• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

What can you really see?

B

Bone

Charter Member
Well, a lot more than what you've been led to believe. Here's what you can see from the cockpit of the F-105. I put the camera right where my head was, and rotated it like it was my head. There it is. Although the canopy is open, the metal frame of the canopy isn't very wide, and only a small portion of the intake that's visible here would be obstructed from view with the canopy down. As you can see from the next photo, the rear part of the canopy frame is pretty far aft of the seat when in the down position. It really is a small cockpit, for a huge fighter....and it is huge. When I sat in it, the sides of the cockpit were about 3 inches away from me. That's not much.










 
Sundog said:
Oh sure, you get to sit in a F-105. Your point was certainly well illustrated. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not showing you the really good stuff. Actually, I wished I'd had these pictures about a two years ago when a well know Dev was insisting that you can't see ANY of the wings, ect, on the F-105. I've been in an F-105 a number of times, back when the 301st TFW had them, so I knew you could. I don't blame him for not knowing, but his "expert" never sat in the plane, I can tell you that. Sorry for being the squeaky wheel on this subject, but there are other models floating about in which the dev said you can't see the wings, but you really can.
 
Bone said:
I'm not showing you the really good stuff. Actually, I wished I'd had these pictures about a two years ago when a well know Dev was insisting that you can't see ANY of the wings, ect, on the F-105. I've been in an F-105 a number of times, back when the 301st TFW had them, so I knew you could. I don't blame him for not knowing, but his "expert" never sat in the plane, I can tell you that. Sorry for being the squeaky wheel on this subject, but there are other models floating about in which the dev said you can't see the wings, but you really can.
Click to expand...

Well thank goodness we've finally resolved this - what's it been, two years, since we've all been losing sleep over the single most important issue in the flight sim business. Second perhaps, to the weathering issue - hard to tell. Indeed, what's most revealing is that it's now official: Cliff Presley, F-105 pilot never sat in the F-105.

Forget his military service, forget his significant contributions to both the SectionF8 Sabre and the AS F-105, back in the day when those were the two leading Sabre and Thud models of in our hobby. Instead, let it be remembered that not only was he wrong on this point, but enough so, that we can indeed call into question all the history he has with the aircraft. I can only imagine how much sleep he's losing over this ....


DL
 
delta_lima said:
Well thank goodness we've finally resolved this - what's it been, two years, since we've all been losing sleep over the single most important issue in the flight sim business. Second perhaps, to the weathering issue - hard to tell. Indeed, what's most revealing is that it's now official: Cliff Presley, F-105 pilot never sat in the F-105.

Forget his military service, forget his significant contributions to both the SectionF8 Sabre and the AS F-105, back in the day when those were the two leading Sabre and Thud models of in our hobby. Instead, let it be remembered that not only was he wrong on this point, but enough so, that we can indeed call into question all the history he has with the aircraft. I can only imagine how much sleep he's losing over this ....


DL
Click to expand...

First of all, I'm not talking about the Alphasim Thud, or Cliff Presley. It's another dev entirely, who has since said they're not doing the Thud. You just chewed me out over something you don't know anything about. I've already recieved a few PM's from people criticising your tone. I have the Alphasim Thud, got it when it first came out, was a member of the Alphasim forums during the time the model was being built, and I know something of Cliff Presley. Again, I'm not refering to Aphasim OR Cliff Presley.


Second of all, there are many devs who don't include exterior parts in the VC model. This isn't just a two year old issue, it's an issue still curent. Take the F-111 offereings seen in the last few months from 3 devs. Two of them published without exterior portions visable to the VC. My dad flew the FB-111, and I've sat in it, as well as an A model, and you can see the wings. I even offered pics showiing the wings, still, the official response was you can't see the wings. GKS did put out a patch for the special gold model, but it came with the caveat of "we're doing this because some of our customers want it, not because you can really see the wings in real life." That's ridiculous.

*Ding* Hey, there goes another Facebook notification telling me I have a PM from someone. It's most likey another simmer who's on Facebook.
 
Sigh. Wish I could sit in the 'pit of any of the aircraft I'd like to finish building... :kilroy:
 
From a developer's standpoint, TrackIR is the best tool for deciding what can be seen and can not. I jump into the cockpit of the model I'm working on and turn my head in all directions to the limits of TrackIR. Anything I can't see is eliminated from the VC model. This argument between what can be seen or not is just silly. What you can see in the real world environment as compared to the limitations of a 2d world in FS is like comparing apples to oranges. On closing, if you don't like what a developer did then build your own aircraft and stuff a sock in it. Sorry I just had to say that.

Paul

PS, Great pictures.
 
Paul Domingue said:
TrackIR is the best tool for deciding what can be seen and can not. I jump into the cockpit of the model I'm working on and turn my head in all directions to the limits of TrackIR. Anything I can't see is eliminated from the VC model.
Click to expand...

I use TrackIR, and you're spot on. Really, this is where I'm coming from, and you validated everything I've ever said about the subject.

Paul Domingue said:
On closing, if you don't like what a developer did then build your own aircraft and stuff a sock in it. Sorry I just had to say that.
Click to expand...

Lol. OK, apology accepted, sans the sock. You know, I still knowingly buy models that don't have exterior structures in the VC, but they're missing a huge chunk of 'realism'. Never-the-less, I still pay money for these models, so it's not like I'm guilty of being a hypocrite, or someone who does drive by shootings for fun.

Paul Domingue said:
Great pictures.
Click to expand...

Well, thanks. ;) That first pic says it all, for something that is totally unviewable from the cockpit, don't you think?
 
OK - mea culpa on the assumption it was the AS model - since I recall how the same conversation went around that model, notwithstanding Cliff's assertions, that's the one I recall. That this relates to the other dev's model - apparently now not even being finished - ironically, actually reinforces the point I'm trying to make. Chiefly, "How many times are we going to have to listen to this same hobby horse? - where there's not even a live project to which this issue even applies?"

I personally don't care one way or the other on this - but the constant grinding on any given dev who fails to deliver on pet issue XYZ is tiring. That's my point. If, in the making of said point, there's (apparently!) a whole room full of people I've offended - then to those I apologise - as that's by no means what I'm about.

My advice would be to take issues like this in a constructive way to the dev of the project in question. If, as appears to be the case, where there is no project, or if the dev chooses not to listen - than perhaps there are nobler and more fruitful endeavours to take on.

On a more constructive note, those are indeed great photos. I had a chance to sit in a Thud cockpit at the Warner Robins AFB museum, but it was nowhere in as good a shape as the one in your photo. I'm also, disappointed (if I understood your comment correctly) that there appears to now no longer an active F-105 FSX project. Pictures such as these would, I expect, be helpful to them.

DL
 
Ok Delta-Lima, no problem. I know it may seem like a dead horse that keeps getting flogged, but even after all these years of talking about it, there are still devs leaving it out of the model, because they insist you can't see it. Yes, you can see this stuff.
 
Bone said:
Ok Delta-Lima, no problem. I know it may seem like a dead horse that keeps getting flogged, but even after all these years of talking about it, there are still devs leaving it out of the model, because they insist you can't see it. Yes, you can see this stuff.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking of a famous quote I saw somewhere once..."let being helpful be more important than being right" er some such..

Here I thought Bone WAS being helpful AND he was right, as supported by the photos...(very nice photos BtW - thank you for sharing)

I think he was speaking to developers of future projects by referencing a particular (sort of) past project - keeping within the regulations of not bashing a specific developer or model and was using personal experience AND valid reference material to support his observation.

Maybe some developers / modelers feel that in normal flight conditions, the virtual pilot is unlikely to crane his head around to make sure he still has wings attached - maybe its a bit of a shortcut there - leaving them out.

I have never undertaken to build a 3d model for a flight simulator so I don't know what all is involved - but - thanks to this board, and the revelations of all of the various modelers who describe the process for us here...it seems to me that walking across the ocean on ones knuckles and butt cheeks is much easier and far less tedious - So I cut 'em some slack if I catch a minor detail here or there....now its just a matter of whether having wings to look at from the inside of an aeroplane is a minor detail - or not
 
Thanks for the pics Bone. Takes me back more than a few years. I think, whether accurate or not, it is very much more satisfying to see wings from the VC. I would like to see bombs fall away and the flexing of the wing in reaction to it as well. You have certainly proved it is possible. Congrats. :applause:
 
Bone: Have you any shots looking "view forward"? I'm always interested in what a pilot should see in these planes. For example, the default DC3 has a view that is not accurate, according to those who would know.

Thanks.
 
It would seem to me that if you are strapped in and have a bulky helmet (limiting lateral head movement) you can see a lot less than when you’re sitting in the cockpit in your T-shirt. And in real life it probably would be so uncomfortable to turn to see the wings that you wouldn’t do it anyway. But if developers can give us wings; why not, although I would not consider this point for a second when deciding whether nor not to buy a plane. As for real-life, I’m sure Cliff is right. He should know.
 
Bone said:
Click to expand...

One argument against making the wings visible, and this really only applies to military subjects, is that you can also see what is hanging down from the wings. As illustrated in the image above, you can see the pylons. If there were wings tanks, bomb racks, rocket pods, etc., you would expect to see them as well.

Here is the problem, the outside view in FSX is part of the interior model, not the exterior model where those parts actually are. So now you have this single interior model that should be acceptable for all models of the same version in the package but when you look out you probably don't see the fuel tanks and MERs and whatever that you see when you look in spot view. So is it acceptable to look out and see only a generic clean wing (which may not even be one of the possible external configurations anyway) or see nothing at all?

In FS, as opposed to real flying, when I look out and back I'm not looking for other aircraft in the air (don't have good enough hardware anymore for multi-player). I'm looking at an airport on the ground or a carrier out there and frankly that wing is in the way at that point.

Oh, also, the canopy of the Thud had a lot of framing. For that image above to be of any value in an argument for or against the need to see a wing it should be closed or a piece of cardboard held in place for the photo so you could see what the pilot truly saw, which isn't what you see in that view.
:ernae:
 
Here is the problem, the outside view in FSX is part of the interior model, not the exterior model where those parts actually are.
Click to expand...

It's not a problem if you use the same visibility code for the stores in both models.

I'm looking at an airport on the ground or a carrier out there and frankly that wing is in the way at that point.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, it's not a very good simulation if you don't have the same visibility problems as in the real aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top