|
|
#22
05-22-2010, 10:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Lets just say there has to be a cut off point for detail for all aircraft otherwise nothing will get done with constant nit picking/rivet counting whatever you want to call it. I would suggest that if someone's not happy submit actual certified manufacturers blueprints, even better to save 1cTeams time, make the aircraft/cockpit yourself and submit it for approval with aforementioned documents. There's enough errors in the IL21946 that's been going for nearly 10 years to keep the "train spotters" happy, but its still going strong. . Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 05-22-2010 at 10:09 PM. 
|
|
#23
05-23-2010, 06:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Trust me folks, I want to see this sim installed on my HDD ASAP just like everyone else!
 I asked BOBC's opinion about the stiffeners because IMO they shouldn't be there, but of course I can't find anything in print to prove it. It's a shame that this sort of thing is caught after the model is finished, it's like discovering the phone guy missed installing a wall jack in a room in your new house only after the drywall guys have already covered the walls... much more of a pain to correct afterward than at the time. Details concerning airframe construction, flying equipment and clothing, and old fashioned rivet counting may seem like 'who cares' items but to BoB junkies it's the difference between a good sim and one that will be the benchmark for all others for years to come. ...and I'll repeat myself, I want to see this sim installed on my HDD ASAP just like everyone else!
|
|
#24
05-23-2010, 11:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
However COMPLETE accuracy in a complex, historically-based game/sim like BOB will be an elusive or impossible task to achieve. Designing a 'simulator' involves compromises. The realistic aim, I think, is not to achieve a one to one, direct reproduction of every facet of the external world, but to 'simulate' to an acceptable degree enough features of that world to give an impression of reality. This is more obviously the case with the map and terrain - there is no way that anything more than a rough approximation of 1940 England can be created. For the aircraft models it is somewhat different and I agree every effort should be made to achieve as near to 100% accuracy here as possible. Where there is adequately documented reason for changes I believe the developers should listen and try to implement them, BUT... Quote:
We may have to reconcile ourselves to the likelihood of the sim not being 'perfect', but in my opinion this was never a realistic expectation. SOW has been so long in preparation that it has been possible for everyone to build their fantasies and expectations of what it will be so highly that the reality is almost guaranteed to disappoint. Quote:
Last edited by kendo65; 05-23-2010 at 11:16 AM.
|
|
#25
05-24-2010, 10:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi,
One could look at the case for correcting perceived important changes this way. Compromising the finish date, though it does seem to be somewhat fluid, with perhaps just fixes for major observations anyone makes, needs to be balanced against the importance of those changes versus the addition of a vehicle or extra piece of ground equipment or even a bush type which may well not be missed if it wasn't there. If someone is about to be spending hours creating a schwimmwagen would it not be better to forget the vehicle and spend that time fixing something that will then provide a more accurate or well known appearance to something that many will be looking at for most of their sim experience. Would it be good to sacrifice the example of a schwimmwagen for a pair of Supermarine marked single tier rudder pedals, two fuel gauges and a large clock, three distinctive Mk 1 cockpit items ? Have the initial release able to declare with pride that it provides a Mk1 cockpit, then let the post release work on upgrades be on things like a schwimmwagen. Get the important things right. I would think a Mk1 spit cockpit is quite important versus one more item that helps populate a scene. Temporary becomes permanent, there is a danger that once released the developers don't then set about fixing errors, they remain with us. Has Oleg and team in the past acted upon observations made in this forum; does someone filter out worthy facts from it and forward them to him and the team or is it that he has to read threads himself ? Thread reading can be quite time consuming and I just wondered if this happens given that he must be very busy with development. Is he open to feedback ? The procedure for flying a Mk1 spitfire I presume is also being put forward in the sim as accurate, so how that would be written if its lacking the second fuel tank readout and control levers to switch tanks, the flying procedure if going to the detail of fuel control as done in other sims would find it awkward to do so ? The fuel gauges are more a part of the way the spit is flown than a clock or rudder pedal. The ability to withstand G forces was increased with the introduction of the two tier pedals, raising feet up bent the legs and lessened blood flow to the legs, so Olegs BoB pilots have an advantage over the real BoB pilots if the raised pedals are written for in the code. Thus a non historical advantage over the Luftwaffe. How to land the spit in the dark ?..BoB spits had a landing lamp but this cockpit lacks the dashboard switch and lower/swivel control, so unlike the real thing, we cant go landing back after dark. The flying accuracy no doubt will get compared to existing BoB sims by those that are interested in how it flies. Looking at a revi gunsight its been created right down to the three screws on the side knob, gives the impression this sim is 'top drawer', gets me excited...the developers are about to market a stunnigly accurate item, then its possible to spot fundamental errors and my bubble is burst...and I wonder why the attention to fine detail when the more basic stuff has faults ? Example..I had in a previous email many months ago mentioned that the gun troughs on the 109E had the back ends looking like those on a G...having an 'eyelid' over the gun port. I also see the MG17's sit in yellow tubes that protrude out through the gun ports. That was never the case. The emil gun ports were a slanting elipse shape with the edge of the ferrous trough running around their aft edge. This is clear to see in hundreds of photos and all kit models of the type. The Emil cowling is crucial to its looks. I also see that it has wheel hubs for an F or G, being filled in with a series of indentations around the edge. Again the look of the E requires the earlier spoked/hollowed out black wheel hubs, its a well known characteristic, yet attention is going into a loudspeaker attached to a hanger ? Any 109E student will point out these errors. Enough have made E's as kits in their lifetime, if they are into the BoB. I just find it hard to equate all the fine artwork with some real bloopers I am seeing. RAF parachute harness was a cream webbing strap like the Luftwaffe one, only difference a single strand of colour stitching down the middle. Olegs team have instead a cream strap with what can best be described as a brownish green railway line running down it , the rails being near the strap edge. Each rail is further detailed with a lighter centre. Between the rails is a heavily patterned/textured cream area...looks most odd and is a lot of work compared to the single colour cream strap, perhaps finished off with a subtle texture and a central dk grey/red thread. Just what they were looking at to do this I dont know, a lot of extra work for nothing. Parachute straps are easy enough to find in books and on the web. We are going to be seeing this silly looking harness in all cockpits, I personally would like to see such basics researched more and less time on the shape of a tannoy, the data is easily to hand. They also have this on the Luft figure..double the error ! Luftwaffe kapok mae west is another example, unless its a work in progress, any BoB pics will show it was sausages all round, not just at the front, that type came in late October 1940. Rarely seen...but will be seen a lot in this sim. Luftwaffe unifom I see is a light silvery grey, far from reality, it should be similar to the RAF but a bit more grey. We will see loads of these. I do feel they need to focus on basics and not minor scene details. I am only pointing out large fundamental features that hit me immediately without studying in detail. Any modeller will spot the hub, Luft tunic colour, G ports, perhaps less the harnesses and kapok. There are loads of features going into this sim that a user wouldnt know about but expects to have been researched and reproduced fairly accurately. Should it be basics corrected, or another 1940 car type on the road ? I leave the choice to forum readers. BOBC P.S Jocko417 I saw wartime footage this weekend and the BoB spits had no stiffening strakes. I couldnt see the serial numbers though. Last edited by BOBC; 05-24-2010 at 11:38 PM.
|
|
#26
05-25-2010, 08:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It all really depends on how balanced the developers want the game to be for it's players. Flying for the RAAF most pilots would be more interested in aerial targets, but If your flying a Ju-87 you probably want a wide variety of ground targets to lay some hard loving on. All the detail going into this sim will lay down foundations for the following releases. If we move to another theatre we'd see that perspective change. North Africa without any ground targets for the RAF would be sad!  Without the proper foundations Oleg&Co will dig themselves into a hole where the next release would require a masive effort. If they do it right they just have to worry about the content and pull in the moo-la!To get a balanced sim they will have different teams/developers working on seperate aspects of the sim. Sometimes their skill sets will not be transferable. Hey They're the experts and know what they're doing. Also from my understanding all frontline Spitfires had been fitted with the two-step pedals by the Battle of Britain. That would leave the single step models being used in OTU's and second line areas. Is it worth having a seperate model for these minor area's? I guess one of the problem is that by the battle of Britain the Spitfire had been in production for over two years and had been continually improved and upgraded throughout that time. There is no such thing as a "Standard" Mk1. The production Mk1 Spitfire of May '38 and those from September 40 were two very different beasts. Cheers! Last edited by Skoshi Tiger; 05-25-2010 at 02:23 PM. Reason: Who keeps on putting all these typos in my posts!!!!
|
|
#27
05-25-2010, 08:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Yes, they are the experts in creating extremely detailed simulations, but the correctness of the details is in direct proportion to the accuracy of their reference material. There are many line drawings out there which show strakes above the wheel wells on early Spits, including the dust jacket illustrations drawn by Rikyu Watanabe for Bill Sweetman's SPITFIRE book of 1980, a popular publication in it's day. As most (if not all) surviving Mk. I Spitfires have the strakes installed it could be assumed that they were standard equipment in 1940. They were not. The Spit hanging in the IWM is a great example. It is seen as it appeared at the END of it's service life, not as it was when it came off the assembly line years earlier. Also, as English (or German) is not the first language at 1C there have been spelling and/or grammatical errors made in the past (no fault of the developers, their English is still better than my Russian) in some cockpit placards, such as the "A <crown> N" label on the Art. Horizon in the Spit and Hurri cockpits. This was corrected to A <crown> M. My point is that 1C should be congratulated for the huge job they have undertaken, I am awed by the amount of objects being added, like ground support items (fuel bowsers, accumulator carts, etc.) for the airfields, not generic ones, the ACTUAL equipment used by both sides. Getting all the small stuff right is the curse of offering that much detail in the first place. However, if anyone can pull off '1940 in a box', it's Oleg and Co.
|
|
#28
05-25-2010, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well I just got back from Duxford and had quite a chat with a couple of the restoration guys there.
They are working on 3 Spits including a MkI and found it quite incredible anyone thinks there's a "standard" MkI pit. I asked how they referenced the cockpit for the MkI and what its history was, "It was one of the first 300 hundred produced and eventually went to an OTU where it was finally upgraded to MKV specification". "There never was a typical MkI cockpit as there were too many modifications made at squadron level and constant improvement made during production, we have never found any early pits to be the same all are different to a certain degree". "It would be quite silly to actually say "This is the standard MkI pit layout" it's impossible to be that precise". I agreed but wanted to hear more, unfortunately I was in a restricted part of the hangar and the conversion ended as my camera started to level at some Spit parts on the work bench  Anyway I was more interested in the HE111 they have there, and managed a really nice close walk round with another restoration fella, the main spars are useless and need replacing but with so many parts needed its become too expensive to restore.   As its a Spitfire thread here's one you wont see like this that often. 
Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 05-25-2010 at 08:56 PM.
|
|
#29
05-26-2010, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi,
I hope I read wrong but thought something had been said about the He111 being scrapped. Just because it won't fly again is this reason to scrap a potential static and important exhibit. Imagine it back in Luft camouflage, tractored out to the Duxford line up. ..or is it that without new spars its dangerous even as static ? In which case other museums may also have an issue. I am not aware of two tier pedals being used in the BoB. Being in touch with aviation archaeologists who have dug BoB aircraft for many years, they only ever found single tier. I shall check on this but thats my experience to date. I also have studied all the BoB period crashed Spit Mk1 instrument panels and all were with two fuel gauges. Likewise all had the landing lamp switches and thus the landing lamp and thus the controller. All had the large clock hole and no step down plate for fitment of a smaller clock and both Volt and amp gauges. The variations existed in the generator switch and flap gauge hole. I agree its safer to say they were not all exactly the same spec, but certain features appear to have been common throughout as mentioned above. I must pay a trip to Duxford as Spit Mk1s are my bread and butter ! The R serialled spitfire filmed just prior to the BoB (see dvd Spitfire - frontline fighter (IWM The Official Collection) has the features I refer to, so at that point in time, so did L and P series spits. I studied an X series panel and that too had those features. BOBC
|
|
#30
05-26-2010, 08:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: He111
Nope no mention of it being scrapped by me, IWM don't have the interest or funds. 1. Its a non WW2 historical ac 2. Too many parts missing 3. Spars are corroded So with the Spars issue its a static display liability.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
