5 hours ago, k5083 said:

Yes, they are just skins, but from a marketing perspective, remember that the skins are one of the few things that a consumer can assess directly before buying.  If they aren't well researched, it raises legitimate questions about whether other things about the plane that can't be assessed before purchase are also not well researched.  Think of the skins as an advertisement for your overall level of attention to detail.  For me, personally, it has deterred the purchase while I collect more info from trusted reviewers etc, to determine whether there is a solid plane under those skins, and count on modders to fix the textures.  Just saying.

Not disagreeing per se about the plane's liveries/skins, I guess to each his own on that front, as to whether they are historically and or colour accurate I honestly couldn't care less but admittedly that's my personal opinion so not coming to the defence of something that some may take issue with.  I downloaded plenty of liveries for the spit and corsair I would not have a clue whether they are true to life, I pick liveries coz I like flying a plane that I like the look of.  Having said that what's there is imo good, some nice heat wear effects on the paint near the exhausts, the lights nicely reflect in the grooves of the plane's wings.  So if someone were to argue that the externals of this plane are bad then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and this is from someone running on a 780 gfx card still with all settings to either off or the lowest possible one.

Other things I really like is the engine sound and the way the gears retract is nicely animated, when it comes to immersion I can't really fault it.   Admittedly I know little about WW2 planes other than the origin and names so I can't make the comparisons that some can.  

The final conclusion for me is that I'm keen to see what Big Radials will do next as based on this product and it being their first release the talent needed to bring some well developed planes to this sim is clearly there.

 

Edited April 25, 20215 yr by stefaandk
typo

This thread obviously needs a little levity in the warbird livery department  so here we go (don't  click if your are an easily offended woke person😈).

As a frequent warbird flyer, what is important for me is, first and foremost, how the aircraft flies then the accuracy of its sounds according to the change of rpm etc., then its modeling and, at the very end, the livery. I do not care at all for weapons and external tanks. Your mileage may vary.

The A2A P-40 is certainly a nice aircraft to fly. I should now, I flew  her tens upon tens of hours in FSX and P3D.  But she is not the alpha and the omega of the P-40ness 😀. A2A has made great progress since the aircraft was released in the early 2010s and I would say the flight model is a little long in the tooth now. For instance reducing airspeed in approach is very difficult even with tight S-turn.

Edited April 25, 20215 yr by Dominique_K

11 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

This thread obviously needs a little levity in the warbird livery department  so here we go (don't  click if your are an easily offended woke person😈).

All good this isn't twitter or FB!  🤣

23 minutes ago, stefaandk said:

All good this isn't twitter or FB!  🤣

Don’t bet on it. When A2A abandoned the lovely pinup which was their trademark, not long ago, to be politically correct I suppose, there were a couple of idiots who applauded the move as long overdue ! 

Edited April 25, 20215 yr by Dominique_K

54 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

Don’t bet on it. When A2A abandoned the lovely pinup which was their trademark, not long ago, to be politically correct I suppose, there were a couple of idiots who applauded the move as long overdue ! 

It's ironic that people would laud the undeniably great authenticity of A2A, but then complain about the authenticity of using a pin up for their logo. Although as with most things 'PC', I'm inclined to suspect that the people who loudly object to that sort of thing are either too dim to be aware of the historical significance of it, or more likely just want to be seen to be offended, rather actually being genuinely offended.

Either way, the wartime significance of Alberto Vargas illustrations on aeroplane nose art particularly in the US forces, and the similar influence of Chrystabel Jane Leighton-Porter in the R.A.F. and British Army cannot be underestimated. I was pleased to note that the tradition continues to this day whenever war rears its ugly head, because it's no time to be PC, or offended by such things when you're at risk of getting your head shot off, and it's more than a bit rich to deny troops this bit of harmless fun under such circumstances, or for that matter, to not celebrate it in the form of a company logo.

Although possibly an apocryphal tale, when the 36th Infantry Division, which was fighting in the jungles of the CBI in 1944, received copies of the Daily Mirror issue in which the Jane cartoon strip character first appeared nude, they allegedly advanced six miles into Burmese territory that same day. Whilst that tale may or may not be true, it absolutely is true that Winston Churchill described Jane as their secret weapon, so he was well aware of Jane's morale-boosting significance on troops.

It's worth noting too, that this tradition of saucy pin up girls painted on warplanes underwent a widespread revival in the Gulf War of 1991 on R.A.F. warplanes, and whilst initially the M.O.D. tried to stop it, not least because the aeroplanes were based in Muslim countries where this sort of thing is extremely frowned upon, the wave of popular approval it met with in the UK soon prompted them to turn a blind eye to it since they couldn't really stop it anyway. After all, what are you gonna do? Send someone home from the war for misbehaving?

But perhaps more pertinently, since non-military personnel would not really be allowed near those aeroplanes to see such stuff, I would be interested to meet the person whose eyesight was so good that they were able to look up at a jet bomber flying 35,000 feet above them, going at Mach 1, and be offended by the painting on the side of it, rather than the fact that it was possibly about to drop some bombs on somebody. It's a bit like in films, where they cheerfully allow it to show people being shot, blown up, stabbed etc, but then bleep out the word f***. Some people have bizarre moral standards.

Edited April 25, 20215 yr by Chock

16 minutes ago, Chock said:

It's ironic that people would laud the undeniably great authenticity of A2A, but then complain about the authenticity of using a pin up for their logo. Although as with most things 'PC', I'm inclined to suspect that the people who loudly object to that sort of thing are either too dim to be aware of the historical significance of it, or more likely just want to be seen to be offended, rather actually being genuinely offended.

Hear hear, how ironic is it that the topic of authenticity is being raised here while at the same time we have individuals wanting to erase authenticity and history simply because it doesn't suit their sensibilities and social justice agenda, for the record I'm not saying they are the same people, I can't imagine that being the case!  In any case I better not get stuck into this topic as we'll end up with this thread being locked so I think I might go take this bird for a spin instead!

Another review popped up on my YouTube homepage, not as elaborate as Chock's but for the doubters: 

 

Just now, stefaandk said:

Another review popped up on my YouTube homepage, not as elaborate as Chock's but for the doubters: 

 

yea, he rushed that one a little, should have RTDM! 😄

Thought you all might like this Artwork which was on the 500th BG's B-29 42-24643:

 

Edited April 25, 20215 yr by Chock

Okay.  My intention had been to wait to see whether there would be good faith engagement on the liveries, and then probably to make my points to the developer privately.  Since it seems evident that there is not such engagement and this will be my last contribution to this topic, I'll share with you my current "punch list" as it relates to what I have seen of the P-40B skins on the Big Radials page and in the four YouTube vids I have seen about the plane, if I were to undertake to correct them, as I have done many times for my own use.  My references are mostly not color illustrations of the type Chock posted, but original specs, and sometimes photos of the subject aircraft.  This list is non-exhaustive.  I haven't seen every side of every skin.  OTOH, if some of the pics and vids I've seen of the skins are pre-release and have been fixed, I'm sorry, but of course as a consumer I couldn't know that.  I'm dividing my punch lists into things that are clearly wrong ("fix") and things to "check" because, e.g., I can't see that part of the plane clearly or it's possible that a non-standard marking was correct for an individual plane.  So, scheme by scheme, and I'll bet there 's a lot of overlap here with your list from Jankees:

Tomahawk IIB AN343 "X".  Fix incorrect color for Mid-Stone; some leeway is permissible in camo colors but this is not close to the correct yellow-sand shade.  Check/fix camo pattern, these were standardized and painted with rubber masks at the factory and had little variation, this doesn't look right on top/right sides.  Fix improperly constructed fuselage roundel, proportions should be Y:7, B:5, W:3, R:1, the white discs is too large relative to the yellow and blue, some poorly done color profiles and decal sheets look like your skin but photo of original aircraft shows standard proportions.  Fix size and position of letter X.  Fix incorrect typeface of serial AN343.  Check - are there wing roundels on this skin at all?  Don't see any on the Big Radials site screen shots, but if have been added, check construction, size and position.  Check roundel colors, yellow looks too pale and not correct yellow-orange, red and blue may be too bright and not correct dull shades.

Tomahawk II AK498 "LD-C".  Same color, camo, and insignia issues as above, plus:  Check/fix fin flash size/position, which is non-standard and unlikely to be correct.  Check/fix code letters, also non-standard and unlikely to be correct.  Fix incorrect serial font, and it looks like it ends with a "B" rather than an "8"?

Hawk 81 P-8194, AVG "7" (Neale).  Fix shark mouth style/color, inaccurate to specific machine and atypical of AVG Hawk 81s  Fix camo color for Dark Green, it appears olive drab was used on skin.  Fix blue of Chinese roundel, original color was darker blue similar to blue field on ROC/Taiwan flag or on Taiwan roundel as used today; if you wish to depict it faded, dial down the saturation as well as the value, it should look like faded dark blue, not vivid light blue.  Check/fix camo pattern, these were done to British specs with the same masks.  Really just copy the Flying Heritage Collection P-40 as slavishly as possible on this one and you're good to go, although I would still darken the insignia blue a bit, relative to theirs, because I think panchromatic b&w film has contributed to most of the impression that the blue in the insignia was not darker.

P-40B, 18th PS "284".  Fix US insignia, red disc is too large.  It looks like it doesn't quite touch the corners of the star, which is good, but it should be still smaller, tangent to lines if the edges of the stars were continued through the center of the roundel.  Fix US insignia position on upper wing, should be further outboard, standard position was to center the roundel 1/8 wingspan from tip.  Check under-wing markings position, looks not too bad but maybe U.S. ARMY legend should be forward a bit.  Check color of Neutral Gray, might be a bit light.  Overall this one is not terrible but again there is a good restoration to copy, Rod Lewis' plane, that would have made it better.

P-40B, 31st PG.  Same camo and marking issues as above.  Otherwise, not sure what the reference is for this one, the only thing I can find is a Trumpeter model decal sheet that I don't trust.  Check codes on vertical fin, standard was black or yellow rather than red, would need to document this departure.  There is a profile of a 31st PG P-40B in Scale Aircraft Modeling Combat Colours #3, page 14, but it is of aircraft 51, has yellow lettering on tail, and red stripe running in other direction (up-forward to down-aft).  If that is the one Trumpeter was attempting to do, they really cocked up and you followed their error.

Tomahawk AH695, VVS.  Fix fuselage star size/position (undersized).  Fix missing star on tail.  You're probably correct, and profile in Chock's graphic is wrong, that serial was black, and other artwork on web supports you, but fix font and position.  You get a pass on the underside color, most likely was RAF Sky as originally supplied, but anything including Russian farm tractor blue was possible with a field repaint.  Big Radials site appears to show two other VVS schemes in screen shots, one seems to be blue-gray uppers over white unders which I have trouble buying.  The other, tactical number 16, I don't know about but check those red star insignia on upper wing, most VVS fighters didn't have them, especially in winter schemes.

Where I have suggested correcting the fonts of the British serial numbers above, a good start is a font called RAF_WW2_851ATH, which I designed and made available in August 2001 along with a set of other RAF, Royal Navy, and British Commonwealth fonts, and which are widely available on the web and by now are part of the tool kit of most folks who have been skinning British subjects in skins, as well as model decal makers, profile artists, and even full-scale airplane restorers.  It won't be perfect for every relevant application - no font can be - but it will be a better starting point than what you used.  It actually looks like you may have used my RCAF font for the serial on AK498, so partial credit, but wrong font.  And I know, all of you are thinking, "Big deal, who among us hasn't been making basic tools freely available to the modding community to improve their skins for almost 20 years?" but what the heck, it's all I've got.

Peace, everyone.

August

 

 

 

 

 

After spending a morning with the P-40.

Not a review, need more time but first thoguhts.

I thought the guys said they wanted this to be a friendly aircraft. Well that personly made me think this was a 152 that looked like a P-40. Some sort of toy for "everyone" to enjoy! Guys, come on this is just as hard/easy to takeoff and land as the FG-1D or Spit. A Totaly diffrent "dance" but so are the FG and spit. I now have 3 diffrenct dancers to master and remember lol. Your underselling your P-40 just like the FG and Spit they can be a female dog and make you look very silly. Thats all great by the way. No fun or skill in a toy.

I now have done a lot of circuits at EGKA 14Kts wind and a flight from EGTK 16kt cross wind. to EGKA. 

Takeoff's are hard, landings are hard. No question about it. Like the FG and spit you get a great reward and feeling for doing a smooth takeoff and nailing a landing. This is great. Thats how a warbird should feel, not this 152-172 land with your eyes closed its that easy stuff.

Boy she needs a LOT of triming, once you level off she trims out nice. Landing is huge amounts of triming. All good, all making this a hands on aircraft.

The way you have modeled the landing gear and its flight dynamics is wonderfull.

It has totaly blown my expectations out the water. You guy have dont an amazing job. For a first time aircraft I would say you knocked it out the park. As good as the FG-1D? No, as good as the FI Spit? yes I think it is, totaly diffrent but imo its as good. 

Down sides, a few little bugs but nothing to take away from the enjoyment, unlike FI saying 3 times in there manual that droping the flaps will pitch the spit down a lot....and in there version it pitchers it up!!!! GG FI and there old XPlane one still does just the same thing. 

You dont have to watch the temps like in the FG, but in the spit you dont really need to watch them much. The P-40 is not a watch the temps aircraft.

Should anyone buy this? YES go for it, its diffrent to the FG and Spit, its can feel really heavy and brick like, then with gear up and trimed out, very smooth and nice to fly, and like the FG and spit are totaly diffrent to fly so is this. All have there own unique feel. Thats wonderfull.

If you want to spend all your time looking at drawing of the aircraft and picking fault with a letter being 10 pixels to forward or"It looks like it doesn't quite touch the corners of the star" etc like the post about, would people like that buy the FI spit as it has perfect liverys but forget all about how terrible the massive flap problem is as long as a star is pixel perfect . I dont see them flying this aircraft anyway as you need to be in the VC with your hands on the stick not looking under the wing. Yes Jankees needs a photoshop verion of the paint kit to bring his wonderfull work to the table. But cannot say i had anytime to look around apart from a quick look to see how "bad" it was....lol

Great job guys, it really is a stunning first aircraft. I will get a lot more time in her and give you more feed back. Many thanks.

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 20215 yr by Nyxx

hehe, i told you! We are slowly realising that it may not be as casual as we thought. I think after chatting with Dave Hadfield, we realised we were actually quite close to what he was describing, and without really thinking about it, we kept adding more stuff to it. 

You havent made your life easy here with that crosswind! Dave told us 15kts crosswind is pretty much the limit. 

Glad you like it anyway! 🙂

2 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

hehe, i told you! We are slowly realising that it may not be as casual as we thought. I think after chatting with Dave Hadfield, we realised we were actually quite close to what he was describing, and without really thinking about it, we kept adding more stuff to it. 

You havent made your life easy here with that crosswind! Dave told us 15kts crosswind is pretty much the limit. 

Glad you like it anyway! 🙂

Yer he was right LOL 🙂

15 hours ago, stefaandk said:

Question regarding the canopy being open on takeoff, I do so on the spit and corsair and also the manual here says to have the canopy open, I tested it a few times now and when it's open I can't take off without overstressing the aircraft, this happens pretty much instantly when the wheels leave the ground.  Same conditions with the canopy closed and I have no issues. 

The Mooney from Carenado is the same way. If you have the vent window open then as soon as your wheels leave the ground, instance overstress crash.

7 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

Don’t bet on it. When A2A abandoned the lovely pinup which was their trademark, not long ago, to be politically correct I suppose, there were a couple of idiots who applauded the move as long overdue ! 

Was it this one?