In case you guys missed it.....RCS B-25 for FSX is out

**Bruce Thompson** · February 3rd, 2009, 09:22

Don' be so bloody picky, it's free and if you can do better then lets see e'm.

***Txmmy83*** · February 3rd, 2009, 09:26

is there a paintkit for that B-25 Mitchell anywhere ?

BR
Tom

**Lateral-G** · February 3rd, 2009, 09:45

Originally Posted by IanP

As a supposed representation of a real aircraft, it's utter hogwash.

Can you elaborate?

-G-

**IanP** · February 3rd, 2009, 09:53

Originally Posted by Bruce Thompson

Don' be so bloody picky, it's free and if you can do better then lets see e'm.

All I did was answer the question. I'm just not as blas<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cianp%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoht ml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style>  </style>é with other people's property as Mr. Chaffin evidently is, I guess.

Just out of interest, if someone released another design group's (payware) model for free, then I assume you'd say anyone who didn't use that was "picky" as well?

Edit:

Originally Posted by Lateral-G

Can you elaborate?

-G-

Two good examples:

1) As I have already mentioned on this thread, the pintle mounted gun was never fitted at the same time as the two guns fitted alongside the bombardier's position - the reason being that no Norden bombsite = nose gun, Norden bombsight = two side guns. You'd hit the (very delicate and expensive) Norden with the pintle mounted gun in the rig presented here, which would be a "bad thing".

2) Find a panel that has that configuration anywhere on an existing or wartime B-25. It doesn't exist!

At least they finally removed the (non standard - only on the MAAM aircraft) eyebrow lights from the gauges at last, by the look of it. That took long enough.

**Bruce Thompson** · February 3rd, 2009, 10:10

Had I known the history of what you are saying Ian, then I might have worded things a little better.

Maybe you should take it up with them in person, we all hate Pirates, but I don't think you should knock a another mans work unless you know the full facts of the matter.

This is the Best Site for us Simmers, but there are times when it seems to be nothing more than a Forum for pulling things apart rather than trying to encourage people to do better.

Now I am going back to fly the B25 and enjoy it, for what it is, a nice model.

**Lateral-G** · February 3rd, 2009, 10:19

Originally Posted by IanP

Two good examples:

1) As I have already mentioned on this thread, the pintle mounted gun was never fitted at the same time as the two guns fitted alongside the bombardier's position - the reason being that no Norden bombsite = nose gun, Norden bombsight = two side guns. You'd hit the (very delicate and expensive) Norden with the pintle mounted gun in the rig presented here, which would be a "bad thing".

I guess these are incorrect as well:

(not trying to start a flame war but just doing a quick search on google for B-25J pics)

-G-

**JT8D-9A** · February 3rd, 2009, 10:33

I don't know the whole story and i'm not a B-25 expert.
This aircraft has been built from stolen parts of the MAAM B-25?

**IanP** · February 3rd, 2009, 10:38

Those aircraft also have the post-war collector rings on the rear of the engines (done for noise reduction) so they're not as good reproductions as they could be, no.

So it's not historically accurate. Neither are most warbirds flying today, for a large number of reasons (even if it's just that they have a GPS fitted so you can find the airshows...

) - the only reason I brought it up is because we were told when RCS first released the model that it was based on a real aircraft. It couldn't have been, unfortunately, because no aircraft were made like that. Those aircraft would not have had pintle nose guns and the Norden at the same time in combat - or they wouldn't have a Norden for long!

It's entirely up to you whether you use it or not. I have no say in the matter.

Nils: Yes, originally, but it has been significantly modified since then. If you're interested in the history, I can send you links to the detail, but other than that, seriously water under the bridge.

**dharris** · February 3rd, 2009, 11:13

This is a link to Roy's website http://www.roychaffin.com/rcs-panels.html
and his side of the story here http://www.roychaffin.com/rcs_statement.htm

Not being personally involved in the dispute , nor having any person first hand knowledge, I would just like to say that I have had a good relation with Roy over the last several years and have found him to be very honest and sincere. I for one beleive what he has said, as any my dealings with him have found him to always be respectful. His work is second to none, and I wish him the best of luck in the future. Just my two cents worth. Don Harris

**IanP** · February 3rd, 2009, 11:25

Unfortunately, Roy's version does not match reality.

I, personally, was involved in Bill Rambow's package projects before Bill approached Roy to ask whether he could use some of Roy's panels. Bill then approached Roy to assist with the creation of a DC-3 panel. I still have the original packages, both before and after the inclusion of Roy's panels.

You may say that Roy is honest and sincere, Don, but I will say that he lied. I can and will state that here because I can and will also stand up in a court of law and state that, with evidence. However, I don't think anyone is stupid enough to take this that far.

The facts are that MAAM removed the rights from Roy to use any part of the model and/or textures after he left the team, because his product would be in direct competition with the MAAM-SIM model. That letter is also in the public domain and, indeed, I believe is still published at Avsim along with the retouched texures and photographs that Roy did not have permission to use. I'll link to it later, when I've eaten, as dinner is almost ready and I really couldn't be bothered with all this again right now. If anyone wants links in the short term, "Roy Chaffin" and "MAAM" at Avsim should yield their investigation and the statement. There's more around than that, but that's easy to find.

All of that, however, relates to a version of the RCS B-25 that is at least two, possibly three, earlier than the one just released. My only problem with this one is the fact that it is not a reproduction of a wartime B-25. It is not the same package as the original dispute was over.

**JT8D-9A** · February 3rd, 2009, 11:36

Thanks Ian. I found something at Avsim, via Google, which is not very nice and i also read Mr. Chaffin's statement.
I don't say something against Mr. Chaffin and i absolutely don't know who is right, but i don't feel comfortable with the aircraft because it's still a FS9 model ("redesigning and rebuilding just about everything from the ground up" ...a FS9 model for FSX SP2/XPAck

).
So i will remove it because it's all a little bit strange (RCS_B25_RAF_Register.exe?).

**Dexdoggy** · February 3rd, 2009, 12:35

A work of art! The minimal VC is a shame (although what is there looks brilliant!), and she is remarkable in external view. A real beauty, but without the full VC I probably won't fly it very often.

**EMatheson** · February 3rd, 2009, 12:45

Well, whether the MAAM Mitchell is dated or not, I, personally found it better for my purposes... the model is more detailed, the system loads a good deal less... and the external paint seemed rather dark on my machine. So, it didn't last long (taste more than anything the reason).
I did know previously of the MAAM-SIM issues, but I did not know the whole story. Reading Russell Strines article showed me the reasons for the dispute, and it is likely that the plane would have been deleted for that reason, even if it has been modified beyond recognition.
At any rate, this is a gem for freeware in FS9... I am just spoiled by my payware!

**jeansy** · February 3rd, 2009, 14:20

Originally Posted by Txmmy83

is there a paintkit for that B-25 Mitchell anywhere ?

BR
Tom

i emailed roy yesterday and asked about a paintkit,

"no paintkit sorry" and it doesnt sound like theres going to be one

shame

**dharris** · February 3rd, 2009, 15:02

If you are referring to the registration bat all that does is register the gauges in fsx so you don't have to double clik each gauge the first time you use it. To bad others don't use the same method. As far as Google is concerned, you can't tell me you believe everything you search for now can you? I don't like piracy either, not defending it, but to willy nilly (for the brits) accuse someone of it without more than you are saying is hypocricy. In the U.S.A anyways you are innocent until PROVEN guily. Accusing someone just ruins the person with out trial. If you had read the disclaimer on Roy's website, you would have both sides and maybe not so quick to judge. If this gets me kicked off this board, so be it. Not trying to run down Ian, but this is a forum and I don't think Ian was trying to get this involved or was I. I am done with the soapbox.:focus:

Originally Posted by Nils

Thanks Ian. I found something at Avsim, via Google, which is not very nice and i also read Mr. Chaffin's statement.
I don't say something against Mr. Chaffin and i absolutely don't know who is right, but i don't feel comfortable with the aircraft because it's still a FS9 model ("redesigning and rebuilding just about everything from the ground up" ...a FS9 model for FSX SP2/XPAck

).
So i will remove it because it's all a little bit strange (RCS_B25_RAF_Register.exe?).

***hey_moe*** · February 3rd, 2009, 15:16

OUTSTANDING

**Gdavis101** · February 3rd, 2009, 15:35

I like!

**CG_1976** · February 3rd, 2009, 15:51

Thank you for the HU. Something more i can fly around the Caribbean.:friday:

**jojohnson9** · February 3rd, 2009, 15:56

As I stated earlier, I like this B-25. I also like my MAAM B-25. Reading all the posts has made me aware of the controversy this new B-25 has generated. My first reaction on loading this new bomber was that it DID resemble the MAAM in many ways. Am I an SOB for keeping it...maybe. BUT I LIKE IT! I so wish and hope that MAAM will start making FSX aircraft...maybe their P2V-7 (SP-2H actually).

**stansdds** · February 3rd, 2009, 17:36

Ok, I've tried the updated RCS B-25. The exterior is stunning, but the VC does leave a bit to be desired. The textures look a bit grainy as do the gauges. There is no control yoke nor is there a center throttle console. The upside is that once installed and set up it does not require patches and swapping prop textures to work in FSX SP2 and can be started manually. I really liked the MAAM B-25 in FS9, but who knows when the MAAM team will make their B-25 fully FSX SP2 ready. I dunno, I might just stick to the SOH A-26, I've got everything on it working pretty well except for the energizer sound.

***Moparmike*** · February 3rd, 2009, 17:36

Originally Posted by IanP

Unfortunately, Roy's version does not match reality.

I, personally, was involved in Bill Rambow's package projects before Bill approached Roy to ask whether he could use some of Roy's panels. Bill then approached Roy to assist with the creation of a DC-3 panel. I still have the original packages, both before and after the inclusion of Roy's panels.

You may say that Roy is honest and sincere, Don, but I will say that he lied. I can and will state that here because I can and will also stand up in a court of law and state that, with evidence. However, I don't think anyone is stupid enough to take this that far.

The facts are that MAAM removed the rights from Roy to use any part of the model and/or textures after he left the team, because his product would be in direct competition with the MAAM-SIM model. That letter is also in the public domain and, indeed, I believe is still published at Avsim along with the retouched texures and photographs that Roy did not have permission to use. I'll link to it later, when I've eaten, as dinner is almost ready and I really couldn't be bothered with all this again right now. If anyone wants links in the short term, "Roy Chaffin" and "MAAM" at Avsim should yield their investigation and the statement. There's more around than that, but that's easy to find.

All of that, however, relates to a version of the RCS B-25 that is at least two, possibly three, earlier than the one just released. My only problem with this one is the fact that it is not a reproduction of a wartime B-25. It is not the same package as the original dispute was over.

Yup, the MAAM/RCS B-25 dispute did raise quite a few hackles. As stated in Ian's last sentence this isn't the package that all the fuss was about. That is in the past...and between Bill & crew and Roy to sort out amongst themselves.

Reminder to everyone:
Let's not dredge up the whole ugly mess again here otherwise the staff be forced to throw a padlock on things. Please keep the discussion on-topic.

MCDesigns · February 3rd, 2009, 18:07

Sorry for getting anyones tempers up and setting Ian off, was just wondering since I vaguely remember the situation back when and wondered if anyone had any more info on it.

:focus: It's a nice model, agreed that the VC could be more detailed, but I see no FPS impact other than some texture loading in the VC, but love the sounds. I also had no issues with a manual install ( I hate autoinstallers)

**stansdds** · February 4th, 2009, 02:17

As for auto-installers, it's a love-hate relationship. I love the simplicity and ease of use, but I hate not knowing what is being written to where.

**guzler** · February 4th, 2009, 02:34

My opinion...

this thing is free, this thing is great, I appreciate all the hard work that went into it so that I may have the pleasure of a great warbird in my FSX sky. What ever happened in the past is none of my concern - my choice.

Thankyou guys for all your effort.