Conspicuous by Their Absence - Page 57
Page 57 of 58 FirstFirst ... 74749505152535455565758 LastLast
Results 1,401 to 1,425 of 1443

Thread: Conspicuous by Their Absence

  1. #1401
    Hello Ivan,
    I was looking through the different lozenge textures of some of my old Zeppelins and Gothas, but none coincide with the colours or shapes of the lozenge pattern seen on some Albatros DVa pics. I have one or two regular hexagonal types, an irregular splinter lozenge type, and a distorted splinter lozenge type, none of which fit the irregular pentagon lozenge you probably need.

    However, I could definitely try and adapt the hexagonal Gotha pattern to make it fit - that shouldnīt be too difficult, including the colours.

    Colours is another issue altogether, and there seems to be room for debate. These have had to be deduced from b/w photos of the time, and different plausible options appear to be available. What combinations were they? Was it pink or orange? Grey, yellow or light green? Blue or purple? Dark brown, red or black? To make things worse, colours faded, so what were they like on new planes?

    Anyway, another item on the to-do list!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  2. #1402
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    Thanks, but don't waste your time.
    There is zero chance of a pattern that fits a large bomber actually scaling well to match what is needed on a fighter.
    Also, the rib tape pattern would make it a complete mismatch and the effort to undo the rib tape is probably more effort than it would be to create a lozenge pattern from an image download.

    I actually have good working patterns for Lozenge camouflage.
    It is just a matter of scaling, aligning and then overlaying rib tape and other accessories.
    I also have to decide if I want to use a longitudinal pattern of covering or diagonal. (I am tending toward Longitudinal).
    It isn't particularly difficult, but just quite tedious.

    I also have a few other projects that are also in the paint shop queue but of higher priority.
    In order of likely completion, they are:
    Ki-61-Id
    Spitfire Mk.IXc
    P-38F
    P-38J
    Ju 87B

    Don't worry about specifics, the order of priorities changes on a regular basis.
    The Lightnings are probably quite a bit higher at this point because of the current Gauge Projects.

    With all the videos I have been watching to figure out the instruments on the P-38F and J, I am probably going to need to revise the flight model slightly.
    There are a few inconsistencies that I only picked up by watching the flight instruction over and over again.
    There are also some little bits of weirdness in which my own flight modelling is telling me that some of the performance figures I had seen were a bit optimistic.

    - Ivan.

  3. #1403

    The Albatros

    This screenshot is from years ago but nothing has changed since then.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Albatros D.Va.jpg  

  4. #1404
    Hello Ivan,
    Nice shapes. I notice the how you separated the landing-gear strut roots for different grouping, and the engine details are also very interesting!
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  5. #1405

    FS98 Lockheed Electra Model 10

    Hello Folks,
    I was looking for an old FS98 Model 10 Electra, as a platform to try out how Ivanīs new 2-pitch propellers would work on a twin-engined aircraft, but could only find a FS5 model of the plane on SimAviation, although it does have a very impressive panel and gauges, and some very nice metallic textures.

    The model is actually more than enough as a platform to produce a CFS1 .air file with the new propellers. Building a new model of the Lockheed 10 Electra is incidentally on my to-do list, which may be interesting for some people in this forum.

    As I know Flightsim.com has a newer version of this plane, I tried to look there, but access is blocked because of some missing RC4 security prococol and/or SSL encryptation. I donīt know if it is my version of WinXP/Google Chrome that is at fault, or if it is Flightsimīs Site security which is no longer good enough for Google Chrome.

    Would anyone perhaps have any information on this?
    Thanks in advance,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  6. #1406

    Conspicuous by Their Absence - Or Not

    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    I believe the aeroplane you are looking for can also be found here.

    https://simviation.com/1/download?fi...ip&fileId=5247

    I know I have had a version of it for years, but it isn't this version.
    The fellow who uploaded this particular version has a tendency to repaint EVERYTHING in Chilean Air Force markings and I figured I would look for it in that manner this morning on the chance that he got to the Lockheed Electra also.... Which he did of course.

    I notice that this thread is getting to be pretty much an Off Topic collection or a general announcement for yet another project.
    Originally the intent was to address the very prominent or famous WW2 aeroplanes that had somehow been neglected or never had a good version built thus

    Conspicuous because it stands out
    and Absence because it doesn't exist.... yet.

    About half of my own projects are because I really want to own one or figure I can do much better than what is currently out in the wild, so mine don't often qualify for the topic either. I really can't think of even one project that I have ever done that really fit into well into the topic of this thread!

    - Ivan.

  7. #1407
    Hello Ivan,
    Well... There were a few Electra 10A versions flying around as WW2 couriers with military markings in a few countries apart from the US, Spain and Turkey for example, if Iīm not mistaken. There are a few colour schemes available!

    So, if one were to be stricter, and comply a bit more closely with the title of this thread, one could of course texture the model accordingly! How about the US and the Spanish Electra?

    It is difficult to define the line that exactly separates the topic of a thread from what is off topic. Subjects related to the topic in some way would qualify though, and there is not much point in creating a short separate thread for short-lived sub-subjects, Iīd say. Also, it is hard to decide where or how else to make an announcement, or an inquiry as to the convenience of buidling a certain new or upgraded model.

    The link to the LAN Chile Electra you have so kindly supplied, contains the same FS5 model that I found with different textures. I remember being contacted by the person who released this version some years ago, and I know what you mean. There is a program that allows polygons to be re-coloured and even re-textured, (i.e. "hacked") that works for models made with AF5, (fortunately not with AF99). Textures used elsewhere can by put on other parts (i.e. "botched"). He sent me some AFX of a biplane, to alter the nose from an in-line engine housing to a radial one, as the Chilean Air Force had had a few of these. I started working on the model with AF99, but it was so complicated because several other proportions were all wrong, that I resigned after the first test, and prohibited any release of the unsatisfactory modified model - which he ignored and proceeded to do anyway!

    I know there is a better Electra 10 too, whose model is ugraded for FS98 with 3D fins and tailplane, (probably also with rounder fuselage, wheels and engine nacelles) at Flightsim.com., but I canīt get at it because of the access-protocol difficulties that appeared a few months ago.

    Itīs not important anyway, so it doesnīt matter, because with any luck and with Smiloīs help, a nice AD2K model will most probably come out. At the moment we have the mid-fuselage and the inner wings ready!

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  8. #1408
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    I am not the authority as to what qualifies and what does not as far as WW2 combatants.
    We can be pretty certain that the Albatros D.Va I described a couple posts ago does NOT qualify.

    As far as I see it though, the Lockheed Model 10A was pretty obsolete by the time of WW2 and so far, most of the countries you mentioned were not even "involved" in WW2. As for Lockheed Model 10 aircraft flying in the United States, do you believe that they would still be the model 10A using a two pitch propeller? I really don't know.

    You don't need a justification for building a particular model. If you like it, build it.

    If you really need to have a WW2 combat aircraft that had a two pitch propeller, there are a few:
    The early Spitfires and Hurricanes come to mind.
    I believe the Nakajima Ki-43-I Hayabusa is another and it actually served in active combat for quite a while.
    The Japanese tended to have lots of very primitive types in active service during the war.

    If we are discussing all the combat theaters of WW2, I believe many Japanese types fall into the "Conspicuous by Their Absence" category which is one of the reasons why so many are on my build list.

    The Dornier 17Z that you finished recently easily fell into that category.
    The RAF Halifax and Stirling were also very prominent designs that have never gotten decent treatment.
    The Russian Yakovlev fighters were important aircraft that have not been treated well.

    About to lose Internet connection.

    - Ivan.

  9. #1409
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,586
    am having difficulty seeing the point
    of this critique of a thread
    that has gone off on many tangents
    over the many years of it's existence.

    with the limited audience here,
    one can't help but think, so what?
    imho, brainstorming is what we do
    and, eventually, we always return
    to the main topic of the thread.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  10. #1410

    The Witchīs Cauldron

    Hello Ivan, Hello Smilo,
    Yes, I see... Hmmm...
    I had run out of ideas about what to build some time ago, after the CFS1 upgrades some of my FS98 Great War bombers and early "fighter-bombers" (i.e. hand-pistol shooters and hand-grenade-droppers), so I picked up on a few suggestions for the last few Iīve made. Probably only two of all these strictly fit into the category of this thread - i.e. the Martin Baltimore and the Dornier Schnellbomber. The projects started off here and soon got their own threads.

    Then there were other more distant "relatives": E.g. the more modern 4-turboprop engined P3 Orion I built after Ivanīs "nudge", that it would be more interesting than the cumbersome Tupolev 95 Bear I had inquired about the convenience of building. The Orion turned out to be a very interesting study involving different ways of making interesting kinds of shapes.

    Furthermore, there was the recent CFS upgrade of the 4-engined Fw200-A Condor, the idea of which came about with the object of putting Ivanīs new 4-engine RPM and Boost gauges and the lovely old 2-pitch propeller into an immediate-as-possible use. A very successful experiment at that, to say the least!

    Now, the present Electra Model 10 Project has a 2-fold reason behind its origin: Firstly, Smiloīs suggestion for an AD2K Electra L10 model after the AD2k tutorials I did as a result of some comments about why Smilo doesnīt provide some AD2K tutorials... and I jumped in at the deep end because I always like trying something new! Secondly, I was curious about trying Ivanīs new 2-pitch propeller on a different engine. I canīt stop my itching fingers, even if Ivan is sometimes aghast at my lack of total-understanding behind several issues... My depth of insight is not half of what Ivanīs capacity is, Iīm afraid!

    One of the things I often do is ask for suggestions on different things, and Ivan has come up with a brilliant one just now: The Short Stirling - Drool! - a very robust, and outrageously manoueverable large early bomber work-horse, (Lancasters would lose their tails if flown like that), which saved many lives due to the strength of its structure, and of which sadly none were kept for museums. There are some totally hair-rairsing pilotīs reports like one of a bombing run on a port, involving an un-intentional barrel-roll over a ship, thus avoiding its anti-aircraft fire, and subsequent escape after dipping a wingtip into the North Sea, and others about the Stirlingīs capacity for cork-screw dives to escape from Bf109īs. So... Fantastic! The Short Stirling will be the next project! (AD2k or AF99...? Hmmm...)

    After starting a discussion about a certain model in the "Conspicuous" thread, almost all of the models I have mentioned have ended up having their own thread. Where else could one try and bounce off ideas about what to do?

    Iīd say that the spirit and reason for existence of this thread is still very much alive and useful, if not vital, i.e. "interesting things to build because they arenīt really available for CFS1 yet."

    So, this thread is like a Witchīs Cauldron, where many things start off, and a good place to drool about the Short Stirling, for example. Itīs a huge champion-length gargantuan thread anyway...!!

    All in good fun,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  11. #1411
    Quote Originally Posted by smilo View Post
    am having difficulty seeing the point
    of this critique of a thread
    that has gone off on many tangents
    over the many years of it's existence.

    with the limited audience here,
    one can't help but think, so what?
    imho, brainstorming is what we do
    and, eventually, we always return
    to the main topic of the thread.
    Hello Smilo,

    Your description of how this thread has gone off topic so many different ways is EXACTLY the reason for the critique.
    There tends to be a very very high ratio of noise to signal and it means that although there is a large amount of good information in this thread, it is nearly impossible to find anything quickly.

    Brainstorming is fine. It just should not add up as clutter going off in so many directions.
    If it is a worthy new subject then make it a new subject that folks can figure out from the subject what the topic REALLY is.
    You might have noticed that I have been resurrecting quite a few old threads lately.
    That is because I believe it is better to keep a bit of continuity in a topic rather than either starting a new topic or dropping it into a general purpose bin.
    At least then, if someone comes along a few years later at least there is a single collection of messages instead of a few posts in one thread and another two or three threads that were all current at the time but can no longer be followed once they are not listed together.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleatorylamp
    After starting a discussion about a certain model in the "Conspicuous" thread, almost all of the models I have mentioned have ended up having their own thread. Where else could one try and bounce off ideas about what to do?

    Iīd say that the spirit and reason for existence of this thread is still very much alive and useful, if not vital, i.e. "interesting things to build because they arenīt really available for CFS1 yet."

    So, this thread is like a Witchīs Cauldron, where many things start off, and a good place to drool about the Short Stirling, for example. Itīs a huge champion-length gargantuan thread anyway...!!


    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    Your view is certainly more general than mine which probably explains why you keep bringing up all those atrocious jets and turboprops.
    I have always had an attraction to the WW2 era especially because it was the time when the good old-fashioned piston engine reached its peak of development.
    Originally, my idea was to discuss the "important" Ww2 aircraft that were still not built but this thread has seriously degenerated from that idea and I am as guilty of the off topic posts as anyone else.

    Gargantuan length certainly describes the Stirling very well. Have you ever seen a comparison of the fuselage dimensions of the Stirling and other comparable types?

    - Ivan.

  12. #1412
    Hello Ivan, Hello Smilo,
    So... it would occur to me that the only solution would be to separate this thread into sections depending on the topic, and move them to different new threads. But the million dollar question is who we can land this job on?
    The parts on my horrible jets and Eeeek! turboprops, could of course be scrapped - ha ha!

    Anyway, because the Stirling is Conspicuous Because of its Absence, this post is ON topic, and here is a diagram comparing its impressive length to others. The shape is rather appealing too, Iīd say... and just look at that tailfin!

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Stirling comparison.jpg  
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  13. #1413
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,586
    in response to the first part
    of your reply, i'd say,
    not bloody likely.
    another solution could be,
    not to worry about it
    and just let it go...it is what it is.

    as for the second part,
    if you want to talk about
    a jet or turbo prop....talk about it.
    if you want to build one,
    build one.
    it's not like this forum
    is overflowing with participants
    that really care anyway.
    as i see it,
    "conspicuous..." is nothing more
    than an ongoing conversation.

    about the stirling/halifax/lanc diagram,
    that's very cool, Stephan.
    i must admit, all three could be
    interesting ad2k projects
    and would, subsequently,
    each, deserve their own thread.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  14. #1414
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    The Stirling is most certainly on topic.
    Just reading and comparing the numbers don't give quite the same impression as a comparison of the profiles.
    Now if you want to see something else interesting, please note that the monster sized carcass also has the tiniest wings of the bunch.


    Hello Smilo,

    Unfortunately, I believe you are correct in your assertions about this forum which is sad.
    I guess trying to keep this place even slightly organized doesn't really make sense any more.


    Take Care.
    - Ivan.

  15. #1415
    SOH Staff
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    State of Confusion..... -8GMT
    Posts
    3,586
    it is becoming abundantly clear
    that you are dissatisfied
    with the free flow of this forum.
    yes, it is true, while i do have
    moderator and administration tools,
    i don't walk around
    with a dust cloth and broom in hand.
    but, i do try to help when i can.

    as far as i'm concerned,
    this is an open forum,
    with as few rules as possible.
    it's my job to let folks know
    when the rules are breached.
    it's up to them to back off
    or face the consequences.

    if that isn't good enough for you,
    might i suggest taking your complaint
    to the senior admins.
    who knows, just maybe,
    they will make you the moderator
    and you can tidy up the place
    to your heart's content.
    sometimes the magic works.
    sometimes it doesn't.

  16. #1416
    Hello Ivan, hello Smilo,
    Iīd actually agree with both of you... and thereīs nothing much to be done about it anyway!
    An ongoing conversation is also nice... so we can enjoy it notwithstanding.

    I was looking for the second part of the diagram the Stirlingīs length comparison came from, and I found it.

    This part compares the wings. Yes! A picture is better than numbers for this, so hereīs another picture!

    As regards the Stirlingīs wingspan, I woudnīt call 99 ft exactly "tiny". One would have expected a different proportion judging by the length. Span was a bit shorter than that of the Lancaster and the Halifax, but wing area was greater: 160 sq ft and 260 sq ft respectively.

    I believe the wingspan was limited to 100 ft by specification because of the width of hangar doors at the time, even though this was really 126 ft. However, thanks of this, the Stirling had an impressive manoueverability, which many pilots liked - at the cost of some altitude under full load, I gather.

    P.S. Did you know that it is one of the very few aircraft that had double tail wheels?

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Stirling wing comparison.jpg  
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  17. #1417

    Short Stirling

    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    Yes, I knew about the double tail wheels.
    My impression was that there was more of a difference between the wingspans than that but perhaps I got distracted by the huge fuselage and tail also.
    Do you happen to know if the Stirling was stressed for higher G Loads than the other bombers if it could handle rough maneuvering while the others could not?

    I actually had done more poking around with the Halifax than with the Stirling. I just could not decide which version to build though I was tending more toward the later version that did not have a turret in the nose and with different shaped tail fins.


    Hello Smilo,

    As I see it, it doesn't really matter how I see it.
    I find it rather annoying that even when I KNOW what I am looking for, I often have trouble finding it because the information may not be where one would expect.
    Does it really matter?
    Probably not because I am probably the only one left who is really looking for information from earlier discussions in old threads.

    - Ivan.

  18. #1418

    Short Stirling

    Hello Ivan,
    I donīt know about the stressed fuselage, but from the information what Iīve been able to collect in a short time, it appears that the Stirling was the only bomber of the time that was specifically designed as a four-engined aircraft. It seems that the Avro Lancaster was an extension on the original twin-engined Avro Manchester design, and that the Handley Page Halifax was also initially designed as a twin, but was then produced with 4 engines.This could perhaps account for the increased robustness of the Stirling.

    Apparently, the Stirling design was based on the Shorts Sunderland S-25 4-engined flying boat, without the lower boat part on the fuselage, and with a shorter wingspan due to Air Ministry specifications - this made for a lower ceiling, but it was the fastest of the three at lower altitudes. Its 14000 lb bombload and also its range seem to have been the greatest at the time.

    Because of the specification for lift-off from 500 ft runways, wing angle of incidence had to be increased, but they wanted to avoid a nose-down attitude at level high-speed flight, so they had to increase the length of the landing gear to get a better attitude for take-off. This in turn led to mishaps on the ground and the undercarriage was re-inforced, and in general made take-off and landings rather challenging on this aircraft.

    Iīll see if I can find any more interesting information.
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp.
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  19. #1419
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleatorylamp
    Because of the specification for lift-off from 500 ft runways, wing angle of incidence had to be increased, but they wanted to avoid a nose-down attitude at level high-speed flight, so they had to increase the length of the landing gear to get a better attitude for take-off. This in turn led to mishaps on the ground and the undercarriage was re-inforced, and in general made take-off and landings rather challenging on this aircraft.
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    Can you tell me where you found this information about the Short Stirling?
    The information and reasoning from this passage are a bit odd.

    Thanks.
    - Ivan.

  20. #1420
    Hello Ivan,
    Apparently another factor that led to the high undercarriage was the fuselage length that made the angle of incidence for take-off too shallow.

    Wikipedia mentions the following:

    The Air Ministry issued Shorts with an order for a pair of S.29 prototypes. However, prior to this, Shorts had decided to undertake a successful practice which had been performed with the earlier Empire flying boat in producing a half scale version of the aircraft, known as the S.31 to prove the aerodynamic characteristics of the design.[3] The S.31, which was largely composed of wood, was powered by an arrangement of four Pobjoy Niagara engines and featured a retractable undercarriage, operable bomb bay doors, and other measures to realistically represent the larger production aircraft. It was constructed at Short's Rochester facility.[12]
    There was one notable criticism amongst the feedback from pilots, being that the length of the take off run was considered to be excessive and that improvements would be desirable. Fixing this required that the angle of the wing to be increased for take off; however, if the wing itself was modified, the aircraft would fly with a nose-down attitude while cruising (as in the Armstrong Whitworth Whitley); making this change was also complicated by the fact that work on the production line had already reached an advanced stage. Thus, Shorts lengthened the undercarriage struts to tilt the nose up on take-off, leading to its spindly gear which in turn contributed to many take off and landing accidents. The S.31 also received the lengthened undercarriage in order to test this; subsequent trials found that there was no need for further modification in this respect.

    Prior to this information, a bit earlier on, a few paragraphs above, it talks about the excessively harsh specifications for the bomber, amongst which the 500 ft take-off run was prescribed:

    The British Air Ministry published Specification B.12/36, which called for a high-speed, long-range four-engined strategic bomber aircraft, that would be capable of being designed and constructed at speed. Amongst the several requirements specified, the bomb load was to be a maximum of 14,000 lb (6,350 kg) carried to a range of 2,000 miles (3218 km) or a lesser payload of 8,000 lb (3,629 kg) to 3,000 miles (4,800 km) (incredibly demanding for the era). It was to have a crew of six and was to have a normal all-up weight of 48,000lb, while a maximum overload weight of 65,000lb was also envisioned. The aircraft would have to be capable of cruising at speeds of 230 mph or greater while flying at 15,000 ft (4,600 m), while possessing three individual gun turrets (located in nose, amidships and rear positions) for self-defence
    Additionally, the prospective aircraft should also be able to be used as a troop transport for 24 soldiers, and be able to use catapult assistance for take off. The concept was that the aircraft would fly troops to far corners of the British Empire and then support them with bombing. To help with this task as well as ease production, it needed to be able to be broken down into parts, for transport by train. Since it could be operating from limited "back country" airfields, it needed to lift off from a 500 ft (150 m) runway and be able to clear 50 ft (15 m) trees at the end, a specification most small aircraft would have a problem with today. Aviation author Geoffrey Norris observed that the stringent requirements given in the specification for the prospective aircraft to be able to make use of existing infrastructure, specifically the specified maximum wingspan of 100 feet, negatively impacted the Stirling's performance, such as its relatively low altitude ceiling and its inability to carry anything larger than 500lb bombs.

    I suppose anything in Wikipedia has to be taken with a pinch of salt, but other pages also give this information...
    At least they recognize that the 500 ft take.off run and the 100 ft span limitation was rather unfair.
    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp


    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  21. #1421
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    This is a seriously goofy set of specifications.
    My impression is that at the time, both Italy and England were designing weapons to subdue the primitive native populations rather than fight a war against a modern enemy.
    The Vickers Wellesley was another such aeroplane.
    Just about any aeroplane will do when the enemy's most high tech "vehicle" is a horse or camel.

    - Ivan.

  22. #1422
    Hello Ivan,
    It must have been a lot of the specs that sounded goofy.
    Possibly, after the experience of the Great War, governments of nations were relying too much on data from that time, and did not have enough practical futuristic vision to foresee their needs, and what the technological advances of the time could do for them.

    Initially they all had some material from the between wars period, and manufacturers were only able to develop more modern stuff quite a few years into WW2, when authorities started realizing what was really necessary.

    The Wellesley looks more like a powered glider than a fighter-bomber, and probably had many virtues that were not needed by a warplane, other than its range.

    Sounds a bit like the evolution of simlulator-aircraft building programmes. Initially, they had many shortcomings which were not so apparent at the time due to the slow computers. Nowadays, they have evolved so much that you can create virtually anything and everything, but the learning curve is so high that they require a lengthy course to be used!

    Cheers,
    Aleatorylamp
    "Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

  23. #1423
    Hello Aleatorylamp,

    I believe there were quite a few pre-war designs that were quite viable through a good portion of the war.
    Just about every nation that actually built aircraft had a few good designs that were not out of place when the war started.
    The Spitfire, Corsair, A6M, Yakovlev fighters, were all pre-war designs. I am sure you can think of a lot more.

    Regarding development tools, I believe the biggest issue is that the most popular tool was basically just a quick and dirty effort to push a product out the door with the hope that wanabe developers who had nothing else would be desperate enough to by something mediocre before seeing the limitations.

    Just because a tool has a lot of capability and features does not necessarily mean it is difficult to use.
    Consider how different the current MS Windows Operating Systems (much as I dislike them) are when compared to some of the older stuff like CP/M. Yes, I am old enough to have used CP/M and even used it professionally.

    On a slightly related note:
    About three days ago, I finally set up a Java development environment on my laptop to where my Son was running into problems debugging his programs.
    The really funny thing about this setup is that I chose to do it with a separate editor and command line compiles rather than with an IDE. I do the same thing with C Compilers, so it must mean I am really old fashioned.
    As a contrast, when my Son had finally gotten his programs to run and needed to check the output, I suggested that he do it with FC from the command prompt. He could not figure out how to start the command prompt because he never uses it and I have it on my Task Bar and have multiple shortcuts because I use it so often.....

    - Ivan.

  24. #1424

    Kawasaki Ki 61-Id Hien

    I wonder if the Ki 61 Hien or "Flying Swallow" fits into the category of "Conspicuous by Their Absence"?

    The Army Type 3 Fighter was produced in fairly large numbers (for a Japanese aircraft) and had a very prominent role in Japanese Army service.
    There already are several versions available for Combat Flight Simulator, so it is not truly absent, but my belief was that it had never quite gotten the treatment that an aeroplane with such beautiful lines deserved.

    When I first thought of picking this as a design subject, I was somewhat reluctant because my perception was that this was fairly mediocre aircraft regardless of its fine lines and never really excelled in combat. It served because it was the best that the Japanese Army had at the time.
    This was a very similar conclusion when looking at the P-40E Warhawk and to date, the P-40E project has led to more related offspring than I ever expected.

    Here are a few screenshots of other Ki 61 designs that I have encountered for Combat Flight Simulator. If there are others that you know of please let me know. Each of them seems to be missing a few features that I would expect out of a full featured CFS project.... But do the missing features make the type "absent"?

    Note that the BR version is really just a repaint with a different flight model but the whole package is nice enough that I keep it as a flyable selection.

    - Ivan.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Ki-Gold.jpg   Ki-BR.jpg   Ki-Unknown.jpg   Ki-ST.jpg   Ki-Ivan.jpg  

  25. #1425

    Short Stirling

    It turns out that I have actually had a Short Stirling installed on my Game computer for quite some time.
    (Quite some time because I don't remember installing it.)
    It isn't a particularly nice model so there is definitely room for improvement.
    There also appears to be something odd going on with the engine face on Engine 1; Note the strange colour compared to the others.

    I believe it also has a FS98 flight model:
    All the engines start at once and the starter switch can be used to shut them all down.

    ....So there is room for improvement for the flight model as well.

    - Ivan the Forgetful.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Stirling-MkIV.jpg  

Similar Threads

  1. Apologies for the absence!
    By crashaz in forum FSX General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 16th, 2010, 20:15
  2. Apologize for the absence gents!
    By crashaz in forum Landscapers & Architects
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 16th, 2010, 15:46
  3. speaking of conspicuous absence...
    By smilo in forum CFS1 General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 10th, 2010, 11:59
  4. Excuse my absence...
    By Tango_Romeo in forum CFS2 General Discussion
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: December 17th, 2008, 15:33

Members who have read this thread: 96

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •