CWDT BF109G Vol.I finally released !!!

[sophocles]

Miguel from simmarket has dutifully informed us that the product is now available from the following site:

http://secure.simmarket.com/cwdt-mes...109-vol1.phtml (http://secure.simmarket.com/cwdt-messerschmitt-bf109-vol1.phtml)

Cheers everyone, thanks for your patience!




We'd like to inform everyone as we have on the product description page and in the documentation that although the aircraft set was designed for Microsoft Flight Simulator 9 we have provided for a fully compatible
and functioning plane set for Microsoft Flight Simulator X; which although not native (meaning it does not exploit all of the DirectX 10 features of the latter), does not in our view detract from the graphic experience


in-game (see the Paint Schemes and Instrument Panel sections in this manual for actual screenshots). I
t is however fully compatible with Service pack 1, Acceleration, and Service Pack 2.

Sophocles
<!-- / message -->

[gajit]

Shame its not really fully FSX - - not going for it.

[Nick C]

Great to have CWDT back again Phanis. :applause::applause::applause:

[stovall]

Sophocles, great to see CWDT back in action. Been waiting for this one and definitely added to my hanger. The FPS are comparable with most all native FSX aircraft. Thanks a million.

[calypsos]

Oh, does 'not fully native' really mean FR's of 12-15 instead of 28-30??

[SpaceWeevil]

The FPS are comparable with most all native FSX aircraft. Thanks a million.

Ah, now THAT'S what I was waiting for - sold!

[SpaceWeevil]

Oh, does 'not fully native' really mean FR's of 12-15 instead of 28-30??

It means the reverse in my admittedly limited experience. I find the new A2A WOP II Mustang significantly faster (and smoother, which is more important) in FSX than the old FS9 port.

(Edit) Talking cr*p here, my apologies - long day, eyes gone, brain following..

[SolarEagle]

So this has the ussual prop clipping problems with non native planes? Almost looks like from the screenshots it does not, but non native to me means prop clipping.

[mike_cyul]

Congrats, guys! Nice to see some more 109's around. :)

Mike

[MudMarine]

Oh, does 'not fully native' really mean FR's of 12-15 instead of 28-30??


For me yes.

[MudMarine]

What I can tell so far; My FR's drop into the teens when I'm flying this 109. When I switch to a native FSX planes, they jump back up into the 35-40 range (set at 45). The tail is VERY heavy during take off and in the air it seems sluggish for what I'd think a 109 should handle like; naturely I've never flown one so how could I know. The prop suffers the same non-native problem. The DB sounds are awesome and are the best part of the package for me! Externally it looks good. Internal........the VC is very lacking in detail it looks like an older FS9 pit. Mike C's VC is much better! Over all with just a few minutes in it..........I'm most likely going to remove it from FSX and stick with the FR 109's!

[SpaceWeevil]

The prop clipping really isn't noticeable. It's a lovely model but I'm not getting great frame rates - averaging 15-24 over stock FSX scenery near Duxford, with the exterior views hitting the frame rate hardest. This is on a Quad Core Phenom, 9800GT, Vista and FSX SP2 installed a la Nick C (but possibly due for a tune-up). I lock at 30 and all my FSX native warbirds like the F6F and the A2A Mustang / Spitfire / 109 / P-40 run like silk. Big sigh - but she is a beauty.

[calypsos]

Well, as I suspcted, it is really a port over. I decided not to use portovers when I got FSX running well, as they always seem to FR stutter on TO and landing.

I think after almost 3 years of FSX, we should be getting a native model for our money, however good it looks.

IMHO this is a superb looking model, but really for FS9 only.

[SpaceWeevil]

I decided not to use portovers when I got FSX running well, as they always seem to FR stutter on TO and landing..

So did I, but with a desperate need for a mid-war 109 in FSX I thought it was worth the risk. Wrong, unfortunately - and 21 quid later I have finally learned my lesson.

[SolarEagle]

I don't see why people are still doing ports. I mean A2A has shown it's not that hard to re-export a native model... Or is it? In the grand scheme with product life, etc, it must certainly make more sense to do so, becuase guys like me won't touch a ported product. At one point there was no choice, but today there's a whole arsenal of natives available, so why settle for less?

[heywooood]

cirrus and stratos clouds seem not to interfere with the prop arc like cumulus do...thats why I only use cirrus during flights with my FS9 ports (the Christen Eagle is really the only one I still use) - you can lay them on relatively thick and still get a nice prop in the external view.

ALL port overs impact frame rates more than native FSX planes - there are no exceptions I've ever seen unless the plane has so few polys that its just butt ugly

[Nick C]

Despite peoples thoughts, doesn't this new project not warrant a sticky with the other releases in respect to the developers?

[stiz]

true .. but after the fs9 release thread (which was sticked) would you want to?? :monkies:

[Nick C]

I don't remember seeing that. I was just thinking it would be nice to sticky this out of respect for Phanis and the work that went into this plane, irrespective or personal feelings which have been aired.

I think that CWDT have been very open about the plane being a port, so I fail to see what the problem is. Don't we all feel that it's the clandestine ports that really nark us, where a product is advertised as being full FSX when it's not?

Anyhoo, not looking to start a fight, just trying to be fair. :engel016:

[Roger]

I agree Nick,
There was no attempt to hoodwink re FsX native but the unpleasantness in the Fs9 forum thread meant that it was unstickied and floated off into the ether....

I enjoyed Phanis' work in the past and their Fs9 Hellcat (which I beta'd)was very nicely textured. However although I have ported Fs9 aircraft over to FsX, I won't purchase a port to use exclusively in FsX.

[Nick C]

I've just been led to that post Roger and I can see that they have now been banned. I won't excuse the behaviour there but I do perhaps understand it.

It seems in the thread that Phanis linked to, within the FS9 thread, that the textures were very clear in the screenshots. So that shouldn't be used as an argument against it from people who posted in that thread. This leaves the flight dynamics. it's been stated that the instructions in the manual need to be followed for the 109 to behave correctly, if these haven't been, then this issue is also resolved.

With that in mind, if I was the developer (and God forbid I ever will be), I too may just be a little upset.

Over the years I've only really had dealings with Phanis and found him to be the most amiable of people who I've never heard say a bad thing about anyone. I'm sorry that one heartfelt outburst (well several, but in a single thread), has led to a team that have offered so much to our community being banned.

Just my thoughts, again I'm not looking to start a fight.

[peter12213]

This is a must have for me!!

[stiz]

I've just been led to that post Roger and I can see that they have now been banned. I won't excuse the behaviour there but I do perhaps understand it.

It seems in the thread that Phanis linked to, within the FS9 thread, that the textures were very clear in the screenshots. So that shouldn't be used as an argument against it from people who posted in that thread. This leaves the flight dynamics. it's been stated that the instructions in the manual need to be followed for the 109 to behave correctly, if these haven't been, then this issue is also resolved.

With that in mind, if I was the developer (and God forbid I ever will be), I too may just be a little upset.

Over the years I've only really had dealings with Phanis and found him to be the most amiable of people who I've never heard say a bad thing about anyone. I'm sorry that one heartfelt outburst (well several, but in a single thread), has led to a team that have offered so much to our community being banned.

Just my thoughts, again I'm not looking to start a fight.

That is true, i was a bit shocked to see it all kick off like that. However as i've said to some people, if the plane had been released a few years ago before it got stalled for several reasons, it would proberbly have been well liked, but things have changed, nowadays for £21 people expect it to be really good, lets just do a comparison .. for £24ish you can get aerosofts cat which is full of systems etc.

O well at the end of the day its all down to individual taste :engel016:

[MudMarine]

I've just been led to that post Roger and I can see that they have now been banned. I won't excuse the behaviour there but I do perhaps understand it.

It seems in the thread that Phanis linked to, within the FS9 thread, that the textures were very clear in the screenshots. So that shouldn't be used as an argument against it from people who posted in that thread. This leaves the flight dynamics. it's been stated that the instructions in the manual need to be followed for the 109 to behave correctly, if these haven't been, then this issue is also resolved.

With that in mind, if I was the developer (and God forbid I ever will be), I too may just be a little upset.

Over the years I've only really had dealings with Phanis and found him to be the most amiable of people who I've never heard say a bad thing about anyone. I'm sorry that one heartfelt outburst (well several, but in a single thread), has led to a team that have offered so much to our community being banned.

Just my thoughts, again I'm not looking to start a fight.

Just curious Nick, have you seen or flown the 109? Unfortunately I was part of that thread. Only legitimate concerns were respectufully raised; and they were legitimate. Those concerns where met with foul langue and disrespt. The worst example by anyone I've ever seen on this forum in four years or so.

[IanP]

Nick was last heard of watching a film, but yes, he has both seen and flown. He also let the team know his thoughts, from what he said in an earlier IM conversation.

I haven't got the Bf109, because it is a port, but have seen both the screenshots on the pre-release and post-release threads. I can see Nick's point that the reported texture shortcomings brought up in the release product are equally visible in the pre-release shots. On that thread, the same people later complaining are posting how good the aircraft looks. Obviously the flight dynamics and any performance issues cannot be seen from screenshots, but I see no difference at all in the textures shown.

As an aside, I would have banned them too, had they posted what they did on the FS9 release thread here on the forums which I moderate and administer.

As stiz says, I think this one was just delayed a little too long. I can understand entirely that developers get very attached to what they are making and criticism - especially of something that people were describing in glowing terms on pre-release threads - kicks very hard indeed. In my opinion that in no way justifies the reaction from certain individuals, but it does explain it a little.

[Henry]

Was there a Bolton Paul Defiant in the works?
:173go1:
H

[IanP]

:engel016: :icon_lol:

Can we discuss Sunderlands on this one instead, please? :):icon29:

[Henry]

:engel016: :icon_lol:

Can we discuss Sunderlands on this one instead, please? :):icon29:
I like them also!
H

[stiz]

only if you agree to disscuse battles as well :engel016: :ernae:

[IanP]

only if you agree to disscuse battles as well :engel016: :ernae:

Do we have to? Those things really were just flying coffins with no redeeming features whatsoever! :blind:

[Henry]

Do we have to? Those things really were just flying coffins with no redeeming features whatsoever! :blind:
oh i thought he meant as in Waterloo
H

[IanP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Battle

Awful things.

[stiz]

i'll admit they were useless ... however were still talking about them :bump:

[MudMarine]

Nick was last heard of watching a film, but yes, he has both seen and flown. He also let the team know his thoughts, from what he said in an earlier IM conversation.

I haven't got the Bf109, because it is a port, but have seen both the screenshots on the pre-release and post-release threads. I can see Nick's point that the reported texture shortcomings brought up in the release product are equally visible in the pre-release shots. On that thread, the same people later complaining are posting how good the aircraft looks. Obviously the flight dynamics and any performance issues cannot be seen from screenshots, but I see no difference at all in the textures shown.

As an aside, I would have banned them too, had they posted what they did on the FS9 release thread here on the forums which I moderate and administer.

As stiz says, I think this one was just delayed a little too long. I can understand entirely that developers get very attached to what they are making and criticism - especially of something that people were describing in glowing terms on pre-release threads - kicks very hard indeed. In my opinion that in no way justifies the reaction from certain individuals, but it does explain it a little.

The aircraft looks fine on the outside. The VC is something from a very early FS9 model. Pictures in posts don't do justice to how poor the VC texturing is. That and MANY other problems. The only good thing about it was the sound package. Three years in development.........very poor effort.

[stiz]

Three years in development.........very poor effort.

to be fair i dont think it was 3 years constant development, didnt one of the team have health problems or a computer which died on em?

[IanP]

So what excuses do we allow the designer of the Fairey Battle? :)

[MudMarine]

to be fair i dont think it was 3 years constant development, didnt one of the team have health problems or a computer which died on em?

Alright, three years from the point we were told developement was begun until it was released and the stuff that happened in between. Still doesn't change the point, it took three years but I wouldn't want to be unfair.

[dcc]

The aircraft looks fine on the outside. The VC is something from a very early FS9 model. Pictures in posts don't do justice to how poor the VC texturing is. That and MANY other problems. The only good thing about it was the sound package. Three years in development.........very poor effort.


Glad you liked the sounds :d I tried a few new techniques out on this sound package. Wasn't sure how they'd be received. I was very nervous because I know some people are really up on this plane. I did some research, but I admitedly never really knew much about this plane (other than it shot down P-38s ...) before I worked on the sounds.

I know you're disappointed with the product, but I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of the overall effort. I wouldn't characterize the effort as very poor. We're all entitled to our opinions, but having been involved in the project a little bit I know there was a lot of effort involved with the aim for a good quality model. There may be legitimate differences in tastes (such as texturing style, flight modeling, etc.) but I know the developers were not deliberately putting out a very poor effort. I find it rather fun to fly and a great looking model. I only fly it in FS9 though, my PC can't do much with FSX even with the default models.

I know you were looking forward to this plane, and I am sorry you are disappointed with it.

- dcc

[MudMarine]

I agree with many of the things you said dcc. I'm sure the effort wasn't poor but the ultimate outcome was. I've always been more than fair to every developer in this forum. But when I feel it's not right and needs to be patched I'm going to say so. I don't feel the plane is a total right off, with some work on the VC and the FM it could be a great FS9 plane. I honestly feel the VC textures look like an early FS9 effort: that can be fixed. The ground handling and take off characteristics are just bad. No matter what flap position, trottle or prop setting I use the 109 took flight like a ton of bricks. It handle, to me, very sluggishly in the air: that can be fixed.

Rather than taking multiple peoples honest truthful thoughts we were called a foul word.......why? The offense taken was unjustified. I've been a simmer for a long time. I've spent a lot of money on add-ons. This is the first time I've ever felt that I wanted my money back. And the only thing that's stopping me from asking is your outstanding sound package! It sounds great in my FR 109's!

I'm truley sorry if anyone is/was offended! It's just the way I see it.

[rwmarth]

So what excuses do we allow the designer of the Fairey Battle? :)

Was the sound good on that one too??? :)

[stiz]

So what excuses do we allow the designer of the Fairey Battle? :)

design taste?

i know it wasnt a good war plane ... but i like it :icon_lol: