Modding and Realism

[+JSF_Aggie 1,291]

I am not a ThirdWire modder; nor do I actively play the sims.

 

Then I truely fail to see why you've spent so much time posting in various Thirdwire forums over the years.

 

I don't do more than watch this community for signs it'll someday get serious

 

Your definition of "serious" is an opinion. Others do not share your opinion. Does an opinion have to match yours to be correct?

 

People enjoy the sim in it's current state. You don't play the sim. Why bother?

 

Is your goal to be part of a solution to a sim you don't play, or just cause problems?

[Guest Stiglr]

actualy that wasnt an offence...Some one asked me if i know someone who can do IAF skins and was going to ask you if you did ?

 

I'm not buying that explanation. One's country or ethnic origin has bugger all to do with ability to create a skin for ANY air force. I've done skins for USN, IJA, IJN, RAF, NZAAF, NVPAF, Luftwaffe, just to name some. If I can find color and marking references, and I have a copy of Photoshop or PaintShopPro, I can create a skin, period. My nationality or ethnicity is not ever an issue.

[column5 62]

Well, lots could happen:

 

1. People could keep defending inaccurate pits, under the guise of... well, I don't know what. It's pretty indefensible, if you ask me.

 

2. Somebody who cares and who has the skillset with Wo* could contact me about the resources and perhaps some pits could be improved, or given more accurate pits...that offer was never actually taken off the table.

 

3. You can ignore the issue. Which is fine, too. But, every now and then, I'll bring up the point again about releasing a plane with a stand-in pit... and, annoyingly enough, I'll still be right about it... ;)

 

 

The reason I ask is becuase--I assume--you are looking for an outcome other than just talk. If you got pits or models that you would like to contribute, I hope we can hook you up with someone to collaborate with. We definately have the expertise here to get your work in game.

 

I think the consensus here is that we all like quality, but our thresholds for acceptable quality vary a bit.

[column5 62]

No Prob Bro...I just cant get over I have models like a MIG-31 Su-24 Bear Voodoo ,and what was my first upload....Snoopy on top of a flying doghouse with two 37 mm Paws

 

I for one am completely down with Snoop.

 

This thread needs a moment of levity:

 

[+Veltro2k 6,317]

I'm not buying that explanation. One's country or ethnic origin has bugger all to do with ability to create a skin for ANY air force. I've done skins for USN, IJA, IJN, RAF, NZAAF, NVPAF, Luftwaffe, just to name some. If I can find color and marking references, and I have a copy of Photoshop or PaintShopPro, I can create a skin, period. My nationality or ethnicity is not ever an issue.

 

 

Im not asking you to buy anything,,,with a name like Stigir sounds indian to me ...again thats your oppinion just like me thinking Stigir was an indian name was mine... I am Italian and if i could Skin i would love to do italian Skins....So with that said to quote another person here i have much work to do have fun Everyone again this thread is just a waste of time and would encourage the Mods to lock it also.. with that said ....... Ciao a tutti e vi incoraggio di lasciare stare questo tipo che non ha nient'altro da fare ma causare problemi

[Guest Stiglr]

The reason I ask is becuase--I assume--you are looking for an outcome other than just talk. If you got pits or models that you would like to contribute, I hope we can hook you up with someone to collaborate with. We definately have the expertise here to get your work in game.

 

I think the consensus here is that we all like quality, but our thresholds for acceptable quality vary a bit.

 

 

Yep, I can see that. I'm still having a hard time equating inaccuracy with quality, but, well, horses for courses.

 

To answer your question, you guys know where to find me, if collaboration is your goal. Outside of that, I can always hope that one of two things will happen:

 

1) This sim community will take the bull by the horns and up the ante in terms of accuracy, quality and realism...

 

or

 

2) Targetware's chief coder will one day turn his attention to things like radar, missiles, SAMS, countermeasures and HUDs, and the contributors at Targetware can take on the task of doing the early-to-mid jet era right. We have the beginnings of Target:Hanoi in development right now, but minus those features mentioned above, no sense in releasing any of it.

[Guest Stiglr]

Im not asking you to buy anything,,,with a name like Stigir sounds indian to me ...again thats your oppinion just like me thinking Stigir was an indian name was mine... I am Italian and if i could Skin i would love to do italian Skins....So with that said to quote another person here i have much work to do have fun Everyone again this thread is just a waste of time and would encourage the Mods to lock it also.. with that said ....... Ciao a tutti e vi incoraggio di lasciare stare questo tipo che non ha nient'altro da fare ma causare problemi

 

That's a much more plausible explanation, and I'll withdraw the ethnic umbrage with a humble apology.

 

FYI, "Stiglr" is a shortened version of Franz Stigler; he was a Luftwaffe pilot for JG27, and I had the opportunity to meet him. He's the guy behind a famous war story: when he encountered a very badly shot up B-17 piloted by a Charles Brown... due to the condition of the plane, and seeing the crew carnage inside, Stigler could not bring himself to finish it off. He disobeyed direct orders and allowed the plane to limp home to England.

 

Years later, the two men met again in peacetime and have become like brothers ever since.

 

At some point in my Warbirds career, I had to pick a "handle name" and the sense of fair play and chivalry in that story inspired me to choose Franz's name. I've used it as my online identity (for flight sims) ever since.

[column5 62]

Yep, I can see that. I'm still having a hard time equating inaccuracy with quality, but, well, horses for courses.

 

To answer your question, you guys know where to find me, if collaboration is your goal. Outside of that, I can always hope that one of two things will happen:

 

1) This sim community will take the bull by the horns and up the ante in terms of accuracy, quality and realism...

 

or

 

2) Targetware's chief coder will one day turn his attention to things like radar, missiles, SAMS, countermeasures and HUDs, and the contributors at Targetware can take on the task of doing the early-to-mid jet era right. We have the beginnings of Target:Hanoi in development right now, but minus those features mentioned above, no sense in releasing any of it.

 

Fair enough.

 

Another concern I have...

 

I'm trying to get a sense of your perspective on this...we have hundreds, maybe even thousands of aircraft that have been made for SF. A large percentage of them have their own dedicated, accurate cockpits. Over the years the trend has developed for more and more accurate cockpits to be included--this has occurred as more people gain the expertise necessary to make them.

 

So the question is, what in your opinion is wrong with such a process of continual improvement, resulting in each release being better than the last, and older aircraft getting updated (such as just happened with the A-7)? It seems to me that we have been able to have our cake, and eat it, and then have it again, while other sim communities still have nothing after years of talk.

[+Timmy 1]

Nothing like what I can produce, I'll tell you that. But perfection's not the goal. Accuracy is. But the point you're missing is there's a big divide between desired perfection and not even caring if there's any quality at all. The "right" cockpit is not a "small detail". Those who are accusing me of being a rivet counter for wanting something approximating a correct cockpit, all I can do is shake my head.

 

And, to everyone, the initial point I'm making is STILL valid. Same as it ever was.

 

The point is valid. I have no qualms about it.

 

Simply stated, I build aircraft for this series for my own personal use. I build things that I want to fly or fly against.

 

When I play the game, I almost never look at the cockpit - I turn it off so as to have a better view. My opinion is that a real pilot can see something like 180 degrees - with the cockpit in place I feel as though I'm looking thru a tank driver's slit. Therefore, I don't waste my time on building something that I'll never use. If anyone wants to use my MAX files to build pits - I'll be happy to send them - but I'm not going to spend a great deal of time building something I'll never use when I could be off building something that I will, like another airframe.

 

So to sum up - you shake your head at me for releasing aircraft without pits and I shake my head at you for having a problem with that fact.

[eraser_tr 29]

To say the thirdwire community isn't serious is delusional. Try looking at some of sundowner's skins, or mirage factory models. Try the screenshot of the month thread and tell me LOMAC or F4AF can do better visually or be more thrilling.

 

Not every plane may be perfect, but I still appreciate the effort that goes into making them, even if it uses an inaccurate pit.

 

Sim-lite? Not really, especially with WOI's updates. Sorry TK doesn't make mind bogglingly complex games like F4AF, but the series is right in the same level of something like IL2, CFS, or the old janes series, USAF and older. What TK calls it in no way diminishes its fidelity. And quite frankly, I don't hve the time for a Phd. in switchology.

[Guest pfunkmusik]

Speaking as someone who's just beginning to dip their toes in the water of modding, I'd like to politely weigh in here.

 

My skills as a modder are on a par with a child and their first 'Dick and Jane' book. I don't expect to gain huge accolades or praise heaped on me for anything I do at this point. What I will expect is a lot of criticism and helpful suggestions to make what I do better, so the next time I try this, I will have earned some praise.

 

The idea that unless you can perform at the ne plus ultra of fidelity and realism, your efforts are not worthwhile, is an attitude that prevents people from getting involved.]

 

Had it not been for the chastising I got for a review I did and the subsequent OVERWHELMING help and assistance from the members here, I wouldn't have even bothered.

 

pfunk

[+Erik 1,733]

Once while in DC I stood behind a man who while ordering a pretzel wanted mustard. When the vendor said sorry he didn't have any mustard he could have refused and went elsewhere but did not. He purchased the pretzel and then stood there and complained mockingly about the only pretzel vendor in DC who didn't have mustard on his cart. It not only was embarrassing to watch but was painful to listen to.

 

 

This thread reminds me of that day.

 

[Guest Stiglr]

what in your opinion is wrong with such a process of continual improvement, resulting in each release being better than the last, and older aircraft getting updated (such as just happened with the A-7)? It seems to me that we have been able to have our cake, and eat it, and then have it again, while other sim communities still have nothing after years of talk.

 

Absolutely nothing wrong with it, actually. IF aircraft that are first released with standin pits get accurate pits eventually, then great. I'm all for it. I suppose I'm taking issue more with the fact that someone can release a plane with NO PLANS for a proper pit for it, and get all the lauds and slaps on the back when the job's not done. That's really it in a nutshell. That takes nothing away from if the plane has a great set of skins... or a great weapons buildout, or whatever. Those who make that association from what I write are simply looking for sh*t to throw: they're purposely missing my REAL point.

 

Again, to those who just don't think a pit is important...well, again, I shake my head. Timmy just posted he "turns his cockpit off". Now, I hate to pick on poor Timmy again, but sorry: that's pure gamer attitude. Pits ARE visual obstructions, in part, and they ARE and WERE a factor in aerial combat. There's a reason why those new MiGs and F-22s have raised bubble cockpits... because the technology exists to raise them up there without compromising the plane's aerodynamics. Back in 1930s through to the 70s, it most certainly WAS a huge issue that you needed thick canopy framing or pilot armor that blocked the view. For a game player to simply decide "it's not an issue" and "make it all disappear with a F* command" is, as I said, pure arcade. Just like the "auto target spotter" for planes that don't have that in their HUD.

 

pfunkmusic wrote:

The idea that unless you can perform at the ne plus ultra of fidelity and realism, your efforts are not worthwhile, is an attitude that prevents people from getting involved.

 

I said nothing of the kind. This wasn't even a criticism of the 3D Tony model or any of the skins. It is simply a comment that a plane without it's cockpit isn't finished. Don't put words in my mouth. Also, if you plan to put your work out there for people to see and use, expect criticism as well as expecting a pat on the back for a job well done. You'll also find lots of encouragement and help, too, if you want it. But, if you're just going to be totally defensive about any comment or criticism that is accurate, not to mention spot on, you're probably not going to progress very far, and that would be due to your thin skin, not to the criticism (or the praise). Anything public potentially draws praise AND criticism.

 

eraser wrote:

To say the thirdwire community isn't serious is delusional. Try looking at some of sundowner's skins, or mirage factory models. Try the screenshot of the month thread and tell me LOMAC or F4AF can do better visually or be more thrilling.

 

Not every plane may be perfect, but I still appreciate the effort that goes into making them, even if it uses an inaccurate pit.

 

Sim-lite? Not really, especially with WOI's updates. Sorry TK doesn't make mind bogglingly complex games like F4AF, but the series is right in the same level of something like IL2, CFS, or the old janes series, USAF and older. What TK calls it in no way diminishes its fidelity. And quite frankly, I don't hve the time for a Phd. in switchology.

 

Well, skins are one measure of quality, but to be honest, sims like IL-2 put eye candy above the simulation, and it's a short-sighted decision in my opinion. Also, what say you to my example of claiming a Zero is a Hellcat with a different paint job? That's JUST AS INACCURATE as any plane lacking it's correct pit. Exactly where do you "pit apologists" draw the line at accuracy or minimum quality for a 3D plane or a skin? Or in other words if I model a Cessna, post it up here and say, "Look at my new Raptor model", are you all just going to ignore the obvious fact that it's NOT a Raptor and say, "Wow, great job Stiglr! Got some skins to go with that?" How far from accurate can a plane, a pit or a skin be without it being what it claims to be, I sincerely ask you?

 

I appreciate the effort that goes into making aircraft, too, and I'll point out that this community has been the most prolific I've ever seen. But, also to be honest, if the quality bar were such that a plane must come with an accurate pit, I bet that would have reduced the numbers some.

 

Sim lite? Wo*? Most definitely YES, and by TK's own admission. You don't necessarily have to go the Falcon 4 route to have accuracy in systems modeling (albeit for a modern jet, vs. a WWII prop plane, there is that much difference in complexity!). Falcon 4 is the other extreme to arcade, but you can have a happy medium, where the pilot workload is reflected in the need (or consequences) for managing (or neglecting) your engine and the plane's systems, rather than always having the game do everything the player might consider mundane or "boring, and in the way of just blowing stuff up". Actually learning about these systems, and having them be reflected in the game action is a way of building interest, and adding to the experience for the player. It's also that way when you're building a pit, too, by the way. Reading a Pilots Notes on a type and figuring out how to animate all the knobs, buttons and switches to behave the way they should makes you appreciate even a "crap plane"!!! :D

Edited August 14, 2008 by Stiglr

[column5 62]

Absolutely nothing wrong with it, actually. IF aircraft that are first released with standin pits get accurate pits eventually, then great. I'm all for it. I suppose I'm taking issue more with the fact that someone can release a plane with NO PLANS for a proper pit for it, and get all the lauds and slaps on the back when the job's not done. That's really it in a nutshell. That takes nothing away from if the plane has a great set of skins... or a great weapons buildout, or whatever. Those who make that association from what I write are simply looking for sh*t to throw: they're purposely missing my REAL point.

 

As a last question to you before I hit the rack...

 

Given that your aggressive (to put it mildly) approach to championing the cause of realism has not worked very well over the years, resulting in much administrative action being taken against you and your posts, might it be advisable to change tactics, and work from within (like...like a fifth column lol), rather than giving the appearance of being a hit-and-run attacker with no sweat-equity in the communty?

 

 

Again, to those who just don't think a pit is important...well, again, I shake my head. Timmy just posted he "turns his cockpit off". Now, I hate to pick on poor Timmy again, but sorry: that's pure gamer attitude.

 

We are fortunate that our sim supports many different play styles, from gamer to mid-core sim pilot (TK still calls the series light, but especially after WoI it is distinctly mid-core, a niche it owns all by itself). That is why we have such a large community producing so many mods, most of which are of excellent quality.

[+Timmy 1]

When someone tells me that I have a "pure gamer attitude" about a game I'll take that as high praise indeed, even if it wasn't intended as such.

 

I hate to tell you this, but I also play with non-historic loadouts!!! I've added sparrows to my Drakens, mavericks to my Tunnans and put a vulcan in my Super Mysteres! OH THE HUMANITY!!!

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Wellcome back Stig.

 

I use the ThudWire F-104 instrument panel inside Russo/capun B-47 external model. I like to think of this as poor precision, but high accuracy in terms of the cockpit/aircraft visual relationship. Since I've developed this "stargetic" cockpit method, I find a more 3D depth being inside these external models than even the best complete cockpits, of any sim, can provide. Compared to this, I find "normal" cockpit usage to give a detached feeling from the external model, detached from the aircraft, as if the cockpit and aircraft were two completely divorced and isolated objects. Of course in all The Sims, the aircraft and cockpit are artificially separated at birth, and I've spotted it. We all know the cockpit should be literally part of the aircraft, inside the aircraft. That's the feeling I get using the stargetic method seen here. The panels can seem isolated and detached from the external model's crew compartment, but that probably is because the external models were never designed with this method in mind, and so lack extra detailing in the crew compartment. But overall sitting inside the aircraft's external model crew compartment, is worth the trade.

 

 

 

 

 

One thing that hurts the aircraft/cockpit interface in this sim is you either (1) have to turn OFF the fuselage or nose grafix to properly position a "normal" cockpit, or (2) place the cockpit in a totally wrong position, usually forward, so the player won't see the external model canopy. Often, the fuselage is needed (F-82 twin boom is one fuselage), or turning the nose OFF also turns off the prop disc. Its significant that TK designed his sim around 1960s western aircraft generally sharing a common trait: poor to no visibility of the external aircraft from the cockpit, and the prevalence of cockpits having massive rear walls suffocating the player. Its possible that TK's WW1 sim uses a form of this stargetic method, but I'm not sure. It would make sense, since so much of WW1 aircraft are visible outside the cockpit.

 

 

Stiglr (from locked thread)::

Anybody here wanna argue the supposition that an accurate cockpit is NOT important?

We should think of accuracy vs precision, and what they are defined in relation to. Given the following lack of features in this sim -- features the developer has no interest in ever addressing -- the stargetic cockpit method, or cockpit swapping in general, may offer sufficient "accuracy" for the moment.

 

 

No air-air refueling for AI or player

No AI afterburning dash waypoints

No ripple fire of AAMs for AI interceptors

No AI programming modelling radar search

No AI avoidance of SAM or intercept threats

AI programmed for 24hr max AoA turn fighting

No ground radar (or ground observers) modelling of AI ground control intercept

etc...

 

These are almost entirely "offline" or AI programming issues, which would of course not be relevant to a pure online sim.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Timmy::

I hate to tell you this, but I also play with non-historic loadouts!!! I've added sparrows to my Drakens, mavericks to my Tunnans and put a vulcan in my Super Mysteres! OH THE HUMANITY!!!

According to Vectorsite, "much was done" by the Swedes to improve the Falcons. I need to find more about this. I like the Draken so much, I've decided to add Sweden to the Siberian Sky mythology. That means I'll need a J-32 after all.

[Wrench 9,632]

Alrighty then...I"m going to throw down the gauntlet....

 

Stiglr, go ahead and upload the MAX files here to CombatAce. Put them in the 'cockpits' downloads section. Once they're available, I'm pretty sure SOMEONE with the necessary skills will step forward and begin the conversion process.

 

Hell, I might even take a wack at trying to learn 3d modeling (oi!!) ... although that's pretty much a long shot for me! Skin mapping is enough to make anyone partly crazy...

 

Timmy!!! How could you use non-historical loadouts!!! The shame...the shame!!!! (right...this from the Dethroned King of What If...)

 

Wrench

kevin stein

[FastCargo 412]

Well Stiglr, I have to ask, have you asked any REAL pilots here what they think?

 

You know what I've noticed? That the real pilots, some who flown the aircraft available in the TW series in reality, some who have gotten shot at in those aircraft in reality, bitch the least about the accuracy of the sim.

 

Now, maybe it's just me, but maybe it's because they realize more than anyone else, that ultimately, it's still a simulation (or game) and any line you draw between arcade and reality is arbitrary at best...and that any simulation (from the lowliest PC to multi-million dollar professional sims) still falls short. That immersion is not based on having the exact cockpit for an aircraft, but how it 'feels' to fly. Is it nice to have gnat-ass accuracy? Sure...but I don't feel my experience needs to be solely based on how close I get the numbers or how accurate the pit looks.

 

I will also tell you that the real pilots who focus on the gnat-ass numbers and details usually aren't the good pilots. Now, let me be clear, I don't mean guys who KNOW those numbers/details, just the guys who assign far greater importance to those numbers/details than they warrant (other than flight test, which is a whole other ball of wax). The good pilots are the ones who aren't examining the bark on the trees while their aircraft plows inverted into the forest...

 

The nice thing about the TW series is there is room for everybody (yes, even you). And unlike what you might think, it's okay to be casual.

 

FastCargo

[MigBuster 2,875]

Again, to those who just don't think a pit is important...well, again, I shake my head. Timmy just posted he "turns his cockpit off". Now, I hate to pick on poor Timmy again, but sorry: that's pure gamer attitude. Pits ARE visual obstructions, in part, and they ARE and WERE a factor in aerial combat. There's a reason why those new MiGs and F-22s have raised bubble cockpits... because the technology exists to raise them up there without compromising the plane's aerodynamics. Back in 1930s through to the 70s, it most certainly WAS a huge issue that you needed thick canopy framing or pilot armor that blocked the view. For a game player to simply decide "it's not an issue" and "make it all disappear with a F* command" is, as I said, pure arcade. Just like the "auto target spotter" for planes that don't have that in their HUD.

 

 

 

And what point are you making here exactly? - that someone who plays with the cockpit switched off should be made an example of publically by you and anyone who agrees with you? You can shake your head all you like - personally I have spent years turning WOV into an experience close to how pilot accounts tell it including accurate loadouts etc etc. - but if someone wants to fly their jet without a cockpit - they can and will NOT be singled out and brought down by you!

 

The point you are missing about this series, everytime you come over here, is written down for you in black and white in many posts - but you choose to ignore it and carry on with your 1 man crusade to put down anyone who doesnt want to manage their oil pressure! Im sure this has been said before - If Targetware is so great why do you keep coming over here?

[+Bongodriver 20]

I still get very amused when I read a topic on reality in simulations, I mean come on.....it's a game i.e. a distraction from reality, when I built the Typhoon I strived for as much 'fidelity' as I could, but that could only be based on what refferences I could find, how the hell would I know how to make it like the real thing, next time I am flying for real I will duct tape a carboard box to my face resticting my field of view to simulate a 22 inch screen viewed from approx 2 feet, I bet you any money that that field of view won't afford me much of a view of the cockpit, my argument being turning the pit off is sometimes closer to realism because in the real world there is a huge amount of peripheral vision available even if it is sometimes obscured by canopy/cockpit framing, any real pilot here will tell you that the instrument panel is only briefly monitored before you redirect your attention to the outside world, it is after all the main reason aircraft have windscreens and canopies.

[Heck 496]

@ Heck: sorry, doing a 109G6 is not in my plans. Frankly, it's already been done for Targetware, so if I wanted to mod it, I'd get in touch with the folks that created it and go from there.

 

As far as being condescending is concerned, it's pretty presumptuous of YOU to give me an assignment for what to contribute to the community. I could turn the question on you: why don't YOU create a G6 with underwing pods and cockpit? You're more involved in this community than I.

 

/quote]

 

It wasn't a real request, Stigler. I already knew the answer that I would get, before I asked the question. I'm not a modder, not a 3d creator, just a member, but I knew the real reason you were here, once again, was to tell us all how inferior we are, because of our low standards, and how we can raise ourselves if we just follow your advice. These threads are all about Stigler, nothing else. Column5 and others produce very high quality work, but they accept the fact that others have different standards, or skill sets, and that that's the greatest thing about this community, it doesn't discriminate, it allows all to participate, no matter what the quality of what they can offer. And as a member, I would like to see the community stay this way, rather than change into what you want it to be.

[+JimBeamer5 22]

Well Stiglr, I have to ask, have you asked any REAL pilots here what they think?

 

You know what I've noticed? That the real pilots, some who flown the aircraft available in the TW series in reality, some who have gotten shot at in those aircraft in reality, bitch the least about the accuracy of the sim.

 

Now, maybe it's just me, but maybe it's because they realize more than anyone else, that ultimately, it's still a simulation (or game) and any line you draw between arcade and reality is arbitrary at best...and that any simulation (from the lowliest PC to multi-million dollar professional sims) still falls short. That immersion is not based on having the exact cockpit for an aircraft, but how it 'feels' to fly. Is it nice to have gnat-ass accuracy? Sure...but I don't feel my experience needs to be solely based on how close I get the numbers or how accurate the pit looks.

 

I will also tell you that the real pilots who focus on the gnat-ass numbers and details usually aren't the good pilots. Now, let me be clear, I don't mean guys who KNOW those numbers/details, just the guys who assign far greater importance to those numbers/details than they warrant (other than flight test, which is a whole other ball of wax). The good pilots are the ones who aren't examining the bark on the trees while their aircraft plows inverted into the forest...

 

The nice thing about the TW series is there is room for everybody (yes, even you). And unlike what you might think, it's okay to be casual.

 

FastCargo

 

What he said.

 

PS Nguyen, you've been gone for a long time, then with no warning, you've started up again, exactly where you left off. Makes me we wonder where you've been.

[geezer205 0]

Now, maybe it's just me, but maybe it's because they realize more than anyone else, that ultimately, it's still a simulation (or game) and any line you draw between arcade and reality is arbitrary at best...and that any simulation (from the lowliest PC to multi-million dollar professional sims) still falls short. That immersion is not based on having the exact cockpit for an aircraft, but how it 'feels' to fly. Is it nice to have gnat-ass accuracy? Sure...but I don't feel my experience needs to be solely based on how close I get the numbers or how accurate the pit looks.

 

To paraphrase a comment of yours in another post - "You ain't wrong. brother!"

 

Everyone has their own preferences about fidelity, but this is a hobby so it is a mistake for someone to impose their preferences on others. I understand that most everyone appreciates a well-detailed, accurate cockpit but few people appreciate that it takes significantly more work to produce a cockpit than it does to produce the aircraft!

 

Because of this, the 1930s aircraft that I have been working on will not have "accurate" cockpits for two reasons:

1) I frequently could not find any data on such obscure aircraft.

2) Any effort to produce accurate cockpits would greatly delay production of everything else.

 

I hope to produce two generic 1930s cockpits that will speed production and allow guys to add cockpits to other aircraft models that lack any cockpit at all. This will undoubtedly cause some purists to scream and gnash their teeth, but they are not the ones who are doing the work. As this is all new and unexplored territory for me, I welcome any CONSTRUCTIVE comments from the CA grognards about what might be useful/desirable in a "one size fits all" cockpit model. WIP shot below of a tubular truss cockpit - I will also produce a semi-monocoque version.

 

Edited August 14, 2008 by geezer205

[Guest pfunkmusik]

When someone tells me that I have a "pure gamer attitude" about a game I'll take that as high praise indeed, even if it wasn't intended as such.

 

I hate to tell you this, but I also play with non-historic loadouts!!! I've added sparrows to my Drakens, mavericks to my Tunnans and put a vulcan in my Super Mysteres! OH THE HUMANITY!!!

 

Heh, heh, heh...a man after my own heart.

 

pfunk