ndicki

CFS3 certainly does win on the accuracy of the flight dynamics - not the stock stuff, most of which goes straight into the dustbin - but the add-ons. We've recently finished a toatl overhaul of the stock Bf109g-6 and g-10 to produce pretty well all variants of the G and K series, and that includes a number of different engine and boost combinations. A LOT of very detailled work... Doctor Quest, there really are not that many aircraft from IL-2, what-ifs aside, that don't exist for CFS3... And there are far, far more that do exist in CFS3.

Hi Jeff, Start with the politically incorrect - what CA is to SF1/2, Sim Outhouse is to CFS. That's where the knowledge and the downloads are. Anyway - have you patched to 3.1a? If not, you need to get them, but as the official MS site has closed... Send me a PM with your email address and I'll mail you them tomorrow. Don't install a single mod or addon until you've patched and installed the mission builder. Found this - may be worth trying: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3867947 Then you need to download MAW - that's the Mediterranean Air War addon. It creates a whole new scenario with lots of aircraft, etc, etc. All vastly better than the original stuff. http://www.mrjmaint.com/MAW1.31/ Next comes ETO and PTO - again, a similar idea. ETO reworks the North-West Europe area completely, and PTO adds the Pacific Theatre. CFS3 is unlike CFS2 in that the 'world' does not exist, and the theatres are separate, not connected. SimOuthouse seems to be down at the moment, but when it's up again - certainly not long - come and see in the CFS3 forum, and we'll give you all the help and advice you need. ETO and PTO downloads here: http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?/files/category/10-eto-pto-sim-outhouse/ Just to keep your interest up, I've been working on these: Just to give you a bit of an idea!

The only BEIF MkIIc I have is LR792 K of 834 NAS, on HMS Battler in June 1944. It's standard temperate sea scheme with black spinner, 16 inch Oxford and Cambridge roundels and 24 x 21 inch tailflash and a single code letter, a red K outlined in white. No white bars or any other recognition features. Another one based in Ceylon is LR755 of 834 NAS in March 1944, which is in the temperate sea scheme with white spinner, 16 inch white and Oxford blue roundels and 24 x 21 inch tail flash, and no further markings at all. Not much to go on, is it!

Oh dear. I was hoping nobody would get that far. Typical FAA and BPF markings in 1945 used a single letter to indicate the carrier, twin letters to indicate a shore base, plus a three digit number to indicate the aircraft. BPF carriers I know are: D5: HMS Hunter N: HMS Implacable P: HMS Victorious Q: HMS Vengeance S: HMS Indefatigable T: HMS Theseus W: HMS Indomitable X: HMS Formidable Y: HMS Glory During Op. TORCH, HMS Formidable's Seafires (885 NAS) carried 06-? where / represents the individual letter. The codes were often carried as 0-6? on the starboard side of the aircraft. 888 NAS Martlets, also on HMS Formidable, carried 07-?. You'll find a few more codes at the bottom of this, but to be honest, you need to find pictorial references since the style of code did change at least twice, and not every carrier seems to have changed over at the same time. http://www.k5083.mistral.co.uk/SQ_CODES.HTM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet#Fleet_Air_Arm_Squadrons After that, you're on your own...

Does this help? Bear in mind it's a G-5, not an F-2 or F-4, so some details are incorrect. I've marked the important ones on the photos. Incidentally, if you look at the third photo, you can see the very angular, straight shape of the canopy, as mentioned.

Deep means it extends down too far. Actually, I'm not sure that is actually the problem - I wonder if the cross-section of the lower cowling is accurate. It looks too oval, whereas it is wider and flatter on the bottom. Bear in mind that the DB601 is an inverted Vee engine... That said, I'm with 33LIMA on the other points. The tailfin also needs to be smoothed into the upper fuselage forward of the rudder, instead of having a visible 'step' - if yoy do this, the rudder will automatically take the right shape. Let me try and take a few photos...

Some good drawings here, under "Drawings" then "Bf109F" http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/drawings/f2/f2_right.jpg for example!

That's starting to look the part! If I have to find something to criticize, let's say that the kink in the fuselage spine should be a gentle curve, and that it strikes me that the oil cooler is too deep for an F-series. Is the fuselage marginally too deep? Difficult to tell... In any case, just as it stands, it's a far more credible rendition than anything else we have - BRAVO!

Looking more promising there... Kevin, the K-series is effectively indistinguishable (except for details such as hatches, which can be painted on) from the G-10 and G-14AS. There ARE little things, such as barely perceptible bulges on the underside of the cowling forward of the exhaust stacks, and slightly different panel lines as a result, but again, all that takes is paint and shading. I used the CFS3 stock G-10 to cover all marks from G-6AS through to K-4, and it does actually work. I can't remember which I did with Monty's S-99, but there are still a number lying round on my hard drive anyway. I'll have to take a look... Equally, if you want a decent E-series, I'd beg Monty for his B/C-series source. All it needs is the engine cowling, airscrew, spinner and exhausts modifying. The airframe from the cockpit back is unchanged apart from oil coolers under the wings.

Not one of my skins, in any case. The shape of the S-99 is only superficially similar to the F-series, at best; the silhouette might do at a considerable distance, but that's as near as it gets. The S-99/G-14AS has the wide cowling which means that while the breech bulges of the G-5/6/14A are not visible, they're not visible because the cowling has been widened. That makes the nose shape completely incorrect when viewed from above. As mentioned, the tailwheel retracted on the F-series, not on the G or K-series. Further, the oil cooler below the nose is much deeper. Finally, all F-series aircraft had the standard tail and early-pattern canopy hood. None were fitted with the third type of canopy ('Erla-Haube') or tall tail, for the simple reason that they were not compatible. The F-series canopy hood was different from that of the early G-series, and lacked the central vertical strut, for a start. The wings also present some differences, in that F-series aircraft did not have any bulges on the uppersurfaces. I'd suggest asking Monty for the source file and going from there, because this won't go, at least in my humble opinion...

Reasonable assumption, both for 'body' effects and prop variables - and there, I really AM in the dark. The only person I know who appeared to really master the flight dynamics system used in SF2 was GregoryP - and he's left flightsimming as far as I can tell. I was at about 7,000 feet - and the figures I found for the MkXIV stated 390 kts at 7,000 feet. So I'm still about 50 or 60 kts shy of claimed performance. Or at least, if the figures I found were accurate, because of course I can't find them again!

I was looking at the first two figures 15(00) ! Looks as though it's absolutely spot-on then. Still pretty unresponsive though... Does this suggest that in fact, TW's prop dynamics are out, in that even when you feed in the correct data, the wrong performance comes out? It wouldn't be the first time I've seen that in a sim. The main thing is to achieve correct performance and handling, regardless of the data used to get there...

Well, I've tried again and got to 300kts, which is better, but still... I'm on IAS, but with no wind... Anyway, I'll try your TAS mod and see. Not sure how the power ratings work - SLPowerDry=1517499.5 means very little to me! If it's BHP, it's too low.

I've been trying to catch a bomb-laden Spitfire MkIX with an F.22. I failed. It wouldn't go above about 250kts regardless of what I did, and given that it has a two-stage Griffon knocking out 2,000 horsesworth through a 5-blade airscrew, something is very wrong indeed. I've noticed that while using GregoryP's AvHistory FMs for the S-99/Bf109g-10, the power available is far greater than the standard TW versions, and I suspect that it's the same thing here. Flat out, an F.22 should be capable of nearly 400kts... Does anybody else have this? And if so, what can be done about it?

You should worry. The units you have stood down alone surpass the size of the Royal Air Force. Gen Peter Wall has warned our politicians that British Forces cannot continue to reduce their size without losing their ability to do the job. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10119637/Army-chief-we-wont-win-wars-if-we-are-cut-again.html We've always had the approach that a small, better trained and better equipped force will beat a larger, less well trained and equipped one - ask Napoleon - but we cannot rely on that if our forces drop below a minimum level. And this insistence on filling the gaps with Territorials simply will not work - I was one, so I should know. A territorial lorry driver who is a lorry driver in civvy street, fine, but it won't go for combat troops... The problem is that the moment the Nasties get the idea that the Forces of the Free World - ie, the Spams and the British Commonwealth - can no longer oppose them effectively, we may find that we have to. Of course, our gallant leaders don't read history...

I'd like to say a HUGE THANK YOU to all those who reorganised the SF2 downloads section. It is so much easier to find one's way around now, and much more user-friendly.

Slartibartfast is right - in other sims such as CFS2 or 3, all types of Spitfire turn far more gracefully than their rivals, losing less speed while still being able to turn more tightly. In any case, the S-99/Bf109g-14AS was known for wallowing a bit and the S-199 was a pig to fly. Even the Mustang was a mediocre dogfighter compared to the Spitfire - although it won on other considerations such as range and load. That said, I'm not going to stick my neck out and say these FMs are actually accurate...

This one needs a lot more work yet: This one, on the other hand, has just gone in for upload: