Oleg - Spitfire Cockpit.

[AndyJWest]

I would like to hear the developers thoughts on this question of fix it to become a Mk1 and the time it takes versus adding tannoys to a hangar side or creating a this or that which may not be seen for ages in the sim unless you happen to come across it.

Perhaps a vote from thread readers..Mk1 before or after release, if ever.

Modifying the cockpit of a flyable aircraft would be a lot more complex than 'adding tannoys' to hangers would.

'Voting' for something where you have no idea of what is involved and no say in the decision anyway is a waste of time.

If Oleg was to make every change asked for prior to release, SoW:BoB would never get finished. Which would you rather have - a release with minor inaccuracies, or no release at all?

[TheGrunch]

I'm continually bemused by the perception among players of this sim that minor 3d corrections are hard work (probably due to the convoluted process by which modders perform these corrections due to using reverse-engineered tools), even when MG obviously have the official import and export tools and several thousand pounds' worth of software to do the job. It'd be half an hour to an hour's work for some of these people, they're professionals. It'd take far longer to do the research than the actual 3d work, and by the sound of it, BOBC's done that already.

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

I'm continually bemused by the perception among players of this sim that minor 3d corrections are hard work (probably due to the convoluted process by which modders perform these corrections due to using reverse-engineered tools), even when MG obviously have the official import and export tools and several thousand pounds' worth of software to do the job. It'd be half an hour to an hour's work for some of these people, they're professionals. It'd take far longer to do the research than the actual 3d work, and by the sound of it, BOBC's done that already.

But will it involve just a 'minor 3d correction', Grunch? If you are dealing with a clickable cockpit with working instruments, there is more than just the 3d model to consider. I don't know how much work would actually be involved, but I do know that outsiders almost always underestimate such things. If Oleg is (a) convinced it needs fixing, and (b) has the resources to do it, I can't imagine he would refuse out of principal, but holding 'votes' on what he should do isn't a sensible way to approach things.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I'm sure that I read somewhere before that the bar major errors the 3D models for BoB had been frozen. (Please correct me if I'm wrong I went searching for the post but couldn't find it! )

Given that there is only one flyable MK1 left and a handfull of Mk1's on static display I (Most having been scrapped or converted into later models) I doubt this issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone.

I, never having been given the opportunity to look into the cockpit of a MK1 Spitfire, would blissfully enjoy the sim in my ignorance even if they gave us an X-Wing pit!

On the otherhand you have a variety of people who have studied some of the survivors and documentation and each have a perfectly valid though different description of a Mk1 cockpit that they would like to see implemented. Like I said not everyone is going to be happy.

Maybe if the developers could post a list of the documents/aircraft that they used as the basis for their models everyone would at least be assured that what they have modeled is an authentic representation of a MK1 Spitfire.

Just a thought

Cheers!

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

But will it involve just a 'minor 3d correction', Grunch? If you are dealing with a clickable cockpit with working instruments, there is more than just the 3d model to consider. I don't know how much work would actually be involved, but I do know that outsiders almost always underestimate such things.

Having modeled a cockpit myself for IL2, I know it's not a lot of work to change a gauge or two - and mine went through a number of corrections before getting it right.

[MD_Wild_Weasel]

@BoBc ,
"I have been studying spit Mk1 30 yrs and the cockpit for 25 yrs. Not just from books, far from it, from hands on experience. Touching panels that flew in the BoB. I know my cockpits."

You lucky git can i be your friend? LOL The closest ive got to a spit is when its being rolled out for an airshow at Duxford. I did however manage to get one of the owners to take a picture of a Spit MkvcX4h!!


ooh sorry just remebered this cocpit was for the Vb next door. I wanted a picture of the vc4 pit but the old git said"we dont touch each others planes"


If these changes are not that time consuming to correct then i really believe that they should be corrected prior to release. After all we are all after historical accuracy.

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

But will it involve just a 'minor 3d correction', Grunch? If you are dealing with a clickable cockpit with working instruments, there is more than just the 3d model to consider.

Sorry Andy, forgot I'd posted in this thread...I can't see that there is anything other than the model to consider for most of the things BOBC mentions. And where there's not minor 3d corrections to make, there's only deletions to make, which are even easier!

Two tier pedals - extremely minor 3d correction, texture and normal map to add text if necessary
small diameter clock standing proud of inst panel surface - 10 second 3d correction, texturing at a stretch if anything changed about the clock-face.
One fuel gauge - deletion
Only Volts not Volts and amps below it. - deletion
Box type radio port wall. - slightly more involved but still very minor 3d correction
No landing lamp controller - deletion
Bakelite seat and not grey green aluminium. - recolouring, maybe material/shader changes
All black bakelite deep recessed trim wheel. - minor 3d, recolouring
Just...not very much to do now that the vast majority of the work is already done. I just have to point this out because I'm sick of people pulling out their fanboy suits (I'm not putting you at the top end of that category by any means) and shouting "too much work" over 10 second fixes. Especially when they're in areas of the game that people will be constantly exposed to (well, except for the wonder-woman crowd )
It's possible that these are meant the other way around (can't remember, too busy looking at econometrics ergh), but even then, it's not a HUGE amount of work for a model that people are going to spend years looking at, an ammeter, an additional fuel gauge, and a landing lamp controller (two of which obviously don't even desperately need to be visibly functional)

[AndyJWest]

Maybe you're right Grunch. I think I was really aiming my comments more at the general 'fix everything' comments we were getting. The trouble is, there doesn't even seem to be a consensus in this thread about what a BoB Mk 1 Spit instrument panel should look like. It will be a bit difficult to make a case for changes if we can't agree what they should be.

You have my sympathy over the econometrics. Doesn't sound like fun...

[KG26_Alpha]

As already stated on page 1 the two images I posted there show correct rudder pedals but............

Make changes sure.

But you will never make the right one 100%.

Some one somewhere will tell you its wrong unless you state that the MkI ac modelled in BoB Sow is a particular one including manufacturing number and squadron allocation date.

Then the assigned ac details can be referenced and check as accurate for the sim.

Now that's then generalizing all Spit MKI's in SoW as one particular plane so everyone gets to fly the one referenced ac.

If like me on the other hand, I don't really care, as I know there were differences between MKI's at squadron level, if we have a "general" pit. it covers then most squadron level Spits instead of tying the MkI down to one particular aircraft.

Whatever

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

The trouble is, there doesn't even seem to be a consensus in this thread about what a BoB Mk 1 Spit instrument panel should look like.

Agreed, it seems to be the problem in the vast majority of arguments of this nature...given the fact that museum aircraft have almost without exception been subject to minor upgrades during and after their periods of front-line service, not to mention compromises made in restorations. Aircraft that still fly are subject to even more of these compromises, of course. Modern radios, no gunsights, new harnesses, etc.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

You have my sympathy over the econometrics. Doesn't sound like fun...

If I hear the words 'multiple regression analysis', 'multicollinearity' or 'heteroscedasticity' ever again after tomorrow afternoon I'm probably going to vomit.