Nipples Aroused
2 Likes
1 Like
Not Ardvark.
2 Likes
His hair is silver white
He has tight clenched up lips
His hands are hard and cold
He’s got Bob DeNiro’s nips
A very good short lecture on flying the AV-8B in GW1. And before you go busting my tiny little gonads on the source YT channel, they have a surprising number of similarly good lectures, one on F-14 development comes to mind.
4 Likes
The only thing that bothers me in RAZBAMs depiction of Harrier (in DCS and previously in FSX) is slightly mismodelled cockpit. The cockpit glare shield seems too wide to me. Just compare these pictures
I think the proportions are better modelled in CAP2
1 Like
Hard to tell, could be the camera FOV couldn’t it?
4 Likes
I would say FOV is definitely a factor. If anything the CAP2 one seems too big; the space between where the hud ends and the curve of the dash begins is much smaller than the others.
2 Likes
It looks like more than a FOV difference. The Razbam panel is almost square shaped.
1 Like
Angle may also play into it. The irl photos are taking from a higher vantage point where you can clearly see the two separate pieces of glass.
Hi Everyone,
Here is a pic directly from max showing the model at orthographic state with no perspective.
As you can see the glare shield is tapered inwards, it’s the FOV playing tricks with the view, you can also notice in the DCS screenshot the MPCDs are wider at the top, which causes the wider look of the panel at the top, making it look more square.
Originally the layout was from technical drawings.
10 Likes
How can FOV alone play tricks as all it does it changes the viewing angle without altering the position of the view point and thus perspective?
For example let’s compare the 1st(DCS) and 2nd(RL) shots in my original post (RAZBAM AV-8B Harrier II - #941 by damson): you can tell that the point of view is closer to the HUD in the first shot despite it apeering to be otherwise. How can you figure that? Knowing that the HUD image is collimated (one of it’s features is that it*s apparent size is always the same) you can actually judge that the FOV in the 2nd shot is narrower than in the 1st shot. Notice that the HUD symbology fits the HUD frame in 1st shot while it doesn’t in the 2nd shot. That implies that the 2nd shot was taken further away from the HUD glass than the 1st shot. So maybe the the cockpit model is correct but untill we can test it ourselves and compare it to RL pictures we wont know for sure.
Just to ilustrate my FOV point here are few shots from CAP2.
First two taken from the same position with different FOV (see over glare shield)
Wide FOV
Narrow FOV
Now with view point closer to the cockpit (see under glare shield)
Wide FOV
Narrow FOV
Between changing FOV you can’t change perspective to see under the glare shield.
I can’t say that the CAP2 cockpit is modelled properly either, you would have to laser scan the thing to be perfectly sure I guess. Even if you had technical drawings you can’t be sure you’ve put all the planes at correct angles in 3d space or was the documentation thorough enough so you may make that claim?
1 Like
With all due respect to CAP2 creators, I come to trust Razbam a tad more when it comes to cockpit modeling.
1 Like
As I said I didn’t wanted to compare the two because the CAP2 pit is not 100% correct either but that glare shield just stood out too much in RAZBAMs depiction compared to real life thing.
I don’t know, you decide …
1 Like
Excellent choice of pictures.
Now look how the panel around the edges you highlighted looks so different.
In the top picture it looks like you’re watching the top-inside of a funnel.
In the bottom it’s the opposite.
The FOV changes everything.
Maybe I can see it that way because I worked with 3D Studio and Blender and it’s blazingly obvious what happens with 3D volumes rendered on 2D surfaces…
EDIT: think about those movies where the camera does that FOV shift as the movie charachter realzies he made a huge mistake or the reality of the situation hits him.
Here, let me show you.
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) - End of the Card Game HD - YouTube
2 Likes
I know what you mean, but the effect is not done by the change of FOV alone - to get it right you have to change the FOV (increase the angle) while MOVING the view point closer to the object so the object size appears constant while the backround “shrinks”. You can easily replicate this effect with your camera.
I’m aware of intricacies of projecting 3d objects on 2d planes myself btw.
My point was to ignore the “depth of the picture” and focus on the shape of the glare shield edge itself (the highlighted part) - in the upper shot you can see that the upper sides of a glare shield continue to run horizontally before they curve downwards while in the lower shot you can clearly see that they curve downwards right away. You can’t deny that.
1 Like
I see damson’s point. That horizontal stretch of green next to the red is apparent in the RAZBAM picture. While the RL picture was taken at a higher POV (see position of collimated HUD symbology), horizontal should still be horizontal even when viewed from above. That is clearly not the case in the RL picture. Are we perhaps looking at version differences between AV-8B N/A and AB-8B+?
That RL picture is very interesting, because with aligning the HUD symbology to 2-3 fixed reference points (see orange below), it should be very easy to exactly replicate the same point of view in game. Then we can easily see if the RAZBAM cockpit matches up.
2 Likes
Yeah I also considered that maybe the difference between the versions but I couldn’t find a RL shot to check that assumption. I guess we will see when the module comes out.
1 Like
Dude…
Whether you believe the me, it’s no issue.
Calling the makers of the module liars it’s your own choice.
For what it matters, all of this bears no significance to me overall.
Peace.
3 Likes
That was uncalled for, nobody called anyone a liar. All I see is a civil technical discussion.
2 Likes