03.11.2007, 08:04
Klemm Wrote:Then we agree on most of it.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.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..
Any more complaining?
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.
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.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.
So if someone could raise it, most problems would be cured. Thats my take on it, anyway. 8)