Hi mates, can't find this posted here and it's so bloody good I will post it. This German fella (Nemesis) has produced a great video of empirical evidence that the bar shouldn't be there as we have said for a decade
As an engineer working with underwater systems and thick pressure proof windows this is a great educational piece of work. Enjoy and draw your own conclusions.
Wow, that was interesting. I've flown the 190 extensively in IL-2 and never found the bar to be that much of a problem, but deflection shooting would have been much easier if the windshield had been modeled properly.
Intel core I7 4790K @ 4.4 Asus Maximus Hero VII Motherboard 16 gigs DDR3 2133 EVGA GTX980Ti Oculus Rift LG 37" LCD BLack Mamba III Joystick Cougar Throttle/X55 Throttle/Saitek Levers Saitek Pro Rudder pedals Voice Activation Controls
He says the glass plate he's using is about 1.5 times thicker than the actual glass used in the FW190. I wonder how much the refraction effect is increased with the thickness of the glass.
Joined: Jan 2001 Posts: 5,562Airdrop01
Chief Pheasant Controller
Airdrop01
Chief Pheasant Controller
Hotshot
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,562
Kansas, USA
And people wonder why flight sims are such a damned impossible thing to produce, sell and make a profit at the same time.
"For I know the plans that I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11
Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Matthew 5:11
Indeed we call blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of the perseverance of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, because “the Lord is compassionate and merciful. James 5:11
He says the glass plate he's using is about 1.5 times thicker than the actual glass used in the FW190. I wonder how much the refraction effect is increased with the thickness of the glass.
The thickness shouldn't matter, if I recall my physics lessons correctly. The refraction is determined by the number of media changes (ie. number of glass plates, with a tiny amount of air between), and the refraction index of the material, not the thickness of it, as it's a surface phenomenon (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
So I'm thinking he tried to use the correct number of plates, but didn't have them at the correct thickness. Shouldn't matter though. One might argue that armored glass has maybe a different refraction index than the glass he used
Luckily there are people here better qualified than me. I stand corrected
Last edited by Dobby; 08/30/1408:21 PM.
Da lagen wir im grossen Krieg der Räuber, Und drüben lagen die gleichen dreckigen Leiber, Arbeiter wie wir, da haben wir gedacht, Das ist nicht unser Krieg, nicht unsre Schlacht
The thickness of the glass is the only thing that matters (assuming angle is constant 25deg). The light leaves at the same angle it enters, the thicker the glass the greater the displacement before it is bent back to parallel to entry angle again. Effectively it is like a periscope. http://www.gcsescience.com/Light-Refraction-Glass.gif
The thickness matters but since the frame is made to correspond to the thickness of the glass the representation of the effect is correct. The original thickness of the armoured glass were designed to have the same effect as this mock-up. Ergo the experiment is empirically valid.
"Live to fight another day"
MA790FXT-UD5P, Chieftec 850W CFT-850G-DF Super Series AMD Ph II X4 955 BE, 8GB DDR3 1333 (4x2 paired) 2x XFX HD6870 1 GB, RAID0 array 300 GB primary and 500 GB Sata secondary, DVD Burner Sata, SyncMaster P2350