19.05.2009, 21:21
NonWonderDog,
- Excellent, well-researched work!
- I admire your attention to detail.
- You clearly understand the optical principles behind gun sights. (I know, because I fabricate precision optics, and have designed and built telescopes, binoculars AND finders based *exactly* on the principles of gun sights, i.e., employing a target reticle, collimator and flat reflector glass.)
As to the choice between K-14 modes, I like your (more compatible) #1. I.e., [fixed, fixed+gyro, cross+gyro].
I've always been disappointed by IL-2's projection of the reticle beyond the limit imposed by the collimator's apparent angular diameter. But in a number of instances I've never been sure if it was more a case of the lens graphic not being dimensioned properly. At any rate, it's more important to me that the projected reticle be sized at least close to what the pilot would see.
I'm gratified to see that you give due consideration to the fact that the masking-off of the reticle as the viewpoint moves fore-aft can change markedly. Even though I don't (yet) use 6-dof (I get 4-dof from my single-point tracker, by mapping *both* panning and translation to the X and Y axes), I think it's preferable to have the F-4U's sight at least reasonably masked when the viewpoint is moved back and/or well off-axis. Its default representation, whereby it remains fully visible at all times, is too unrealistic. (Or am I confusing this with the Tempest?)
Do keep up the good work. I look forward to your USN treatment!
Glenn
- Excellent, well-researched work!
- I admire your attention to detail.
- You clearly understand the optical principles behind gun sights. (I know, because I fabricate precision optics, and have designed and built telescopes, binoculars AND finders based *exactly* on the principles of gun sights, i.e., employing a target reticle, collimator and flat reflector glass.)
As to the choice between K-14 modes, I like your (more compatible) #1. I.e., [fixed, fixed+gyro, cross+gyro].
I've always been disappointed by IL-2's projection of the reticle beyond the limit imposed by the collimator's apparent angular diameter. But in a number of instances I've never been sure if it was more a case of the lens graphic not being dimensioned properly. At any rate, it's more important to me that the projected reticle be sized at least close to what the pilot would see.
I'm gratified to see that you give due consideration to the fact that the masking-off of the reticle as the viewpoint moves fore-aft can change markedly. Even though I don't (yet) use 6-dof (I get 4-dof from my single-point tracker, by mapping *both* panning and translation to the X and Y axes), I think it's preferable to have the F-4U's sight at least reasonably masked when the viewpoint is moved back and/or well off-axis. Its default representation, whereby it remains fully visible at all times, is too unrealistic. (Or am I confusing this with the Tempest?)
Do keep up the good work. I look forward to your USN treatment!
Glenn
Mediocre minds discuss people. Good minds discuss events. Great minds discuss ideas.