2 hours ago, Nyxx said:

That was a great Review Alan, had me LOL, and hiding..that takeoff.....lol.

Its got far more to it than I thought it would have. Very entertaining and informitive, thanks Alan.

Can you link the Manchester add on you use please. I use barton after you showing it in your other reviews, very nice airport.

There's a few parts to it, you'll find them all on this link:

https://flightsim.to/discover/Manchester

Wookiee is going live to chat all things P-40 with the FlyingFabio. Tune in!
https://www.twitch.tv/theflyingfabio

I think what Oz Wookie suggested on the giveaway on that stream was a good idea, and since I got it as a review copy and didn't cough up for it, I figured I'd do the same thing. So not only did you guys make a cool plane, you also helped a blind person, and I got this lovely puppy picture emailed to me. He's so cute, I want to steal him. 🙂

 

 

Edited April 23, 20215 yr by Chock

10 minutes ago, Chock said:

I think what Oz Wookie suggested on the giveaway on that stream was a good idea, and since I got it as a review copy and didn't cough up for it, I figured I'd do the same thing. So not only did you guys make a cool plane, you also helped a blind person, and I got this lovely puppy picture emailed to me. He's so cute, I want to steal him. 🙂

 

 

nice one! Lets make this a trend! well done

I was pretty intent on getting this one, but the paint schemes/insignia are poorly done/researched. I don't think it's too much to ask for some diligence to make sure they are correct in a payware product. It makes me wonder what other shortcuts were taken. Also I don't see the armored glass or ring and bead sights which would be very apparent in the vc.

 

3 hours ago, Coneman said:

I was pretty intent on getting this one, but the paint schemes/insignia are poorly done/researched. I don't think it's too much to ask for some diligence to make sure they are correct in a payware product. It makes me wonder what other shortcuts were taken. Also I don't see the armored glass or ring and bead sights which would be very apparent in the vc.

Not sure why you're saying this. For the review I did for my youtube channel, I had a good look in several of my reference books. So that'd be several Squadron Signal, Osprey etc modeller's books for the liveries, plus a number of pretty definitive reference text books I have on the real things. From this, I found them to be quite accurate, which is why I said so in my review. Trust me, I resprayed my 1/32 scale F4U Corsair model numerous times because I wasn't totally happy with the colour on it, so I get it.

In fact I did actually produce a graphic for this which I was going to use in my review, but owing to some sound issues when recording the review, I had to re-shoot some stuff and so I never bothered editing that bit back into the review, but that graphic is nevertheless included on this post below and you can see the things are pretty accurate for the most part.

Annoyingly, on the footage with the buggered up audio, the take off I made was arrow-straight perfect lol, whereas the one which eventually made it into the review was hilariously bad. But the less than brilliant take off in the review did kind of make the review more fun and engaging, so I was not so po-faced as to not keep it in!

On some of the footage with stuffed up audio which I had originally shot, I did actually make reference to the excellent texturing in the VC, in particular the wear and tear on the paint and the very good accuracy of the cockpit colour, but since I don't use a strictly scripted V/O for most reviews (because it is not engaging and spontaneous), things occasionally get omitted which I might have planned to say on a reshot bit of the review. I do sometimes have some notes for important stuff. You can actually hear me holding the paper at the start of the review where I use that to ensure I remember the names of the developers. So that reference was omitted on a reshot footage part (because I was too busy effing and jeffing at the time after having found I'd wasted loads of time recording useless footage), but you don't need me to actually say it anyway, you can see it on the part where I am going through the controls in the VC.

Whilst there are some minor anomalies, such as schemes that were in reality on late initial 40 models or early C variants, rather than B variants (not that you can tell much visual difference between these types anyway other than the four guns rather than six on the 40 variants), these are understandable artistic licence, and in any case, I'm never too concerned about super-duper accuracy on paint schemes, since these are easily corrected by repainters, and we can usually be certain that there will be additional paint jobs for flight sim aeroplanes within a matter of days, if not hours.

So the only other differences I found were ones which are not historically confirmed anyway; things such as maybe serial number in red rather than black on a reference illustrations. In reality as you probably know, details such as this are often a guess since they are taken off black and white photographs which use 1940s-era with film which isn't great at defining contrast, as evidenced for example, by the fact that you can't even see the splinter camouflage patterns on most contemporary monochrome pictures of Luftwaffe aeroplanes.

Anyway, here's that graphic I never bothered using for the channel review:

I wouldn't place too much store on some of the colours you see on some of those three-views either. Unless you have an actual colour swatch from the originals, it's very often a bit of artistic licence. I have a panel recovered from a Spitfire Mark 1 which was shot down in the Battle of Britain (R6753) which still has the original paint on it, and the brown of the camouflage is nothing like what you see on restored Spitfires at air shows; they're not even remotely close to the colour on that panel!

It's worth noting too that whilst the stuff you see at airshows these days are generally pretty accurately painted, they are not always correct, and even when they are graphically accurate, the paint is usually a hell of a lot neater than the things would have been when operational, when someone had to paint something overnight for it to be ready for an operation at 6am the following day. Someone who worked at Faireys in WW2 (where my dad was later an aircraft engineer) once told me that they had to fix a shot up Spitfire overnight and they didn't have a replacement wing available for it, so they went over to the production line and nicked one off one of the aeroplanes in the later stages of construction on the production line, and put the shot up wing on that new one!

With regard to not including a gun sight in the VC. I suspect this is because lots of people complained about there being some armored triplex in the Milviz Corsair's windscreen, with some people actually asking them to remove it because it spoiled the view ahead out of the cockpit even though it is of course accurate for it to be there.

I personally could take it or leave it to have a gun sight in a fighter for MSFS because it's not as if we're going to be shooting at anything in the sim. If it was missing on one in DCS, I'd be annoyed of course, but for MSFS, it's a depiction of the thing in a modern civilian era. In all honesty, if it could have the gunsight on it, I'd prefer it, but it's in no way a deal-breaker for me when so many other things about it are so good. It really is impressive, and especially for a debut product.

So in short, if the liveries you get with this thing is the only thing putting you off, which as noted, are pretty good anyway, then it's likely to be a non-issue given the fact that this thing is a dream come true for repainters: It was used in Europe, North Africa, the Mediterranean, the Eastern Front, the CBI, the US and Pacific, serving with pretty much every Allied force there was, as well as one or two serving with the Axis, so you could even have one with a Swastika on its side, although strictly speaking, that would have to be a P40N. So I don't think you're going to be waiting too long to see a lot of liveries on flightsim.to

Edited April 24, 20215 yr by Chock

6 hours ago, Coneman said:

I was pretty intent on getting this one, but the paint schemes/insignia are poorly done/researched. I don't think it's too much to ask for some diligence to make sure they are correct in a payware product. It makes me wonder what other shortcuts were taken. Also I don't see the armored glass or ring and bead sights which would be very apparent in the vc.

 

I had Jankees as a consultant. he is basically the master repainter in the sim world .Now of course i did not implement all changes he would ask, since, i have a whole plane to make, cant really afford spending 3 months on one livery! But he pushed me hard enough to have, what i feel, are very decent liveries, and historically as  accurate as i could make them without having to research them for a year.

Edited April 24, 20215 yr by leprechaunlive

Next update is already being worked on and will feature among other things:

-Entirely new propeller 3D model and textures

-2 New liveries: A Tuskegee tribute, and a Duxford based chrome paintjob

-Bug fix of the RTDM gears

-More realisitc temperature behaviours

-Other various bug fixes

Edited April 24, 20215 yr by leprechaunlive

Just picked it up, this one is certainly giving the spitfire and the corsair a run for their money when it comes to 'challenging to take off and land' but that's what makes these planes so satisfying.   I didn't think I wanted another WW2 plane but based on Chock's review (thx for that) it seemed like a no brainer and it does not disappoint, it's different enough from the spitfire and corsair to deserve it's own place among the WW2 planes in your hangar, yet at the same time you can put the skills from flying those to good use here just don't expect the same behaviour.

The night lighting is pretty cool on this, the red and green nav lights mounted on top of the wing light up the fuselage but also the inside of the cockpit so each side of the cockpit is lit up differently, very nice effect.

(edit) question for the dev though, is it meant to have 2 lights in the cockpit itself, it only has one red light shining down on half of the cockpit, the light seems to originate from those screw looking things above, there are 2 of those but only one emits light?

Edit 2, nvm there are 2 panel light switches, one panel light and one flood light which lights up the other side with a white light.  I guess that's how it is in the real plane, seems like an odd choice, be good if one switch was all white light, the other all red light but no biggie.

Edited April 24, 20215 yr by stefaandk
query

1 hour ago, stefaandk said:

Just picked it up, this one is certainly giving the spitfire and the corsair a run for their money when it comes to 'challenging to take off and land' but that's what makes these planes so satisfying.   I didn't think I wanted another WW2 plane but based on Chock's review (thx for that) it seemed like a no brainer and it does not disappoint, it's different enough from the spitfire and corsair to deserve it's own place among the WW2 planes in your hangar, yet at the same time you can put the skills from flying those to good use here just don't expect the same behaviour.

The night lighting is pretty cool on this, the red and green nav lights mounted on top of the wing light up the fuselage but also the inside of the cockpit so each side of the cockpit is lit up differently, very nice effect.

(edit) question for the dev though, is it meant to have 2 lights in the cockpit itself, it only has one red light shining down on half of the cockpit, the light seems to originate from those screw looking things above, there are 2 of those but only one emits light?

Edit 2, nvm there are 2 panel light switches, one panel light and one flood light which lights up the other side with a white light.  I guess that's how it is in the real plane, seems like an odd choice, be good if one switch was all white light, the other all red light but no biggie.

I'll admit an artistic choice here 🙂 couldnt find any information on interior lights to be honest.

have you spotted the secret light? 🙂

 

No I had not spotted that one yet, I'll check it out tomorrow.  If the lights are basically not set in reality then yeah imo it makes more sense to have the lights both red or both white depending on which switch is set so the panel illumination is uniform,  having one side of the panel white and the other side red is a bit jarring.   But hey I'm not going to question your artistic choices here 😉.

4 minutes ago, stefaandk said:

No I had not spotted that one yet, I'll check it out tomorrow.  If the lights are basically not set in reality then yeah imo it makes more sense to have the lights both red or both white depending on which switch is set so the panel illumination is uniform,  having one side of the panel white and the other side red is a bit jarring.   But hey I'm not going to question your artistic choices here 😉.

No i think you have a good point here! i might go down that road indeed 🙂

24 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

couldnt find any information on interior lights to be honest.

Here you go. I just snapped these quickly with my phone, but I can scan the pages properly if you like. This is from the manual for the real thing:

Edited April 24, 20215 yr by Chock

nice find! But the B didnt have those rheostats i dont think. they appear only on later models (at least in the references we've got). But thanks for the spotlight bit, did not know that!

22 minutes ago, Chock said:

Here you go. I just snapped these quickly with my phone, but I can scan the pages properly if you like. This is from the manual for the real thing:

May i ask what book is this? Althought not for a B (ailerons trim) it looks interesting!