I like their products but i think expecting that kind of quality in a survey sim is an unfair comparison: buying just one of their planes + the accusim pack (no terrain/environment and no DM, just the planes and their systems modeling) costs about as much as CoD.

That's how they can afford to do it. I'm not saying it's bad, they're very good and i've had the pleasure of flying some of their add-ons on a friend's PC, it's just that i find the comparison a bit too "apples and oranges" for my taste.

Agreed..

There shouldnt be or cant be any comparison between that and CoD..

As BD said, they can solely concentrate on the Model, they dont have to worry about anything else ingame and yes they get paid for it...quite well in fact

It wasn't really a comparison, it was a "wouldn't it be nice". Can't really expect that much dev for all the planes that are or will be in CoD.

It is impressive. I have the Spit I and II, they fly beautifully. Looking forward to the P51D very much.

Klem..

Whats the main differences between those and what we have in game here..? more complex CEM or...???

I think its fair to say the FM is more accurate - well I am assuming that from the research and supporting professionals that looked at it - and yes the engine management requires a little more care but you get used to it for just flying around. I know Kwiatek had a difference of opinion about the SpitII (I think) but there was also some discussion about precisely which mark and at what period it was meant to be modelled as. The Merlin negative G cutout seems very benign compared with ours, it requires a firm and sustained pushover not just a nudge of the stick. An overheat also delivers coolant venting and therefore loss of coolant. Many of the engine startup features are available in CoD like mags on, fuel on, mixture setting, engine start and also hand pumping when cold although CoD doesn't seem to need it.

The Accusim add-on to the main Spitfire software adds monitoring of engine wear and other systems like coolant, oil, fuel, coffman starter cartridges and oxygen levels all of which need replenishing after a flight or the position gets caried forward to the next flight. If you don't turn on the oxygen or don't set it for the height and climb too high you pass out. Its aimed at people who want to know what it was like to have to handle all those issues. Some of the guys pride themselves in taking it as far and for as long as they can before an overhaul is necessary. You kind of 'live' with the aircraft but you can of course go to the hangar, get a report and hit 'fix it all for me please' which I have had do do many times :) TBH I haven't flown it for a while. Kind of spoils me for CoD.

But as some of our guys have said, to take all that on in a combat sim would probably require a Virtual OCU course and mean sticking to the same aircraft most of the time. I think some CoD players may feel/have felt like that when they first tried it out. I think we probably have a good balance in CoD with some of its aircraft handling 'generalisations' (once the FMs get sorted).

It should really be stressed that these aircraft from A2A take a year or more to make. I think they said that the B-17 took two or more to finish.

I haven't bought any extra aircraft for FSX, but its quite likely the CEM is more complex in FSX, but its highly doubtfull the FM is better considering its using FSX code.

To me they're completely different animals.

I have both. The CEM is not more complex in A2A's Spitfire, but its probably more precise.

The FM is A2A's.

CEM aside - can FSX really simulate the flight model that great? I haven't been a fan of the civil flight sims and find them boring but the videos I usually see are... questionable. Most of them show flaws especially regarding complex FM e.g. stalls and spins.

So while the buttons and gauges are maybe working better - does the flightmodel really work better as well? E.g. can you do a few test runs and verify climb rate, turn rate etc?


I agree with all who said it's apples and bananas though. A warbird without weapons? Not a warbird to me. I think the damage model is at least equally important. It's like comparing a model plane to an RC one - one may look shiny and have the details but it's not experiencing all aspects of flight / fighting.

I'm not sure if CloD could ever reach that level of detail for individual - after all they don't just make plane models. Maybe they could buy rescources to make it easier but then again - it'd probably mean CloD would end up costing 400$. :-P