1C Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official 1C Company forum > 1C Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-26-2010, 10:40 AM
LukeFF's Avatar
LukeFF LukeFF is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Riverside, California, USA
Posts: 335
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha View Post
1. Its a non WW2 historical ac
From the looks of that over-sprayed roundel, it's a Spanish-built model, a la the CASA 2.111.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-26-2010, 10:55 AM
KG26_Alpha's Avatar
KG26_Alpha KG26_Alpha is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,796
Default

Hi


It was used as a transporter, then left as a spares donor for the rest of them.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-29-2010, 08:29 AM
MD_Wild_Weasel MD_Wild_Weasel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: England
Posts: 99
Default

@ BOBc i am at awe to how much you know about the spitfire. Amazing. I truly love this bird and have found the whole thread a really interested read with both sides showing valid points. But i think someone hit the nail on the head here by saying that"there was no standard cocpit layout" . Imo i would say this was true especially as the MK1 hadnt had too much field testing at the time. I mean who else were better at giving combat data than the combat pilots themselves. I would of thought especially as pilots at that time developed there own flying stlyes and preferences would have had the engineers make subtle changes to their flying machines. Also you need to take into account the lack of raw materials here as well. Many downed spitfires were salvaged and used again. Maybe you talk of two fuel gauges, in olegs case his research may have noted the fact that his particualar was "short" . But i think you need to take into account the human element to this picture. This was no -peace time production line. Changes were constantly made while in the factory and on the airfield.

I can remember watching a program about Douglas Bader`s spitfire where they tried to find out where it crashed landed. There was a bloke there that REALLY knew his stuff and was able to identify any part of the aircraft mangled or not. Maybe with a little research you could locate this guy and ask his opinion.

At the end of the day i would rather Oleg get the spitfire Historically correct than pretty tanks(unless i can drive them btw) but at the same time through out the history of Il2 many people have ever changing opinions about WW2 and its birds. I think that we/he needs to find the middle ground so that he can get on with his work. Perferction takes time and money.
my two pennies.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-29-2010, 10:45 AM
major_setback's Avatar
major_setback major_setback is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lund Sweden
Posts: 1,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MD_Wild_Weasel View Post
At the end of the day i would rather Oleg get the spitfire Historically correct than pretty tanks(unless i can drive them btw) but at the same time through out the history of Il2 many people have ever changing opinions about WW2 and its birds. I think that we/he needs to find the middle ground so that he can get on with his work. Perferction takes time and money.
my two pennies.
There are scores of posts on this forum alone telling Oleg that 'this and that' are completely wrong (by me included). He can't possible be expected to read them all, and even if he did, it is asking way too much that he should be able to perceive which of those posters has a relevant point (there are a lot of mistaken nay-sayers here). He simply doesn't have the time to both research the issues and correct them (all).



I agree, it is time to get the thing finished. The worst problems can be patched over later.
__________________
All CoD screenshots here:
http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/

__________


Flying online as Setback.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-30-2010, 01:41 AM
BOBC BOBC is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Default

Quote:
MD_Wild_Weasel. There was a bloke there that REALLY knew his stuff and was able to identify any part of the aircraft mangled or not. Maybe with a little research you could locate this guy and ask his opinion.
I know them well

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.

Quote:
Major Setback...it is asking way too much that he should be able to perceive which of those posters has a relevant point
I did email him and indicate my experience to him. The points I raised should have been enough to convince him I know my Mk1.

Another way to look at this by the way is as follows.
What are the most obvious differences between a Mk1 and a MkV.
They are:-
Two tier pedals
small diameter clock standing proud of inst panel surface.
One fuel gauge
Only Volts not Volts and amps below it.
Box type radio port wall.
No landing lamp controller
Bakelite seat and not grey green aluminium.
All black bakelite deep recessed trim wheel.

Apart from the radio currently this is the cockpit in the sim !

Purchase and play the dvd Spitfire Frontline Fighter and get to see awesome rare Mk1 BoB aircraft being fully serviced. The complete footage, Thorn EMI featured only part of this before. Followed by re-arming, E pens etc. See the Mk1 cockpit, your only way of ever doing so ! You'll even see filling the screen the Trim wheel of the Mk1, remember this is by now an R serial, only X run to go...and the large clock, and amps gauge and two fuel gauges, and the correct starter button, (not mentioned that error before..not so obvious but its there, like the fact that the compass card holder was anodised aluminium and not black, in this video and all those dug examples).

It would I still feel, be right to release the sim with a Mk1 cockpit and not expect users to wait for a Mk1 fix. I pay money for a BoB sim, I want to see a Mk1 as I fly it and not be told I have to wait, surely thats a reasonable expectation when buying a BoB sim, never get this hassle with BoB WoV.

Quote:
pilots at that time developed there own flying stlyes and preferences would have had the engineers make subtle changes to their flying machines
Those pedals were not fabricated in squadron hangars, they are castings.
Talking to someone that has a lifetime of BoB digs, they have never dug a two tier one yet !
Spitfire Spares say two tier used after the Mk1. they should know !

The R serialled spit in the video inspection by the way has a single tier pedal, they had the word Supermarine on the tread area. That puts L,N, P and R serialled production runs as far as this aircraft with Single Tier pedals. Only leaving X serialled production. Thats most of the BoB aircraft.
Pilots are not going to say to the groundcrew, I prefer my spit without the amps gauge, or I think I will dispense with knowing whats in the 48 gallon fuel tank, please also perfectly fill in the hole and shift the 37 to the left a little...oh and rip out the landing lamp control, and get the smaller clock that is still in development at Smiths, I fancy a smaller one....and so on.

The only mod was armour plate instigated by Dowding, addition of rear view mirrors, gun harmonising distance.

Quote:
MD_Wild_Weasel I think that we/he needs to find the middle ground so that he can get on with his work. Perferction takes time and money.
Perfection ..I think asking for a Mk1 cockpit is a fair request, perfection would be demanding that the lettering saying Artificial Horizon was picked out in brass.
I still say, so as to not prolong release time, simply forget about another vehicle and spend the time on pedals, fuel gauges and clock, just those three will be a start, and make a massive difference. I just have a gut feeling we will never see this cockpit corrected. Surely of all the fixes this is the one, as opposed to a Fiat CR42. Spit fliers will be staring at these mistakes hour after hour.

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.

I say 'before'.

BOBC
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-30-2010, 02:04 AM
AndyJWest AndyJWest is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,048
Default

Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-30-2010, 03:49 AM
TheGrunch's Avatar
TheGrunch TheGrunch is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 833
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-30-2010, 04:07 AM
AndyJWest AndyJWest is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,048
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrunch View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-30-2010, 07:35 AM
Skoshi Tiger Skoshi Tiger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,196
Default

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!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-30-2010, 08:59 AM
LukeFF's Avatar
LukeFF LukeFF is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Riverside, California, USA
Posts: 335
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyJWest View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:15 AM.

Based on a design by: Miner Skinz.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.