What can you really see?

[Bone]

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]

Oh sure, you get to sit in a F-105. Your point was certainly well illustrated.

[Bone]

Oh sure, you get to sit in a F-105. Your point was certainly well illustrated.

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.

[delta_lima]

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.

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

[Bone]

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

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.

[hairyspin]

Sigh. Wish I could sit in the 'pit of any of the aircraft I'd like to finish building...

[Daveroo]

great pictures bone..thanks for posting....

[Paul Domingue]

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.

[Bone]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Great pictures.

Well, thanks. That first pic says it all, for something that is totally unviewable from the cockpit, don't you think?

[delta_lima]

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

[Bone]

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.

[heywooood]

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.

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

[JAllen]

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.

[Flyboy208]

I can see you are wearing a Rolex GMT Master or Submariner ! Mike

[Bone]

I can see you are wearing a Rolex GMT Master or Submariner ! Mike

Submariner. You have a well trained eye, my friend. :salute:

[Flyboy208]

Thought you would like that ... have a good one ! That is what I could really see ... ha ! Mike

[KellyB]

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.

[Stickshaker]

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.

[fsafranek]

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:

[SkippyBing]

Here is the problem, the outside view in FSX is part of the interior model, not the exterior model where those parts actually are.

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.

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.

[Bone]

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.

I didn't take any shots looking forward through the windscreen of the F-105, but you are correct about the view problem with some of the models. As an example, I have a significant amount of time in the CRJ-200/700/900 series...the majority being in the 700/900...and I can tell you for an absolute fact that the view you have looking forward in the default CRJ is totally wrong. The view is just one a many many things wrong with that model, it needs a total rework.

I have almost 13,000 hours in the left seat of the real one, just in case someone thinks I'm wrong about this.

[Bone]

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:

I did mention this in my initial comments, and I looked at the canopy with this in mind. The frame isn't quite as hefty, or as obstructive with the view as you might think. Consider this, with the canopy down, the bottom portion of the frame is a good bit below the pilots eyepoint...ie you are looking out over the top of the lower frame. When you rotate your eye movement downward and look at the frame, it is akin to looking at the top edge of the knife blade, not the flat side of the knife blade.

In case I just confused anyone, try this: While keeping your fingers straight, hold the palm of your hand over your eyes. You can't see anything. Now, rotate your hand to where the top edge is just over your eye. You can see a lot more. People make the mistake of looking at a canopy with wide framing, and thinking that frame blocks a significant amount of the view. Really, you're just looking at the top edge of the frame.

I remember when Phil told everyone on the Alphasim forums that Cliff Presley said you couldn't see any of the wings from the cockpit. At the time there were two ex F-105 pilots living on the same street as my parents in Ft Worth, Texas. They both flew the Thuds on active duty, and also with the 301st TFW (reserve) at Carswell AFB. I asked them both if you could see the wings when flying, and they said you can. I had gotten to sit in the F-105 back in 1982, but not with the canopy down. I honestly don't think Mr Presley said you can't see the wings. I think Phil told us that to get us to shut up about it. I know it's a dead horse, but there are so many people who have grasped onto that little piece of BS information, and they still defend it to this day. It's a total farce, especially for people who demand realism. Really, I'm not trying to be an arse, I just am trying to help with some of the perception you find around here.

[Bone]

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.

When flying, you always have to be looking around. Fighter pilots not only look around constantly, but they're like a Cirque Du Soleil performance when they fly. On Youtube, you can spend hours watching cockpit videos of fighter pilots twisting and turning in all manner of directions while pulling some hefty G-loads. There's even F-15 backseat video showing the pilot in the front seat twisting like a snake around both sides of the seat, almost completely turned around at numerous points of the vids.

I see you're one of the ones that cling to what Cliff supposedly said. I'm betting Cliff never said that.

[Stickshaker]

I hope Cliff or another F-105 pilot reads this thread and clears things up. I cannot be sure what Cliff said, so hopefully he's still around here. Whatever his answer is, it's good enough for me.

[hairyspin]

Whoever the Dev in question is, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if he/she mutters "What I have modeled, I have modeled" and battens down all hatches. There comes a time when a complete rework is a very unattractive option.

Just my tuppence ha'penny.