What is best way to contact Oleg and his team ?

[BOBC]

Despite having had threads :-

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=14619

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post3190122

about the fact that Oleg has created a MkII/V hybrid spitfire when it should be a Mk1, I still see in the latest previews this incorrect mark of Spitfire. How can I contact him as its obvious through lack of replies to both this thread and another at SimHQ that he is not visiting the threads and that no one has got this issue over to him. Get the basic aircraft right then concentrate on all the extra goodies. I can tell him all he needs to know if only he would reply to the thread. My concern and disappointment is also shared by others. He is missing fundamental items that the Mk1 had and we are looking at a later Mark Spitfire cockpit. Could someone draw his attention to this problem.

I also see in the Promo video that the Stuka has a yellow fuselage band and wing undersides, it is a well known fact that this is a later war marking and not Battle of Britain. There are ample references on stukas in the Battle so its worrying who is reading what before doing the work.

BOBC

[MadTommy]

Lots of people seem to be disappointed on these forums. Many seem to have their pet issue to pester the developers with.

Its a game that cost £35 for heavens sake, yes we would like it to be a good as it can, but the moaning is ridiculous on these forums.

If you have a concern, make a post and leave it up the the Developers.. don't harass them with whining, demanding a direct line to express your disappointment.

[leggit]

Have you any idea the how much work it takes just to model and texture one plane BOBC???....I'm sure Oleg has seen your posts and your concern has been noted...it is very unlikely this close to release that anything can be done about it now maybe (if your lucky) in the future.

I totally agree with mad tommy here the nit-picking and constant whining about ubi, drm's, box art, the name and wrong spitfire mk's is anal in the extreme....you will never get anything 100% to your liking so stop moaning. look forward to the fact that the game is nearly with us and you can take to the skys in this stunning new game....STOP MOANING!

[Foo'bar]

After all we are about 5 weeks before release. No chance to get even the smallest detail to be changed.

[Sven]

but afterwards it can be done? Moaning is a very easy verb to grab, these issues are very serious, I don't fly allied planes that much but it seems that there's definitely something not right with the current interior of the Spitfire. Some people are really looking forward to refly the BoB, and if the interior is from a later variant of the spitfire people will start to get annoyed, since it's not historical correct.

I hope you get in contact in contact with Oleg BOBC, but who knows? Maybe he already noticed the problem?

[Meusli]

Do we know for definite what version he is supposed to be flying in? Is it possible that he is flying a MK2 spit or are the cockpits completely messed up with different marks in there.

[the Dutchman]

Hardcore fans have the option of buying a Collector's Edition of the game. It will come with the following extras:
A cloth pilot escape map showing The Battle of Britain strategic locations.
A replica of the Pilot's Notes on the Spitfire I Aeroplane, provided to RAF pilots during The Battle of Britain and reprinted from the RAF Museum original document.
An in-depth 150-page ring binder pilot instructions.



If you release this it sure is stupid if you don't get it right,i have to agree with BOBC!

[ATAG_Dutch]

I've been obsessed with all things BoB since I could walk.
The supermarine Spitfire, and particularly the Mk1a, is in my opinion the most beautiful piece of mechanical engineering ever produced by man.
However, I really don't care if a switch is the wrong one, or it shouldn't have hydraulic/pneumatic landing gear, or whatever the op's beef is.
We also meet 'rivet counters' in the modelling fraternity.
They bore me there, too.

[meplay]

as for stuka...make a skin :P

[swiss]

OMG!!!

First no DX11, and now a yellow band on Stuka plus a wrong switch in Spit.
I am sooooo NOT GOING to buy this sim!!!!!!!!!!

I mean, how could anyone enjoy this sim with a flaw in the markings or wrong switch?
Tell me!!!!!



You guys are so ridiculous, really.

[winny]

BOBC, One of the devs will be on here later so I'm sure it'll at least get read.

I'm not trying to catch you out or anything, this is more for my own knowledge..

Surley a May 1940 Spit would have different (even just slightly) cockpit details to a '38 Spit? If this Sim is set in the summer of '40 couldn't it be possible that you start the game with a factory fresh Spitfire?

You obviously know what you're talking about but I'm looking at a photo of the cockpit of K9791 (supposedly) taken in March 40 at Farnborough and it looks like it's got a Mk V style instrument panel. It's also got the Aluminium seat and single tier pedals.

[zauii]

I agree with -> Stop the moaning, constant whining.

[BadgerSmedly]

Lots of people seem to be disappointed on these forums. Many seem to have their pet issue to pester the developers with.

Its a game that cost £35 for heavens sake, yes we would like it to be a good as it can, but the moaning is ridiculous on these forums.

If you have a concern, make a post and leave it up the the Developers.. don't harass them with whining, demanding a direct line to express your disappointment.

Totally agree MT. I'd like to have been a fly on the wall of some of the concept brainstorming sessions. I bet they had to overcome all the 'features' we raise here and more.

But if I don't see any pictures of the Galland cigar ashtray attachment on a 109 soon, then I'm just not going to buy the game!!! :evil:

:grin:

[AWL_Spinner]

To be fair, BOBC's posts are polite and contain plenty of factual reference, I don't really see any need to slate them.

Unlike other nitpicking posts the cockpit of the signature aircraft would be, perhaps, something of interest to the developers.

Whilst it's also true that I wouldn't notice, or be overly concerned, if a dial was in the wrong place, I can see why it would be of interest if several marks of Spitfire are included.

I haven't seen it, but I would expect Oleg's Mk.I to be at least as historically accurate as the new Wings of Power A2A Spitfire (is that correct or not?)

Cheers, Spinner

[leggit]

these issues are very serious,

No they are not...poverty, hunger, war....those are serious issues...the ones raised by the author are anal/petty

[speculum jockey]

Best way to contact the Maddox Development team is . . .

1. Type out a well structured and POLITE email.

2. Print it out.

3. Attach it to a large stone or a brick.

4. And throw it through the window of their new Office.

If you need to contact them during off hours I suggest doing the above but throw it through the windows of one of their cars. Please do not throw it through one of the windows of their homes, that's rude!

[Bowtome]

I personally don't care. But if you are going to do something do it right.

[Sven]

No they are not...poverty, hunger, war....those are serious issues...the ones raised by the author are anal/petty

Oh mr. smarty pants, well that´s the end of CoD then, Oleg should help the poor in this world, what a genius you are!

[BOBC]

AWL Spinner
To be fair, BOBC's posts are polite and contain plenty of factual reference, I don't really see any need to slate them.

Unlike other nitpicking posts the cockpit of the signature aircraft would be, perhaps, something of interest to the developers.

Whilst it's also true that I wouldn't notice, or be overly concerned, if a dial was in the wrong place, I can see why it would be of interest if several marks of Spitfire are included.

Thank you.

As said, what is arguably the singularly most famous part of this sim should represent a Mk1 and not a later Mark inside and outside.
I am simply trying to get across the fact that at the moment we will be staring at a MkV cockpit. I wish to leave it to Oleg to be aware of this and decide if this is how he wants it. I include data in the thread as I have no means of getting it to him. Data and detail much finer than this is flying around their office so as to bring to you the flight sim that you are looking forward to because of the attention to detail, so shooting down detail equal or less to what they have been working to, basic observations in many cases, just doesn’t equate.
Posts such as who cares if a switch is out of place make out that wanting to be in a Mk1 cockpit is nitpicking. On that basis Oleg wishing to add in a train could be seen as nitpicking, people saying why have trains in a BoB sim, no one ever shoots them up. He is dealing with data that would have nitpickers have a fit.
I am not saying a switch is 5mm out of position, my observations make a drastic difference to the look of the cockpit, making it the much different looking Mk1 compared to the MkV, it matters to those that care anyway. That’s a long list of alterations, the fine detail level would be more still but I avoided such.

I haven't seen it, but I would expect Oleg's Mk.I to be at least as historically accurate as the new Wings of Power A2A Spitfire (is that correct or not?)

The cockpit as mentioned by AWL Spinner is seen at :-
http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=23592
Now these guys have either read my list of ingredients and/or studied two good references, the well known pump action u/c picture and the sequence seen on the IWM DVD Spitfire Frontline fighter featuring ample detailed footage of the cockpit. They have the essence of a Mk1 cockpit there. Compare that to the Maddox one. They have just outstaged Oleg in that dept. So that’s BoB Wings of Victory and now Accu-Sim with Mk1 cockpits and Oleg with a MkV.

Bowtome
I personally don't care. But if you are going to do something do it right.
My thoughts exactly, given their aim they claim is accuracy.

As a point of interest I would advise Accu-sim to watch that video and study that photo again and see that they need to do some 18 or so corrections. Their goal is total realism so they should take on board anything that achieves that.

I must say the artwork is stunning, ripple effect and subtle weathering, light on the raised rivets..well done.

Winny..have you a link or book ref to that photo, I shall take a look at what you are looking at. Note that X serialled spits were ordered 9 june 40, see http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/_prodn%20summary.txt others well before that time. The BOB started in July40. X4675 for example first flew on the last day of the Battle 31Oct1940. the K aircraft you mention was a trials aircraft AAEE and the site mentioned above has it as failed to return 17 aug 40.

BOBC

[Peffi]

BOBC; I hope you only read the constructive feedbacks in this thread and ignore the complete idiots. Oleg wants everything to be perfect and you want to help him. What can be more genuine than that?

[swiss]

Any of you read the "future of sims" interview"?

20mm: What do you think today's simulation fans want (besides everything). Is it mostly gameplay, eye-candy, a dynamic campaign, a solid multiplayer, better-and-better AI, or some new element?

Oleg: I would say everything anyway! And when we give more and more, making 3D more and more close to a realistic image they never stop their complaints. Comments like, “This screw is not on the right place or this curl of the cloud doesn’t look good”. At the same time a few users would like too much realistic control of aircraft using all the devices like in real life. These are in minority. So there always should be the right calculated balance between realism and usability for a casual player, or we will be not able to sell the new product well and cover our expenses.

Stop bitching.
There will be crapload of patches over time.

[leggit]

Oh mr. smarty pants, well that´s the end of CoD then, Oleg should help the poor in this world, what a genius you are!

Your upset and a little emotional because of the observation I made regarding your previous statement....hence you've resorted to sarcastic comments and childish exaggerations....that’s human nature we don't like to be made aware of our mistakes; it makes us feel uncomfortable.

however my last post was not made with the aim of making you feel that way...just to make you think....you see I find it rather obscene that you would consider something so trivial so important...you’re a very lucky man (maybe) if you consider the modelling of a computer generated spitfire as a serious issues....it would indicate you've lead a relatively comfortable life so far.

3 billion people on this planet don't have the luxury of pontifcating the finer points of spitfire versions....they're more concerned with the basics like clean water or their next meal....please keep a sense of perspective regarding this game.

Oh one last point... no I’m not a genius, thx for the complement tho :)

edit:@ BOBC having read your last forum post, I see your original comment was meant with the best of intentions rather than a nitpicking episode. I appologise if my response seemed curt or rude....I hope Oleg gets an opportunity to read your post and take on board the points you've made.

[swiss]

[QUOTE=leggit;218261....they're more concerned with the basics like clean water or their next meal...e.[/QUOTE]

Yep - and we won't be able to change this within the 100yrs, no matter what amount of money we send there.
The problem is bit more complex.
In fact I think i have a model to solve the problem - but unfortunately it can't be realized for ethical and political reasons - and therefore I just don't give a crap about it.
Sorry.

[leggit]

Yep - and we won't be able to change this within the 100yrs, no matter what amount of money we send there.
The problem is bit more complex.
In fact I think i have a model to solve the problem - but unfortunately it can't be realized for ethical and political reasons - and therefore I just don't give a crap about it.
Sorry.

well how unlucky for the world then that your wisdom be withheld.....no need to be sorry if you don't give a crap tho...or is there??:(

[winny]

Winny..have you a link or book ref to that photo, I shall take a look at what you are looking at. Note that X serialled spits were ordered 9 june 40, see http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/_prodn%20summary.txt others well before that time. The BOB started in July40. X4675 for example first flew on the last day of the Battle 31Oct1940. the K aircraft you mention was a trials aircraft AAEE and the site mentioned above has it as failed to return 17 aug 40.
BOBC

It's on page 52 of Spitfire The History- Morgan/Shacklady. It's got camera controls in it also. I haven't found a picture of it online anywhere. It's a real mix of bits.

[BOBC]

Winny…thanks…I’ll take a look. Cheers. it was a testbed though.

BOBC

[BOBC]

Peffi
BOBC; I hope you only read the constructive feedbacks in this thread and ignore the complete idiots. Oleg wants everything to be perfect and you want to help him. What can be more genuine than that?

Thanks..I take on board comments from those that appear to have a level head.;)

Some can see this is simple factual info and backed up with a long list in what is a small cockpit space so making a notable change. Others are by the nature of their replies arcaders and not caring so much for Olegs aims, and some have a foot in both camps, thats human nature and all are allowed their take on what they want from it, though for arcaders to see it released to their standard at the expense of others missing out on what they had hoped for is an area of debate no doubt. The arcaders are no doubt frustrated that they havent had a chance to play by now, but for those awaiting what promises to be above that level, an accurate representation of the Battle of Britain, they are prepared to wait for such. To that end I personally would like to see a Mk1 cockpit and from feedback others would also. Oleg must decide though at what point he stops. It would appear he has surpassed the arcader level and is holding out to achieve far higher goals. I would dare to say the degree of accuracy and time spent on a subject should be proportional to the importance and standing of that subject with perhaps a baseline of criteria to ensure all modelled items are to a certain level of accuracy and artmanship. (have I just invented a new word :-) ) so the spitfire would require more attention and need to represent a Mk1.


BOBC

[Sutts]

BOBC,

I'd like to add my support to your argument. Your request is perfectly reasonable given what the sim is trying to achieve. I've spent much time flying later model Spits in IL2 and was looking forward to seeing and feeling the difference of the early marks. A generic Spit cockpit will simply fail to impress many of us, especially since the early manual is included in the collectors edition.

I do have faith that Oleg will deliver at some point though.

[The Kraken]

I too would prefer the historically correct pits, as far as they exist as such. But I don't see how this makes the difference between "arcade" and "realistic". Same for the people who can live with such inaccuracies.

We've had some people pointing out inaccuracies in the past, and many of them have already been fixed. With 2 months before release this one certainly won't though.

[major_setback]

-The best way to contact Oleg is when he is certain to be home...say at 2 o'clock in the morning.
-A personal visit will make a much better impression.
-Make sure you explain very carefully that his Spitfire model is wrong, wrong, wrong, and that you certainly have a great understanding of his misgivings.
:-)

[AWL_Spinner]

The only time anyone official appears to read, or comment on, anything in these forums is if you place a post in the first three pages of a Friday update thread.

If you put something relevant there (hopefully the next update - videos, apparently - will feature a Spit cockpit) you can be pretty sure Ilya or Oleg will read it, even if you don't get any response.

Good luck.

PS. Oleg's inbox appears to be perpetually full but you could try PM'ing Luthier.

[WTE_Galway]

The difference seem substantial. Of course its possible the Spitfire cockpit in the updates is not actually the layout of the Mk I we will see in the final release version.

Do remember many of the posters that "do not care about the cockpit" do not care because they will be flying online in wonder women mode with cockpit off anyway.

[BOBC]

A picture speaks a thousand words. With some posters saying whats all the fuss over one gauge or switch. Here is the cockpit as seen on the Collectors edition site http://shop.ubi.com/store/ubiemea/en_GB/pd/ThemeID.8605700/productID.223684000/IL2-Sturmovik-Cliffs-of-Dover-Collectors-Edition.html , an apparent current image. Now it is said that the sim features a Mk1a, 1b and a ll. If the image is of the 1a or 1b then marked in yellow are the errors. Sometime in the future the team will need to deal with these, they for the moment give us a MkV. If the team has photographed a Mk1 surviving nowadays then these represent the modifications carried out since the Battle of Britain, but I would hope they have not fallen into the trap of thinking what they see now has not changed since 1940. We have no readout for the 48 gal tank, no landing lamp control, no time of trip clock as per 1940, no amps gauge, no dual fuel cock, things that are part of the actual control of the aircraft. If that is , the image is supposed to be a Mk1.
http://www.aerographics.demon.co.uk/SpitfireCoD_errors_ifMk1.jpg
I hope the image allows better understanding of my hopes for a Mk1, and of those others who have expressed a wish to get it right. I realise there are those who dont care what it looks like, quite happy to have grey/green spits attacking 109F's, loving the beautiful artwork, but there are those who want 1940 and the basic stuff accurate. I see the Battle of Britain Cliffs of Dover Collectors box on that site has a non Battle of Britain later war camo and roundels artwork cover by the way, is not the cover of such an item important to get right, perhaps not.

BOBC

[TheGrunch]

I see the Battle of Britain Cliffs of Dover Collectors box on that site has a non Battle of Britain later war camo and roundels artwork cover by the way, is not the cover of such an item important to get right, perhaps not.
I totally agree with the rest of your post, BOBC. I'm glad there are people like you and Rodolphe pointing out these small issues (or in the case of the Spit cockpit, rather a large one when they're all put together), even if you do get a lot of flak for doing so. I don't understand that, after all, it's the most constructive kind of criticism that the game will get. Perhaps you should try directly messaging Oleg or luthier?
However, I suspect the cover art is the responsibility of the publisher.

[gonk]

Thanks for the Info BOBC.
Lets hope it is tweaked with later patches... In the past the IL2 series have had a good history of providing patches.... not just releasing a game and running. One good thing will come of this...is that the Spit V is already half modeled..:grin:

[Kikuchiyo]

I personally see your concerns, and it looks like it would in fact be a fairly glaring issue for a true fan of the Spitfire (as you must be), but at the same time the majority of users will never realize this. It is nice to see someone point these things out in a courteous and respectful manner, and your knowledge on the subject is astounding. I have to say though with the time and money involved in creating these cockpits I would honestly rather see them make cockpits for other aircraft than do such a major overhaul of what is for all intents and purposes close enough for most users.

I love old warbirds, a huge fan of many of the WW2 birds in particular, but I couldn't honestly tell you the difference between a Spitfire MK1/MK2 much less many of the minutiae differences between the a's and b's subvariants. I think many of us (those that initially accused you of whining and moaning) have just gotten so used to people being rude and over the top with the pointing out of small details that we've become callous towards people that bring up such issues over the last few months.

I am more interested in the flight and damage models personally, but incorrect gauges from one variant to the other really aren't going to ruin my fun or my immersion. I hope you do get some kind of response BOBC, and it would be neat if these issues get fixed, but don't get your hopes up and don't let that spoil it for you.

Thank you for the information and your politeness.

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

i was cutting a customers hair the other day and he was a retired RAF engineer,he didnt join until 1949 so missed the war work but his knowledge of Spitfires and other planes was impressive to me and some of the polish ww2 pilots hed known and discussed stuff with and he was tellinng me some Spitfire version built particularly for a type of mission only 2 were made etc,i got his email address if i want to ask him anything.wish i was more knowledgable so i could ask him more.

[Skoshi Tiger]

So if it's a MkII what is wrong with the layout?

Cheers!

[Baron]

A picture speaks a thousand words. With some posters saying whats all the fuss over one gauge or switch. Here is the cockpit as seen on the Collectors edition site http://shop.ubi.com/store/ubiemea/en_GB/pd/ThemeID.8605700/productID.223684000/IL2-Sturmovik-Cliffs-of-Dover-Collectors-Edition.html , an apparent current image. Now it is said that the sim features a Mk1a, 1b and a ll. If the image is of the 1a or 1b then marked in yellow are the errors. Sometime in the future the team will need to deal with these, they for the moment give us a MkV. If the team has photographed a Mk1 surviving nowadays then these represent the modifications carried out since the Battle of Britain, but I would hope they have not fallen into the trap of thinking what they see now has not changed since 1940. We have no readout for the 48 gal tank, no landing lamp control, no time of trip clock as per 1940, no amps gauge, no dual fuel cock, things that are part of the actual control of the aircraft. If that is , the image is supposed to be a Mk1.
http://www.aerographics.demon.co.uk/SpitfireCoD_errors_ifMk1.jpg
I hope the image allows better understanding of my hopes for a Mk1, and of those others who have expressed a wish to get it right. I realise there are those who dont care what it looks like, quite happy to have grey/green spits attacking 109F's, loving the beautiful artwork, but there are those who want 1940 and the basic stuff accurate. I see the Battle of Britain Cliffs of Dover Collectors box on that site has a non Battle of Britain later war camo and roundels artwork cover by the way, is not the cover of such an item important to get right, perhaps not.

BOBC



Considering the lengthy threads crated by u i assume u are 100% sure its infact a Mk1 cockpit we are looking at and not a MkII...right?


Thats kind of the first things that needs to be established, dont u think? If for no other reason than to save u a hell of alot of work.


BTW, to highlight the electrical cord from the gunsight just to have more yellow=misstake, is a bit.....anal if u ask me. Assuming that all the cords where the exact same length and made the exact same loop on all the spits produced is putting way to much trust on the production line imo (especially after X amount of field repairs etc.Im referring to how the referance pics used to create the 3D model looked)

[Bowtome]

I am lucky, I never look at the cockpits, too busy shooting things.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Personally I can see Oleg and Co having an issue using another sim as 'reference' model. (Though the screen shots are a lot clearer than a scannned 70 yr old photo)

Bobc, In other threads you've stated that you've done primary archaeological research on BoB crash sites. Any chance of any links to photo's that highlight the differences?

One of ther things that gets me is that 70yrs ago they were more interested in a dramatic photo of the pilots and outside of the plane, but something like an instrument pannel was so so common place nobody would waste film on!


Cheers!

[winny]

@BOBC

Isn't that pic just a MkII? If it's so wrong as a MKI what feature makes you think it's a MKI?

[GnigruH]

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/8411/jujuh.jpg (http://img46.imageshack.us/i/jujuh.jpg/)

Sorry, couldn't resist ;).

Seriously though, I think I support your crusade.

[swiss]

Lol!

[Strike]

ROFL, good post :)

I think people should relax, and remember that, if you are on a budget, and you have to choose to release the game with a faulty (minorly, to a non-historican) spitfire, or fix it, and perhaps leave something else unfinished, you are indeed wasting time even thinking about that decision. And time, my friends, is money!

Give the guys a break, maybe he will re-do the cockpit for a spit. I and use the existing one for the correct model! And hey! we have more spitfires!!

MOAR SPITFIARS!

[Sternjaeger]

..it's interesting how these rivet counting nazis always come out at the last stage of development.. it must be Murphy's Law applied to simulators..

OBCD (is it like OCD? ;) ), this might come as a shock to you, but the overall purpose of a sim is to simulate the whole action of a flight battle, not to be a reference bible.. the developers worked to the best of their capabilities, and I'm sure that if they reckon your flaws are worth their time, they'll do something about it, otherwise it will end up in the "FW190 bar" filing cabinet (the vets here know what I'm talking about..).

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that what you're saying is incorrect, but the "life or death" way you're presenting it is quite comical.. as someone else more kindly suggested before, go get a life, but with a smile ;)

[Flying Pencil]

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/8411/jujuh.jpg (http://img46.imageshack.us/i/jujuh.jpg/)

Sorry, couldn't resist ;).

Seriously though, I think I support your crusade.

You missed the gauge with the wrong Font, should have been RAF Sans, and not DH Roman.






;)
runs.....

[BOBC]

I seem to have to spend all my time untwisting things posters are saying or re-iterating my simple mission. Please read my posts carefully and post on what I have to say, not let other postings become my own words.


Baron
Considering the lengthy threads crated by u

The lengthy thread is in fact other posters arguing the need for/against a fix, I just come in to refocus on the original simple observation and correct posters twisting of what I have said. My replies are now getting long through having to quote others then correct things ! For example :-

Baron
i assume u are 100% sure its infact a Mk1 cockpit we are looking at and not a MkII...right?are 100% sure its infact a Mk1 cockpit we are looking at and not a MkII...right?

case in point !!!! I reply with my own quote, I did say...

If the image is of the 1a or 1b then marked in yellow are the errors. Sometime in the future the team will need to deal with these, they for the moment give us a MkV


Thats kind of the first things that needs to be established, dont u think? If for no other reason than to save u a hell of alot of work.

Quite right, I did initially assume, understandably, that the shots were from their Battle of Britain Spitfire cockpit, given the theme of the sim, and as such would be the Mk1, as very few Mk 2’s flew at that time by comparison to the number of Mk1’s. To give allowance for the fact that they may be only, note the word ONLY, showing us a Mk2, I now say in my text, if this is supposed to be a Mk1, then these are the areas that need correcting sometime if they wish to correct them. I am not demanding they do, some posters are, I am personally wishing they do, but I leave the decision to Oleg and team. I have offered full supporting evidence via email should they wish to consider.

If it’s a Mk2 why hasn’t a member of the team pointed such out by now ? Whilst we cant expect them to have time to engage in many posts on forums one short reply could have saved some work.

Winny
Isn't that pic just a MkII? If it's so wrong as a MKI what feature makes you think it's a MKI?

There are no features there that say Mk1, that’s the trouble, I see this cockpit in videos from the sim which show a Mk1 on the outside. I also had assumed that stills of the cockpit would be of the Mark associated with the Battle of Britain. Why not show us the Mk1. I see this and nothing else, no variations.

Skoshi Tiger
So if it's a MkII what is wrong with the layout?

Good question.
The following would still need correcting, referring to the Spit Mk2 Pilots Notes :-
Trim wheel
Rudder pedals
Landing lamp switch and controls (in the photo and wreckage seen but switch not on the Mk2 manuf drg of the panel)
Dual fuel cocks
Clock
Magneto Switches
Natural metal heads to main panel fasteners
Cream coloured cables for gunsight electrics. (Baron note, nothing to do with length, but appearance)
Amps gauge (in photo but not on manuf drg)
Starter buttons, (Mk1 and 2 only had one, sim has two)
Red glowing lamp still needs deleting.
Addition of Cartridge Starting reloading control where red lamp is.
Oxygen concertina hose on stbd wall remove, not shown in my photo as not visible but I have seen this in footage or a still from the sim, there may be other features also we have yet to see. The hose is MkV so needs removing from Mk1 and 2.
This is a list of ‘everything’ that would need changing, if Oleg wanted to do so, inc cosmetics like all the shiny fastener heads, may seem petty, there are over 65 of these shining at us. So many and their size have in fact a great visual impact on the panels appearance and must be added to get the Mk1 cockpit looking so different to later cockpits. See the dvd Spitfire Frontline Fighter IWM series for the Mk1 cockpit footage.


Sternjaeger
but the overall purpose of a sim is to simulate the whole action of a flight battle, not to be a reference bible

As others have pointed out, and as I saw a reason for a simple observation, they claim for very accurate well researched cockpits. You are in fact finding fault with their goal. I was simply assisting them with it. There have been a number of posts saying its just a sim, who cares about the cockpits, in other words the Maddox team shouldn’t be caring either or making such claims.

GnigruH

Seriously though, I think I support your crusade.

Thank you, I think,... I say ‘I think’ as I am not so sure !… given the LARGE text before that:-

Historians Superiority Complex.
Show Developers how very wrong they are


Is so denigrating and opposite of my simple mission to assist their apparent goal that I just don’t see how you could come up with that then give support. Sorry but I don’t quite get the sense of humour if that was it. Please remove one or the other to clarify your case and better show the support which I am grateful for. The support is lost with the visual impact of the wording before it which borders on hurtful. I didn’t do this to get insulted.
I simply wish for understanding of the fact that I have accurate data to offer, take it or leave it basis. How my simple quest to point out what would need changing to represent a Mk1 cockpit, if they are showing us a Mk1 cockpit, could be seen as having a superiority complex, beats me. Some of the posts in this thread should scare off anyone else who may have what they think is a worthy observation to make ! Flying Pencil...Picking fault with a font, come on….its this exaggeration again and again. Someone says the wing shouldn’t have stiffening strakes over it, posters reply, I don’t care if the strakes are 0.5 inch out of place,..its not what the poster is on about, but denegrate it by making out the poster is being picky with such a minor thing that people wouldn’t notice. The stiffening strakes were by the way removed so Oleg and team did care. I keep gatting mention of one gauge or a font..come on guys, play the game.

Kikuchiyo
I hope you do get some kind of response BOBC, and it would be neat if these issues get fixed, but don't get your hopes up and don't let that spoil it for you.


Kikuchiyo. Thank you for the information and your politeness.

Cheers. I hope I dont have to spend even more time correcting un-truths..I just dont have time for such ....Certainly not getting my hopes up, but mention of Olegs track record of correcting with updates I hope for those here wishing to see the fixes, comes true.

BOBC

[BigC208]

BOBC, I can understand why it bothers you. Most folks here would have a fit if they saw a Rolls Royce engined Buchon in the game instead of proper 109's. I know a bit about WWII aircraft but not to the detail level that you do. Because I don't know, it does not bother me. I hope the developement team reads this and corrects it later on.

[Sutts]

Well BOBC, personally I think you've been very polite and reasonable in your request. The facts you offer are well presented and researched. Developers need guys like you. Shame they didn't take up your offer when you made it.

[Sternjaeger]

BOBC, historically accurate cockpits it's just a publicity gimmick, and btw, as the expert that you are, you're certainly aware that there were on the field variations here and there, not to mention factory variations as new Spitfires were built and delivered to the RAF stations.

Having said this, Oleg is a no-nonsense person, he wants facts, reliable evidences (a picture is not enough sometimes for the aforementioned reasons), and above all manuals which show the technical layout of things. I don't blame him for this, years of experience must have taught him a lot, and I'd rather go myself for the manual than for a picture of a one off example which doesn't have further evidences..

I haven't followed your saga and dunno how long you've been pointing these issues, but if you didnt receive an answer by now.. having said this, you might see your changes in the first patch coming, you never know! As things are now they're proceeding by priorities and there are way more important issues that need to be addressed before the first release.

[winny]

.

There are no features there that say Mk1, that’s the trouble, I see this cockpit in videos from the sim which show a Mk1 on the outside. I also had assumed that stills of the cockpit would be of the Mark associated with the Battle of Britain. Why not show us the Mk1. I see this and nothing else, no variations.


BOBC

Ok so it's based on the assumption that it's a MKI.. Even though there's nothing to suggest it's a MKI. If there was no MKII in the game I could understand your point. But if it looks like a MKII and there's a MKII in game then there's a chance that it is a MKII 'pit.

This should be filed under 'wait and see' I think.

[GnigruH]

I leave the decision to Oleg and team.
Honestly, that's your only option.

I have offered full supporting evidence via email should they wish to consider.Very well. IMHO now you should wait. They can either accept the 'truth' or ignore it. This thread is useless atm, you don't have to convince me or anyone that you're right and they're liars, cos' we, players, have no power to put the 'correct' spitfire mk1 cockpit in.
You have sent your references to the right ppl, what this thread is for?

The support is lost with the visual impact of the wording before it which borders on hurtful.If my demot hurts your feelings, well... it's good to look at oneself from the distance, it's good to imagine how other ppl might see your actions.

[BOBC]

GnigruH.
If my demot hurts your feelings, well... it's good
You post that as you are sure others feel the same need to say that. You should leave them to their own words, not try to justify such things by claiming others agree. You reckon that others see my simple posting of data that I offer evidence for to Oleg as a superiority complex and worth putting up on thread in a very visual way. I still appreciate your support remark but I would appreciate removal of that graphic PLEASE, I find it offensive and it doesnt tally with your support anyway. I have tried to remain polite throughout all the responses that fail to see the simple data posting exercise I did. Since then I have had to keep coming back fending off and correcting incorrectness and rewording of my aim, saying I dont care about the cockpit is one thing, and one is entitled to such, but now attacks on my very character with this is not what this thread is about and is not in keeping with the forum rules. Honestly how can making observations based on data I have, be seen as a superiority complex ?

Perhaps a few others could support my quest now to have you remove that please as it goes beyond what should be a sensible debate. Others with any observations please note all this, its just not worth it folks, the guys on this sim get into a dogfight but as innocent outsider with an honest mission, you get bitten ! Lets attack the messenger. You get this sort of posting against you. Anyone observing what they feel is worthy of flagging up to the team has in fact a superiority complex. Trying to be helpful doesnt come into it.

BOBC

[GnigruH]

I would appreciate removal of that graphic PLEASE, I find it offensive

You are touchy.
You have to understand that it's not about you personally.
It's made of a picture you posted, yes, but it's more general.

It doesn't say that you have a superiority complex, I guess if someone has no reserve, it might look like he has it.

Anyway, if this forum is moderated, you could ask someone, who has this power, to remove it.
I don't feel like doing it, unless, like you said, a few other ppl also find it offensive and make a similar demand here.

[swiss]

This demot is awesome! DO NOT REMOVE IT PLEASE!

And you are are selfish BOBC - as it's not only about you, but all the overly active "nitpickers".
Of course it's great to have source like you guys - even if it's only as a back up.
But: Criticizing without being asked isn't too polite either.

Furthermore, removing it is useless - this is the internet, remember?
We can save the stuff we look at...

... and I can almost guarantee you it's not the last time posted here. ;)

So - relax and show some sense of humor.

[WTE_Galway]

Personally I do not think its nit-picking :D

It may well be true the forums are packed with over-testosteroned online ego jocks who only want something with cool graphics so they can show yet again their "eliteness" flying tight circles online in totally unhistorical fur-ball battles and do not care really if what they fly is anything like the actual aircraft.

The fact that the noisiest most obnoxious posters tend to fly in wonder women view and hence do not care for cockpits and know very little about the actual historical battle does not rule out the many many offline players who are interested in the sim almost entirely because it promises to be historically accurate.

[Kikuchiyo]

Personally I do not think its nit-picking :D

It may well be true the forums are packed with over-testosteroned online ego jocks who only want something with cool graphics so they can show yet again their "eliteness" flying tight circles online in totally unhistorical fur-ball battles and do not care really if what they fly is anything like the actual aircraft.

The fact that the noisiest most obnoxious posters tend to fly in wonder women view and hence do not care for cockpits and know very little about the actual historical battle does not rule out the many many offline players who are interested in the sim almost entirely because it promises to be historically accurate.

I enjoy playing online and I like doing well when I fly, but am equally happy when I die to a more skilled player. I don't fly in "wonder woman mode" and I only play WW2 CFSes. I do care about the planes I thing they are wondrous beautiful aircraft. I do not care if the lettering is wrong or if the gauges aren't exactly correct. I do care that they look and perform like the aircraft they are intended to be. If I wanted it to be completely historically accurate I would have to go back in time and enlist. No sim EVER will be completely historically accurate for one simple and irrefutable fact: I did not participate in it.

I don't know everything there is to know about every battle in every theater of WW2, but I also enjoy reading about the battles and the brave service men and women that gave so much for their sides. To lump everyone that doesn't care about the minutiae (aka nitpicking) as low realism point whores is asinine.

The community (all sides) has become so ugly and mean spirited lately it's disappointing. I don't know why everything has to resort to name calling or bashing. We are all in this together we all have a stake in it, and we aren't accomplishing anything with all this hate mongering. The game (and it is a game) will be as historically correct as 1C Maddox could make it with the information they had at hand. While also ensuring that it would be enjoyable for people that aren't completely obsessed with one or two aircraft. Let's just please stop the ugliness that has reared up over the last couple of months and agree to disagree.

[BOBC]

Swiss
But: Criticizing without being asked isn't too polite either.

here we go again....

So offering up information in as polite a way as I have tried, (and it is difficult with all the unexpected twisting and apparent character attacks now developing, to keep to that route), to assist with a declared goal of most accurate ever cockpits is in fact CRITICIZING and NOT POLITE.

Ever noticed how when someone gets knocked down in a street and kicked by some guttersnipe, some lowlife, that others also then join in.

And you are are selfish BOBC - as it's not only about you, but all the overly active "nitpickers".
Of course it's great to have source like you guys - even if it's only as a back up.
But: Criticizing without being asked isn't too polite either.

You feel that its a warning shot at all those wishing to assist, you are allowed to ward off those you feel are unwelcome, keep just those that are the kickers perhaps. I am to feel better at being attacked along with others.

How long would a list of differences in a cockpit have to be to be seen as an observation worthy of mention as opposed to be nitpicking ?

Perhaps the forum should have a warning no entry sign saying anyone who means well and wishes to offer information that may prove useful in correcting mistakes or they feel the developers would find useful given their stated goal should SOD OFF. It will only be seen as criticizing and they will be lacking in politeness to attempt to do so. You will all be seen to have a superiority complex but expected to see it in good humour. However long your error list is, its nitpicking. we dont want to know about mistakes, we dont want them fixed either. Just one observation posting will be seen as overly active, we will keep you active thereafter by throwing in all sorts of twisted posts and untruths.

I just hope that a moderator polices these forums and can keep these responses from posters on the polite level I operate on. Accusations of impoliteness now.

Do you think anyone else is going to be willing to risk their well meant constructive observations after reading how my attempt has gone and being labelled as overly active criticizing and impolite nitpickers ? Do try folks and read the posted facts please, not get caught up in a dogfight, they are me, not the mudslinging.

GnigruH

if this forum is moderated, you could ask someone, who has this power, to remove it.
I don't feel like doing it, unless, like you said, a few other ppl also find it offensive and make a similar demand here.

Thank you, a true gentleman. Doesnt this forum have a warm friendly atmosphere. People with a heart.

BOBC

[Trumper]

BoBC ,You have been polite,constructive and a good source of information.
Please don't get knocked down too much,there are alot of people thinking the same as you.
Thank You.
The best compliment that can be paid is that hopefully somewhere in the future a patch/mod may be released.
The mistake you made was posting the information on a public forum.
:)

[KG26_Alpha]

I also see in the Promo video that the Stuka has a yellow fuselage band and wing undersides, it is a well known fact that this is a later war marking and not Battle of Britain. There are ample references on stukas in the Battle so its worrying who is reading what before doing the work.

BOBC


You missed the Bf109G in the promo vid too then.

Just because there's errors, bugs etc etc in the update and promo vids, does not necessarily mean its in the release version.

[TheGrunch]

So what you're saying is if we ever see an error, it's probably already been fixed and there's no need to mention it because the development team are infallible. :rolleyes:

I can't believe some of you guys. This thread is about constructive criticism, and you've turned it into a flamewar out of pure fanboyism.

[BOBC]

Can anyone post images of what is known to be CoD's Mk1 spitfire cockpit. Do the preflight settings carefully to be sure ! To include the pedals and seat, side walls etc. Now that its available, lets see if what they had out there was a Mk2 as was suggested. It was said to wait and judge upon release, that time has now come.

BOBC

[MrR0ket0]

OMG!!!

First no DX11, and now a yellow band on Stuka plus a wrong switch in Spit.
I am sooooo NOT GOING to buy this sim!!!!!!!!!!

I mean, how could anyone enjoy this sim with a flaw in the markings or wrong switch?
Tell me!!!!!



You guys are so ridiculous, really.

Do you have a clue how many unfinished/unstable games were released in the past (not only Flightsims)? Besides, why do you make such a statement in a forum for a game that you dont own? We all waited long for this game to be released and now since its out theres still alot to do for the game and its up to us to be patient to wait for patches been released!
sry just my 2 cents

[Redroach]

I love it when someone picks up on someone's sarcasm! Swiss wins the day!


Can anyone post images of what is known to be CoD's Mk1 spitfire cockpit. Do the preflight settings carefully to be sure ! To include the pedals and seat, side walls etc. Now that its available, lets see if what they had out there was a Mk2 as was suggested. It was said to wait and judge upon release, that time has now come.

BOBC

what...has...just...happened?!?

[No145_Hatter]

It was said to wait and judge upon release, that time has now come.

I am genuinely uneasy. It sounds so serious. :eek:

[BOBC]

MrR0Ket0...its up to us to be patient to wait for patches been released!
Quite right. However patches cannot be made without developers knowing what needs patching ! As this thread was about the fact that the pre release spit Mk1 cockpit was a MkV, it then was said lets wait and see whats in the release, it may be that its a Mkll they are showing. So we did. This was simply a request to see now if the Mk1 cockpit is a Mk1. If it isnt then feedback can be given to allow a patch to be worked on sometime. This is for those who in this and other threads expressed a desire to fly a Mk1 cockpit. There are also those that dont care if its a MkV or a IX or a XX, thats ok, their choice, but then they also want to deny those that do care the chance to see such corrected if it turns out to be a Mk1 as well as the Mkll in the actual release.
Simple polite request..can someone post images of what we see when selecting Mk1.
Then feedback can begin if needed, for those that do care.
BOBC

[MadTommy]

Quite right. However patches cannot be made without developers knowing what needs patching ! As this thread was about the fact that the pre release spit Mk1 cockpit was a MkV, it then was said lets wait and see whats in the release, it may be that its a Mkll they are showing. So we did. This was simply a request to see now if the Mk1 cockpit is a Mk1. If it isnt then feedback can be given to allow a patch to be worked on sometime. This is for those who in this and other threads expressed a desire to fly a Mk1 cockpit. There are also those that dont care if its a MkV or a IX or a XX, thats ok, their choice, but then they also want to deny those that do care the chance to see such corrected if it turns out to be a Mk1 as well as the Mkll in the actual release.
Simple polite request..can someone post images of what we see when selecting Mk1.
Then feedback can begin if needed, for those that do care.
BOBC

So i take it you don't own CoD? But you want the models to be perfect right?

I think the DEVs have bigger fish to fry than fixing rivet locations. Give them some time to fix the burning issues that is stopping people actually playing the game, then i suggest you take up your campaign to get each dial & rivet n the right location, I'd suggest a year or so.

[Kikuchiyo]

Historical accuracy is important, but right now the devs main focus should be on the performance and implementation of more important issues than whether a gauge or rivet is in the right place on a cockpit/external model. I'd say they are indeed focusing on the most important issues atm. Let's get performance and implementation of things like head tracking, force feed back, and sli/xfire fixed before we worry about the minute details please.

[mattag08]

Do you have a clue how many unfinished/unstable games were released in the past (not only Flightsims)? Besides, why do you make such a statement in a forum for a game that you dont own? We all waited long for this game to be released and now since its out theres still alot to do for the game and its up to us to be patient to wait for patches been released!
sry just my 2 cents
That was sarcasm. It's pretty obvious English isn't your first language by your post, so just understand that he wasn't being serious. He was making a joke about how people are picking on little things instead of focusing on the big issues.