RABIZO,
Yes, by changing the second last value fron 0.4 to 0.37 you have moved the viewpoint 3cm farther forward. As my little notation of "L B U" indicates, the "B" means that increasing that second last figure moves the viewpoint Back. Therefore decreasing the value, as you did here, you are moving the viewpoint forward.
At this distance from the sight, 3cm makes for a pretty subtle change.
I imagine that you are forced to use the 'gunsight view' if you desire to see the full field of view through the sight
That's OK, but it looks less natural than leaning in to the sight like the pilot would in reality, having the freedom always to move about so as to peer past the sight's edge, and make other natural movements. The 'gunsight view' is much more constraining in that it keeps your head in one place, although it does afford a limited amount of lateral translation left-right and up-down as you pan your head.
I'm curious to know why you prefer this more rearward point of view. Because I find it puzzling that a head tracker user would impose upon himself a more limited viewing position. If for no other reason that it is often incorrect.
The stock positioning was often motivated by the desire to minimize the visibility of such things as gaps on the cowling (where there was no in-cockpit version of the visible part of the cowling, thus resulting in part of it being not always covered by the external model's skin.) To this end, a point of view that was farther aft, as well as set low down, would be something of a norm. The lower down position also resulted in the not uncommon too-low placement of the gun sight.
Whenever we look at historical photos, we often see the pilot seated in an attitude of more leaning forward than we see him sitting with back straight, let alone reclining like our stock pilot models do, looking for all the world like some dude with his car seat set almost to the sleep position. 😀 indeed, the new 3D pilot models Ranwers is pumping out look so much better in this respect. The parachute is a major contributor to this sitting position and attitude. I suppose that for those pilots who declined a parachute out of adherence to the code of Bushido might be exceptions, but then some other padding might well have been required in order to be sure of reaching the pedals, manipulating controls, and just being able to see outside.
Once I got round to modding cockpits in 2015, I would often lift the sight and the viewpoint to a more correct height, and shift the viewpoint farther forward. Even if this revealed more of the unsightly gaps inside or outside the cockpit, it did not deter me from obtaining a more realistic, more advantageous view. Because situational awareness in combat is all-important. Therefore why settle for an unnecessary, artificial imposition?
It really astonishes me when I watch YT videos where the point of view is egregiously limited. A good example would be those from inside the Tempest (and other planes using this same cockpit.) The stock viewpoint has the pilot's virtual head almost melded partially with that massive armor plate, restricting the view to barely past the 3:00-9:00 line. With a simple adjustment to a more realistic forward position, at a stroke the view aft could extend another 45 degrees. And with the combination of further leaning forward as well as to the side, the view angle would expand farther. How one can be satisfied to remain blind in almost the entirety of the rear hemisphere baffles me.
I'm not trying to beat anyone over the head with my opinions.
I'm just expressing my amazement at what players are willing to accept in regards to unnecessary restriction on the outside view in a compat simulator.
Cheers!
Glenn
Author
Topic: Ki-43-Ia and -Ib new tube sight (Read 2709 times)
