The final refraction video

[HaJa]

1/JG27_Nemesis! made this experiment and video.
Pretty conclusive and prove what we have been saying since Oleg introduced the Bar issue

[xvii-Dietrich]

Wow! Fantastic demonstration. I know all about refraction theoretically, but I would never have thought how dramatic the effect would really be. In any case, you've done a great set-up there. Thanks for taking the time to make the video to share the results with us. Much appreciated.

[HaJa]

Credits to 1/JG27_Nemesis! that made this and posted in BoS forum. Not my work

[ChiefRedCloud]

Fantastic research .... and demonstration ..... thanks

Chief

[Vlerkies]

Bloody well done

[Revvin]

Excellent video

[ATAG_Colander]

Any doubts?

[ATAG_Snapper]

Wow! If a picture is worth a thousand words, then this video is worth a million.

What surprised (and impressed) me was viewing the house across the street through the angled glass vs only air. I expected the house to "jump" up (or down) significantly when panning over to the glass, then "jump back" again when returning to just air once more. However, the house (and other objects) stayed exactly in the same plane. The only difference was the greater lower viewing area when looking though the glass, unobstructed by the lower frame.

Great video!

[DUI]

Wow! If a picture is worth a thousand words, then this video is worth a million. :thumbsup

I totally agree. To me the whole topic was new and I was not really sure if the yes- or nay-sayers were right. But this excellent demonstration answers all questions.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Wow!
This is a great example of empirical evidence.

[AA_Engadin]

BTW, what sort of engineer is Oleg? You know, curiosity killed the cat.

AA_Engadin

[HaJa]

Don't know but in my book he failed physics 1

[LuseKofte]

And here we go, exelent video. But I dont blame nor patronize the 3 D artist or Oleg as easily.
That comment engadin, shows no respect for what work is done and difficultes in 3 D work and simulation.
I hope they fix this, who would have thought of that.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

If Team Fusion creates a FW190A/D, our pilot view will not have any issue with a bar.

P.S. Oleg is a very good engineer, a wonderful Simulation designer, and deserves everyone's utmost respect.

No one is free from error... we are all human.

[HaJa]

Didn't mean any disrespect for Oleg, bad joke on my part. We have Oleg to thank for a decade of
joy in the virtual sky but they were very firm about the "bar"

[LuseKofte]

My reaction is this Haja, not yours.
Something many and indeed BOS forum need to learn is. Constructive critique Are more a sign of respect and devotion, than disrespect.
But in my soon to be 20 years expirience in a lagre number of more and less successful flightsims. None Are made by people who cannot do their job.
Oleg made clod, witch took him 4 years and still just a small number of people had a pc to run it.
It is a tremendious lot of work and cirumstances that need to be adressed.
Simply being a user does not give us any insight to judge anyone being part of the dev team. We simply can adress issues and our subjective opinion.

BTW, what sort of engineer is Oleg? You know, curiosity killed the cat.

AA_Engadin

[SG1_Lud]

My reaction is this Haja, not yours.
Something many and indeed BOS forum need to learn is. Constructive critique Are more a sign of respect and devotion, than disrespect.
But in my soon to be 20 years expirience in a lagre number of more and less successful flightsims. None Are made by people who cannot do their job.
Oleg made clod, witch took him 4 years and still just a small number of people had a pc to run it.
It is a tremendious lot of work and cirumstances that need to be adressed.
Simply being a user does not give us any insight to judge anyone being part of the dev team. We simply can adress issues and our subjective opinion.

Let's wait till Engadin appears, but I can tell you that knowing him and also knowing his mother tongue, I believe he was genuinely interested to know Oleg's speciality, and not to be irrespectful or sarcastic.

~S~

[ATAG_Colander]

I think he's genuinely asking and I can't answer as I don't know what engineer Oleg is either.

[LuseKofte]

Then my deepest apology, I struggle with English writing myself

[ATAG_Colander]

Ok, found this but I'm not sure how correct it is (some people say you can't trust the internet )

"...Graduated from Moscow Aviation Institute. Aviation engineer. Worked as lead engineer for 11 years for some of military design bureaus in Moscow. In additional to the main education in 1991 graduated from Moscow State University, department of Photography."

[SG1_Lud]

Then my deepest apology, I struggle with English writing myself

All fine LuseKofte it happens to all of us foreigners. I am sure he will answer you, he's a good chap.

S!

[SG1_Lud]

Ok, found this but I'm not sure how correct it is (some people say you can't trust the internet )

"...Graduated from Moscow Aviation Institute. Aviation engineer. Worked as lead engineer for 11 years for some of military design bureaus in Moscow. In additional to the main education in 1991 graduated from Moscow State University, department of Photography."

Thanks. YEah that looks pretty accurate. Not sure if I would break any rule posting here more details, so I wont, but he has a profile in Linkedin.
After he moved from Maddox Games in 2010, he is working for Vizerra http://vizerra.com/ in Barcelona, Spain.

And here he is http://vizerra.com/about/team/

[Hood]

A photographer would understand about light and lens refraction.

It is possible that the refraction issue is a computing power problem and let's not forget that the genesis of CloD and indeed the DN engine was a long time ago and computing power has come on leaps and bounds since.

Personally I wouldn't have an issue with the inner dimensions looking right and the external model being correct (if this is possible) or, for laughs, why not have the correct internal viewing dimensions but lock people to it with zoom and wide/90 POV etc being disabled.

Actually I'm more in favour of locking the inside viewing area to the MkI eyeball though you'd need a fix for peripheral vision.

Hood

[ZG15_robtek]

A photographer would understand about light and lens refraction.

It is possible that the refraction issue is a computing power problem and let's not forget that the genesis of CloD and indeed the DN engine was a long time ago and computing power has come on leaps and bounds since.

Personally I wouldn't have an issue with the inner dimensions looking right and the external model being correct (if this is possible) or, for laughs, why not have the correct internal viewing dimensions but lock people to it with zoom and wide/90 POV etc being disabled.

Actually I'm more in favour of locking the inside viewing area to the MkI eyeball though you'd need a fix for peripheral vision.

Hood

Maybe a possible solution would be to have a center view, 20 to 25 cm in diameter depending on the screen size with the mk1 eyeball view and around that a fisheye view which extends to the normal peripheral vision of about 170 degree.
In this distorted part movement should be emphasized as it is in nature.

[Mysticpuma]

JG Nemesis put up a great and informative post showing the issues some Simulations have with the FW-190 cockpit 'Bar' which blocks the view if modelled badly. Very impressive video



http://youtu.be/uCGsyjt5ANU

Cheers, MP

[ATAG_Snapper]

Haja posted this same excellent video down in the BoS section a couple of days ago, but very likely many have not yet seen it. I'd like to leave this thread here for a few days, then perhaps move it down to our DCS section which just released the Dora for reference there.

BTW, thanks to Haja and MP for bringing this video to the ATAG forum. It clearly shows the amazing, yet elegantly simple, solution that refraction plays in negating the thickness of the lower mounting rail/bar from the pilot's field of vision.

Haja's thread: http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.co...ad.php?t=12537

[PanTast]

Very impressive.

With this information kept in mind, the 190 becomes an even more desirable plane

[ATAG_NakedSquirrel]

Maybe a possible solution would be to have a center view, 20 to 25 cm in diameter depending on the screen size with the mk1 eyeball view and around that a fisheye view which extends to the normal peripheral vision of about 170 degree.
In this distorted part movement should be emphasized as it is in nature.

The only way to 'properly' do it would be to have picture-in-picture rendering. Which would be very expensive for a flight sim which renders large game worlds and many game objects. Red Orchestra 2 is a good example with sniper rifles' picture in picture rendering. DCS has picture in picture capability for MFDs and mirrors, but they are lower resolution and lower frame-rates than the rest of the game world (You can adjust these in settings so that it doesn't kill your frame rate. They didn't do the same for the 190 gunsight because it would either look terrible, or waste too much memory/cpu.

The other way to do it would be opacity, having certain parts of the plane viewed through the gun sight translucent. It's not the same as refraction, but it would allow you to build an accurate cockpit, though the gun sight view would be rather short and blocked by the nose of your plane.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

The only way to 'properly' do it would be to have picture-in-picture rendering. Which would be very expensive for a flight sim which renders large game worlds and many game objects. Red Orchestra 2 is a good example with sniper rifles' picture in picture rendering. DCS has picture in picture capability for MFDs and mirrors, but they are lower resolution and lower frame-rates than the rest of the game world (You can adjust these in settings so that it doesn't kill your frame rate. They didn't do the same for the 190 gunsight because it would either look terrible, or waste too much memory/cpu.

The other way to do it would be opacity, having certain parts of the plane viewed through the gun sight translucent. It's not the same as refraction, but it would allow you to build an accurate cockpit, though the gun sight view would be rather short and blocked by the nose of your plane.

Like you said , I wonder if they could adapt the code for rearview mirrors to define an area over the front windscreen that would have an altered viewport to simulate the refracted view? Your point on performance issues is noted, but in mirrors the performance hit comes from having to generate a whole new viewport. With the refracted view the scene is already rendered, I would have thought it would be the case of using some matrix maths to translate a section to the new viewport. That would be less intensive than rendering a whole new view. (It has been a long time since I've played with graphics (and even then I was way over my head) so I'm probably over simplifying it in my head.)

At the moment CoD has major issues with it's Mirror code but Bo$ wasn't too bad from memory.


[EDIT] Oops! Does BoS have mirrors? If so which planes? I might have been confused with DCS but when I went in just then I tried a random selection of planes and none of them had 'em.

Not being a regular 190 Jockey, the modified cockpit looked quite reasonable.

[II/JG77_RC]

WOW ! what a great video. The thick glass actually makes the line of site better than it has ever been modeled in any of the IL2's modded and not.

Very cool stuff. I sure hope we see the day that TF models us a Fw190 I am sure they would get that windscreen correct the first time.