesh Maker? At least .msh is a native Orbiter 3D. On the other hand there is a script for 3DMax that convert .3ds to .msh .
Check Orbiter wiki.
Dont use 3Dmax, im a "Blendenita", but not able to open it Sad

Greetings
Great. Thanks for the info. Smile