Modding and Realism

[Guest Stiglr]

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

 

• Which pits do you (or anyone else) want?
  
• Do you want the texture files for them as well, or just the .3ds?
  
• Do you want them as one piece (will require someone to go into Max and "separate" and "animate" moving parts?
  

 

If, as you say, you're not well versed in this, I can understand not having the answers these questions. But, if you can find your volunteer who actually is going to do something with the files, have them contact me and we can arrange for a proper file exchange.

[column5 63]

Could you post a list of what you have? I know there is a Meteor and its cockpit.

[Guest Stiglr]

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.

 

 

That actually looks pretty good so far. Nice work.

 

I have to take exception to the idea that it's that much harder to build a pit than an exterior. The concepts are exactly the same. Most pit gadgets are "boxes", most tubing are cylinders or round polygons extruded along a line path. And, you can start by using the "exterior" section of the fuselage, flip the normals "inward" and you get the walls almost for free as a "starter"!

 

I suppose I have to grudgingly agree that perhaps a "'30s stand-in stock pit" like this would be better than substituting a Hurricane pit, or some other such kludge...provided the end goal was that eventually somebody would actually do the correct pit. Yes, I will admit that a pit shouldn't be an impediment to a plane ever being flyable by the players, in the end... but again, the modeler that was excited enough about doing the external 3D should have the pride and quality in his/her work to include the pit in their construction plans.

 

As for your purported inability to find of data on pits... I dunno... if you LOOK hard enough, you can find stuff. Just last night, after responding to all the rotten tomatoes being thrown in this particular thread I remembered that the Squadron Signal booklet I bought (off ebay) for my upcoming P-26 Peashooter only had two or three black and white pictures of the pit. Probably enough to model with, but not ideal by any means. So, on a hunch, remembering a trip I made a few years back to the USAF Museum in Dayton, I thought, "They had a fairly good selection of '30s birds, I bet they have a P-26 there." So, I did a Google search for the museum, did a search for the P-26 once at the Museum site and voila: two full color, head-on aspect photos of an immaculately restored Peashooter pit.

 

 

Two minutes, two simple searches.

 

Now I'm loaded for bear on that pit.

 

No sources, you say? >Nhhhh<, I'm inclined to think, "no real effort to find it".

 

For many planes LATER than the '30s, you can search ebay and find reproductions (or real copies) of Pilot Manuals, Maintenance Guides, etc. for many, many aircraft. These often have all the data you need to accurately model the plane of your choice. I have found the Famous Aircraft of the World (FAOW) series very helpful for '60s - 80s jets, not to mention anything Japanese in WWII. The Maru Mechanic series chronicles WWII pretty well. And Kokufan has tons of (plastic) modeling guides they published in the '70s with full color reference plates. All this stuff is available ALL the TIME on ebay.

 

Sorry, there's just no good excuse.

 

Yeah, yeah, I know this is a hobby; it is for ME, too. I have to scrounge a few hours away from my downtime to do this, too. I know that not as many people do 3D as do 2D and skins; but you can LEARN it; I did. All the things I'm saying "should be done," I do myself. I'm not asking anybody to ascribe to ideals higher than those I impose on myself. I walk the walk as well as talk the talk in that regard.

Edited August 14, 2008 by Stiglr

[Guest Stiglr]

Could you post a list of what you have? I know there is a Meteor and its cockpit.

 

Here's what I got brewing for Target:Corregidor:

 

*Ki-27 Nate (A and B; there's a significant difference in the canopy between the two versions)

Brewster Buffalo E (English export) and F2A3 Navy versions

P-35A

 

The Meteor pit has been worked on recently, and is in good shape.

 

 

Those still being built/textured or improved from early work:

Hudson (The inside equipment's in very good shape, the fuse/canopy framing are in triage)

G3M Nell

Blenheim IV

P-26 Peashooter

CA-12 Boomerang

Ki-30 Ann light bomber

B-29 Superfort (earmarked for Target:Korea, along with the Meteor)

 

The ones marked with an asterisk * are the earliest pits I did, and are likely on tap to be improved or replaced in the upcoming months. As they reflect earlier work, they're not of the same quality I can do now.

[+SkippyBing 8]

Ahh, looking hard enough. Obviously people who've spent hours researching the outside of a model didn't think to apply the techniques to the inside, seriously if anyone can find any internal shots of a Blackburn Baffin I could update the cockpit on that so it isn't just what I think it would have looked like.

Cockpits generally are harder to model well, the fact is you're sat in it and everything is much closer so to get a decent experience you end up wanting to get more detail into it, detail which is annoyingly hard to find. I'm finishing up on the cockpit for my Wyvern model (no I don't know why I choose aircraft that have all been broken up either), the pilot's notes are great, but the pictures are too low res to get all the detail out and the only other pictures tend to be of the TF.1 example in the FAA Museum, which is so unlike the production S.4 that you might as well look at another aircraft entirely.

I'm not saying cockpits are irrelevant, I model them which may be one reason my output is so low, but I can see why some people after the struggle of getting the external model done say 'the horror, the horror' when they contemplate going inside. It doesn't make them bad people, possibly just ones with a better sense of what's important in life, i.e. real 3-D people, fresh air, alcohol etc.

What I find interesting is that the sim you support for being far more accurate, in that placeholder or stand in models are anathema to it, is the one played by less people I think a lot of people just don't have the time to invest in learning all the controls to operate something with 100% historical accuracy, after all the original pilots had fairly intensive training courses to go through as their actual jobs, I already have a job so I just don't have the time.

Ultimately Stiglr isn't wrong in a lot of what he says, it would be nice to have accurate cockpits for all the aircraft available, but reality gets in the way and you have to be pragmatic about these things if you aren't going to work yourself into an early grave.

[Guest Stiglr]

LexxLuthor wrote:

 

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.

 

I agree with some of this: when you accept these kinds of damning limitations (whether offline or online) it's hard to convince anyone you value accuracy and realism. With that list of deficiencies, how can the sim be anything BUT "sim-lite"?

 

Stuff like this is exactly why I don't devote the time to get into and play this sim. And, it's also why Target:Hanoi is still only in its infancy at Targetware. We realize that, until there IS some code in Targetware for things like missiles, countermeasures, SAMs, radar and such in the core code, there's no sense in "pretending" we can do Vietnam much justice. At the very least, we'd still need SAMS to be able to do the 1966 "Thuds and F8s vs. MiG-17s and -19s" scenarios. Now, somebody could, if they wanted to, make a completely arcade sim-lite version (anything from pure arcade to full realism is possible in Targetware), but we also know it would be very unsatisfying, since we DO value accuracy or at least the "attempt" to reach it whenever we can. So, the ad hoc Target:Hanoi team chooses to concentrate on just doing the 3D and 2D work on the planes and await the day when the core code is updated to include more modern technology. At that point, I'd think progress on that flavor of Targetware would hit afterburner and quickly eclipse this sim in terms of quality!!

 

Note the above will also explain to those who are asking, "Why do you even COME here??" Because SF/Wo* right now, is the best bet out there for the 60s - 80s era, even with the limitations TK has put on it, and even when some of its biggest fans don't care much about realism. The potential actually is there for it to be a bit more accurate than what comes "boxed" in it. So, I watch the community, knowing that they have the ability (if not the will, unfortunately) to upgrade the sim somewhat from "sim-lite" mediocrity. Kind of an insurance policy of sorts... in the meantime, I am also happy to work on WWII stuff at Targetware, as the majority of my interest lies there.

[Wrench 9,847]

Which pits do you (or anyone else) want?

Do you want the texture files for them as well, or just the .3ds?

Do you want them as one piece (will require someone to go into Max and "separate" and "animate" moving parts?

 

If, as you say, you're not well versed in this, I can understand not having the answers these questions. But, if you can find your volunteer who actually is going to do something with the files, have them contact me and we can arrange for a proper file exchange

 

I have just enough knowledge of 3d (basics at least) to get into serious trouble!!! But i still can't BUILD anything! Knowing how something is done dosen't gurantee you do actually do it

 

Complete packages would be great; including textures. I'm sure the 3d gurus will be able to figure out the animations, then build the necessary cockpit inis from that.

 

Wants:

P-26 -- its needed a good pit for YEARS!!!

Both Buffaloes

P-35 - might as well, eh?

 

I'd like to add the Hudson, for Veltro's upcoming version, but I know that'll be a while in arriving. What with all the others he's doing!

The Meteor would be a plus as well.

 

As to sources, FAoTW is good, as are the 2 Monogram books in Japanese aircraft, even the Mushroom series have some pretty good shots. So are the Aero Detail series -- they were a big help to me in creating the templaes and skins for the 190D and 152. For american birds, which are pretty much covered on the more recognizable, Detail & Scale can't be beat. I've a huge collection of these kinds of books on pdf.

 

Upload them here to CA or send them directly to me if you want, and I'll see who I can turn up (over? around?)

 

wrench1smog (at) yahoo (dot) com

 

Wrench

kevin stein

[eraser_tr 29]

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?

 

When exactly, has anyone believed a zero and hellcat were the same except for a paintjob? And having a different plane's pit as a stand-in is not as innaccurate as that. Sorry, it just isn't, especially if the pit is incredibly similar to begin with, Oh, god forbid I use an F-15A pit in an F-15C! And nobody is so careless as to treat a cessna model as a raptor, your examples are absurd and overblown.

 

We've had a very amiable and helpful modding community thats encouraging for new people to start, learn and improve their skills. If you want to observe, fine, but don't ruin the atmosphere here with rivet counting for the sake of putting down other people's work.

[Guest Stiglr]

Ahh, looking hard enough. Obviously people who've spent hours researching the outside of a model didn't think to apply the techniques to the inside, seriously if anyone can find any internal shots of a Blackburn Baffin I could update the cockpit on that so it isn't just what I think it would have looked like.

Cockpits generally are harder to model well, the fact is you're sat in it and everything is much closer so to get a decent experience you end up wanting to get more detail into it, detail which is annoyingly hard to find. I'm finishing up on the cockpit for my Wyvern model (no I don't know why I choose aircraft that have all been broken up either), the pilot's notes are great, but the pictures are too low res to get all the detail out and the only other pictures tend to be of the TF.1 example in the FAA Museum, which is so unlike the production S.4 that you might as well look at another aircraft entirely.

I'm not saying cockpits are irrelevant, I model them which may be one reason my output is so low, but I can see why some people after the struggle of getting the external model done say 'the horror, the horror' when they contemplate going inside. It doesn't make them bad people, possibly just ones with a better sense of what's important in life, i.e. real 3-D people, fresh air, alcohol etc.

What I find interesting is that the sim you support for being far more accurate, in that placeholder or stand in models are anathema to it, is the one played by less people I think a lot of people just don't have the time to invest in learning all the controls to operate something with 100% historical accuracy, after all the original pilots had fairly intensive training courses to go through as their actual jobs, I already have a job so I just don't have the time.

Ultimately Stiglr isn't wrong in a lot of what he says, it would be nice to have accurate cockpits for all the aircraft available, but reality gets in the way and you have to be pragmatic about these things if you aren't going to work yourself into an early grave.

 

A couple of notes here:

 

1) 100% accuracy for pits usually isn't even possible. But, even if in the case of your Wyvern, you just can't get the sources you need, you can get fairly close. Which, really, is all you need to be better than a stand-in. You do the best you can with the sources you CAN get or can find in a visit to a museum... and in that case, if no better sources exist, who's going to "call you" on the inaccuracy of any of the details?

 

As for why Targetware is played by fewer people, well there are many reasons:

 

• It's labeled as beta, and many people won't devote time to something that isn't in commercial release
  
• As you say, some people think they "don't have time" for a more accurate sim
  
• Learning curve turns many off
  
• People are used to easier sims.
  
• Graphics are not Targetware's #1 priority nor its forte in some cases, and this turns some 'eye candy' folks off
  
• People don't understand the "You Build It, You Fly It" ethos of Targetware. They want the benefits without doing any of the work.
  

 

 

As for "how hard it is" to fly Targetware aircraft, this "charge" really makes me laugh. Although you DO have to manage your cowl flaps, your mixture, your RPMs and your prop pitch (in planes without automatic management of these last two), it's not really that hard (a few concepts to learn, a few commands to remember to use, or to program onto your stick and flight gear). But, the flavor this alone adds to flying is incredible. For those who wonder "what do you do" during longer transits, good engine management while you get altitude is one of those things.

 

I've had it happen where I had a long transit, and leaned out my mixture and throttled back to 50% to save fuel (thinking I'm too smart to get caught in a low fuel state by going full rich all the time). Then, I'd spot a foe, clean up the gills, go to full RPMs for the fight and then wonder why my engine soon got hot even though I had the gills open up until contact. USER ERROR: I forgot to go back to rich mixture, and staying on lean is a surefire recipe for a hot engine, unless you're throttled well back. Now, you KNOW this happened to some real pilots, and explains the "why" of how many "never came back" . It also explains how so many pilots got bounced unexpectedly: they may have had their head in their pits, managing their ship and neglected to check six often enough.

 

This is the kind of "rivet counting" that actually adds to the experience for the player. Flying a "crap plane" where nothing is done "for you" and which has less-than-stellar performance even if you DO fly it 'perfectly' gives you more appreciation for the planes that did take the workload off you. You appreciate the engine of the Bf-109E after you fly the early -C or -D version and wrestle with the manual prop pitch!! And then, flying a Focke Wulf is like getting the keys to a new touring sedan!!!! You never get any of that sense of "you are there" flying a 'canned' plane where none of this is ever a factor. You roar around at full throttle from the time you start the engine to the time you RTB or are shot down, and never cast a glance at your engine heat gauge... how immersive is that?

 

Many who come to Targetware from other sims stay just because of that significant difference. Yes, they struggle at first, and they "suck" for a while longer than their ego can bear... but if the persevere, they find that it was worth it. They get a history lesson, they get some fun (as well as frustrating) challenges, and they get a better sim... in my opinion.

 

That offsets the relatively low numbers, for me. I'd rather fly in a Targetware server with 10 fliers than a "dogfight session" in IL-2 with 50 people doing no-energy-bleed turns in the ueberplane-du-jour.

[+hgbn 91]

All I can say. THIS IS A GAME NOT A SIM. it is surpossed to be fun not accuarate. Hey I'm no pilot just a gamer who happens to be mad about aircraft.I dont like Die hard sims. To complicated been there, tried it, dont like it. like it simple accurate or not. I really like this game because you can mod this game to whatever you like. If you got the time time and the skills.

When I did and do something for this game and upload it. I didnt made it for you. I made it for myself but shared it to anybody else. then people can decide for themselves if they want to use my mod or not. everybody has to start somewhere and slashing out is not the the way to encourage people to contiue making mods. it puzzles me that a person who is even not playing this game is full of critic of what been done. Without the mods which all those talented people do, this game wouldnt be the same. accurate or not.

[Guest Stiglr]

Well, a sim fan's motives are completely different than a gamer's motives.

 

Pretty much, you can disregard my opinion as not relevant to you, and I can do the same for your opinions.

 

The comments I'm making about realism and accuracy are not relevant to a "pure game," because realism is not a pre-requisite for a "game". A game can be Nintendo, Space Invaders or Pong. Or World of Warcraft or Quake/Doom.

 

Some semblance of realism and accuracy IS relevant to a sim, because you are attempting to "simulate" some real phenomenon or event.

 

So, for a game, it's perfectly fine for a "Tie Fighter" to look like a A6M3 Zero. Why not, it's just a game. No basis in reality is assumed.

 

For a sim, the bar is higher and the assumptions are different. Even though a simulation can range from arcade to grognard realistic, the experience being generated is supposed to "approximate" something that is or was real. The devil's in the details or lack of same, and determines how faithful (or "hardcore" or "arcade" or "lite" if you want to use those terms) of a simulation it is.

 

SF/Wo* is a good, middle of the road mix of game and sim. It is not purely EITHER, to be honest. But that applies to most sims. None are 100% accurate, nor are most 100% game.

 

Hope that helps you reconcile your approach and understand where I'm coming from.

[Guest Stiglr]

eraser_tr asks:

When exactly, has anyone believed a zero and hellcat were the same except for a paintjob?

 

Good question. When has anyone believed one plane had the cockpit of an entirely different plane? Five seconds ago in this community.

 

That's the gist of my original question you're reacting to. Where is the "line" for accuracy? If you can accept that the pit you're "in" is not even remotely similar to the one the plane really had, and you apply that to the 3D shape, when does the Zero stop being "believable" as a Zero?

 

It's a relevant question. It's true that the Cessna-Raptor comparison is extreme, but it does make sure you don't miss the point. Where is, or what is, this "line"? (Now, don't say "it doesn't matter"; for a sim, yes it DOES matter)

 

I remember a big brouhaha with locked threads and bans happening at SimHQ once long ago when someone posted their work of a Italian G91 jet (I think that was the designation??), but the shapes of the tail and the fuse were very inaccurate. The fireworks started when some people pointed out the inaccuracy of the modeling (er, one of them was NOT me). Now there's a more concrete version of this question. Putting aside any question of the modders effort (it's really not relevant; we all know people do the best they can and that they contribute their time and effort freely; let's move past that)... how "accurate" should that G-91 have been to be a G-91? After you figure that out, just replace the 3D shape with the cockpit and ask the same question.

 

Back to square one... ;)

[+Bongodriver 20]

Back to square one is where this topic will keep going.

 

 

surely the points here are:

 

1. the sim/game is sold as a sim lite, that is exactly what you get, IMHO it understates itself.

 

2. it is modifiable with readily available aftermarket programs, if you have the skills then take this as far as you are able, if you think it's broke then you can fix it.

 

3. this community is a place where people share work and knowledge and ideas, not to force opppinions.

 

4. don't like a mod, don't download it

[MAKO69 186]

Roger that BINGO BANGO BONGO, Bongo hit the nail on the head.

I have said this before, I love all the Modders and their work. I look at the planes and modded planes as works of art. Thats what they are. I have been messing around with some planes myself, extremly fugly stuff flying around my computer I wish I had the skill of any1 of the modders in here.

later be safe all

 

P.S. Spinners love the Brazilian Navy F-18 Superbug keep them coming guys and gals

 

Back to square one is where this topic will keep going.

 

 

surely the points here are:

 

1. the sim/game is sold as a sim lite, that is exactly what you get, IMHO it understates itself.

 

2. it is modifiable with readily available aftermarket programs, if you have the skills then take this as far as you are able, if you think it's broke then you can fix it.

 

3. this community is a place where people share work and knowledge and ideas, not to force opppinions.

 

4. don't like a mod, don't download it

Edited August 14, 2008 by MAKO69

[column5 63]

It is frustrating when you see a low quality model released for a plane that you need/want. But like everything else in life, you have to accept reality and move on. It doesn't do any good to rant about it after the fact. The best thing is to either make a better model yourself, or find a team to work with to do it. Complaining just doesn't contribute to a solution.

[+ravenclaw_007 7,633]

stiglr why dont you get 3ds-max and start making the cockpits , the time you spend with your comments here you could have used to surprise us with a cockpit full of detail or perhaps with a complete and perfect aircraft

 

but all i see from you is criticism and complaining that is not very impressive

[Guest Stiglr]

stiglr why dont you get 3ds-max and start making the cockpits , the time you spend with your comments here you could have used to surprise us with a cockpit full of detail or perhaps with a complete and perfect aircraft

 

but all i see from you is criticism and complaining that is not very impressive

 

That sounds like the kneejerk rant from someone who just takes umbrage at any criticism, and probably thinks his own work would come under similar criticism. I invite you to thicken your skin.

 

In case you're actually following this thread closely, Wrench is already communicating with me to share with you guys the files to do exactly what you're suggesting. I notice you never even acknowledge the fact that I've always offered that option. So now that you know I'm doing MORE than just "complaining", what do you have to say now?

[FastCargo 412]

Alrightly folks, I've seeing some trends developing here...and not pleasant ones.

 

Throttle it back.

 

FastCargo

[MigBuster 2,884]

Stigler - We thank you for your work - it is no doubt of excellence coming from an experienced modeller as yourself. There are teams/groups within the SF community (think Dave already said this) that do strive for much more realism and accuracy as they can get out of the sim - so potentially you could join one of them - or even set up your own subgroup to meet your requirements.

 

You can probably understand why everyone goes on the defensive when you show up - even I remember the Gina thread - harsh Criticism of freeware and people that dont meet your standards only just isnt on - for the many reasons you have been told time and time again.

[geezer205 0]

\No sources, you say? >Nhhhh<, I'm inclined to think, "no real effort to find it".

 

Sorry, there's just no good excuse.

 

FYI, I have been building an aviation technical library since the late 1960s - the required shelves take up most of my den's wall space, and are one of the reasons why packing is such a chore. I have ample info on the P-26's interior from about half-a-dozen publications - such specialist publications are still the best way to obtain data, as internet data can be erratic at best. Note that I specifically said in my post that I had research problems with OBSCURE 1930s aircraft, which the P-26 is not.

 

An example of some stuff that I HAVE been able to track down is a cockpit shot of the export Curtiss A-12 Shrike (20 used by China).

 

However, even Japanese sources are unable to provide data for such aircraft as the nakajima A2N.

Japanese Instrument Panels

 

Your snide remarks have no basis in fact.

[Guest Stiglr]

FYI, I have been building an aviation technical library since the late 1960s - the required shelves take up most of my den's wall space, and are one of the reasons why packing is such a chore. I have ample info on the P-26's interior from about half-a-dozen publications - such specialist publications are still the best way to obtain data, as internet data can be erratic at best. Note that I specifically said in my post that I had research problems with OBSCURE 1930s aircraft, which the P-26 is not.

 

An example of some stuff that I HAVE been able to track down is a cockpit shot of the export Curtiss A-12 Shrike (20 used by China).

 

However, even Japanese sources are unable to provide data for such aircraft as the nakajima A2N.

Japanese Instrument Panels

 

Your snide remarks have no basis in fact.

 

They do have a basis in fact: you CAN find a lot of info on pits for many (not ALL, but many). The fact that you managed to dig up your source proves my point. Some are harder to find than others. Now, going further: are you going to settle for a stand-in pit if you ever model a Shrike? (based on the fact that only 20 ever saw action, if you said "no", there I'd tend to agree with you. If only 20 were ever used somewhere over China, I'd question modeling it at all.) But could some of the other non-obscure planes now existing in exterior form in this sim engine be equipped with realistic, accurate pits? Yes, provided the will exists to create them.

Edited August 14, 2008 by Stiglr

[geezer205 0]

But could some of the other non-obscure planes now existing in exterior form in this sim engine be equipped with realistic, accurate pits. Yes, provided the will exists to create them.

 

And precisely why do you presume to dictate to me how I should spend my precious spare time? You seem to fancy yourself the self-appointed guardian of fidelity? If it is so important to you, why do you not offer to build these cockpits for the benefit of the community?

[+Hinchinbrooke 36]

Seems we've reached the point where this is just keyboard masturbation. Look, Stiglr has his views, has held them for lo these many years, and these discussions just go on ad nauseaum................ without result. He makes some good points about striving for accuracy/fidelity...............but seems unable to accept that others have different priorities. An important aspect of the human condition is to do better next time. The SF world has come a long way through people learning and developing. I'm sure those who abandoned things in the early days would be amazed by today's quality. Onwards and upwards.

[eraser_tr 29]

Nobody believes the plane had a cockpit of an entirely different plane! Most people understand that a real Ki-61 (or whatever plane it was) doesn't have a hurricane's pit, but that the modder used it for the sake of getting the plane into a useable condition so they could play with it.

[Guest Stiglr]

And precisely why do you presume to dictate to me how I should spend my precious spare time? You seem to fancy yourself the self-appointed guardian of fidelity? If it is so important to you, why do you not offer to build these cockpits for the benefit of the community?

 

I don't presume to tell you how to spend your precious spare time. I'm speaking in generalities. That is, any plane released by a modder ought to have it's own pit. Doesn't matter who creates the plane. Me, you, Timmy, Wrench, whomever. Applies equally in my view.

 

As for offering, I have and likely soon will, provide these pits for the benefit of the community, albeit indirectly. As I said, I mod for a different system, and see no need to learn the SF/Wo* system of modding when I don't even spend time flying the planes here. I am offering the pit geometries I have to someone who does have the desire to import them here, and Wrench seems to be taking me up on the offer.

 

FWIW, just hearing Hinch and some others admit I do have some points about the concept of "a pit for every plane" is enough for me. I can also admit there's more than just my way of looking at it. I've never thought otherwise. I'm just posting my view, because I think it's apt and correct. I'm not saying anyone HAS TO agree with me. That's why this is a forum: to air views, to agree and disagree.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Stiglr