Cripple

Gunship on ZX Spectrum, then a ripped-off copy of FS4 on our first pc. Actually, I did "play" the ZX81 flight sim, but it was hellishly difficult and I was very young.

OT: Actually, I've always wondered how he did so. Any ideas? One can only assume that he had the trim cranked up to favour his "good" leg (the below-knee amputation) and rode that rudder pedal the whole time, if you follow me? I doubt his other leg (with the above-the-knee prosthesis) was much use in the cockpit as he'd have no "push" with it once strapped in. Oh, and if you wonder how he even got in to a Spitfire then see the attached pic. Yup, he got them to turn it sideways for him...:music_whistling: (Back on topic) Am I missing something fundamental here, but I thought that the leading with the rudder in turns was part of basic flight training - either IRL or via booky-wooks?

For a looooooooooow cost joystick try the Speedlink Black Window. Mine cost 30 quid, and it has: x, y, throttle, 8 buttons, hat, and a "rudder" on the throttle. Vibration too. Surprisingly good for the price.

Excellent! My pleasure. Look forward to seeing pics of that all painted up...

Ah. Fair point. :)

So, historical accuracy set to maximum... unless it involves connotations of historical nastiness. :huh: Mind you, surely that's a charge that could be levelled at *all* warplanes - regardless of faction and/or era? I suppose it depends which you find more offensive: flying a pretend aircraft sporting a funny-looking cross, or flying a pretend aircraft that was used to drop sticky-fire on people...

:megalol: Made my day that. One of those "funny cos it's true" moments. Nobody told me that playing DCS would require becoming a keen student of history too! :P

Which is the crux of the issue imho. Keeping track of one single aircraft in a turning fight is (relatively) easy. Finding the damned thing again if you mess it up is not. I'm running DCS 1.2 on pretty low-spec equipment at the mo. I need to run with the graphics set to low just to get 25+ fps, and I can even lose the Amazing Vanishing Antanov in the P-51 training mission! :-( I don't want to put labels on though, so anything that can assist with visibility would be a bonus. In this discussion, I think we need to be mindful that one cannot assume that anyone playing DCS will (immediately) want invest in top-line hardware. The flight-sim player-base is small enough as it is, without potentially deterring the more casual player by demanding either a) having a sub-par gaming experience, or b) coughing up for a new pc. Enhanced graphics and fps should be "whistles-and-bells" for the particularly keen hobbyist, rather than seen as flight (or fight) essentials. Bit like HOTAS and rudder pedals...

Tell me about it! I remember when I first encountered the metric/imperial same-yet-different issues back in my teens (I was a little gun happy). I'd need to double-check my info, so anyone who knows better please feel free to jump in and correct me, but IIRC the IX was going to have the double 20mm cannon wing but changed to a 20mm cannon and 2x (smaller calibre) Brownings for weight reasons. Later marks certainly had the cannon and (larger calibre) Browning in each wing... and I remember someone speculating this was due to the increased availability of the .50-cal later in the war. (Article on the wing types here: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html )

Interesting Article. I'm surprised that no developer (ED or 3rd) is working on a Sinai map for DCS. Between Nevada and the basic map there must be 90+% of the required textures available, and the amount of aircraft that could use it without a great suspension of disbelief is substantial: all the way from the Spit's and Mustangs in '48, through the Cold War Jets, up to a "what if?" modern shooting war scenario in that contested zone. Quite nice scenery if you've ever been there too... ;-) Seriously though, you have sea, shipping, coast, mountains, desert, islands, and I don't believe it has changed too much from 1948-2018.

Subscribed. :) Look forward to seeing this develop. Great to see another WW2 build on here.

"So why make a Spitfire?" Well, it's a long and convoluted story that started when I discovered DCS, and rediscovered flight-simming (I'd dropped out of it due to the lack of a good sim with aircraft that I liked... by "good" I also mean runs-out-of-the-box-without-15-homebrew-patches). As I had recently also become single and needed a project to keep me occupied (preferably manual to help my old arthritic hands) I decided, for about the 5th time in my life, to build a sim-pit. But of what? Here, in reverse order, are the contenders: 4) The Huey Pros: It's the Huey! I like choppers, Apocalypse Now, and cut my simming teeth on the ah-64 (Gunship... for the ZX Spectrum! Ahem). Software available. Pictures and manuals available. Virtual airforce(s). Map and missions on DCS. Cons: Extremely steep learning curve, both in building and flying, due to specialist heli components. Can't really get a feel for it on an old knackered joystick and no pedals. Parts hard to get in UK - either replica or used. No period map on DCS. Common sense won out in the end - rejected. 3) A-10C Pros: It's the Warthog - who doesn't like a rotary cannon with wings? HOTAS controls available. DIY plans and assistance available. Large community of builders and flyers. Software available. Survivable airframe. Period map(s) on DCS Cons: Massive switch count, even for basic flight controls. Specialist switch tops and buttons require purchase/fabrication. Multiple screens. Ground-attack aircraft, and I generally seem to tend towards top-cover/A2A in less -serious games. The manual... now, I know some of you live for this, but the idea of pressing buttons to get AWACS ingress info and the like isn't my idea of fun (I'm more of a zoooooooooooooom-dakka-dakka kinda guy). Rejected - too modern. 2) P-51 Mustang Pros: Software available. Free software available. Lower switch-count than modern jets. More suited to my play-style - fun to fly? Info and images available. Simple joystick control. Cons: Paucity of free/cheap scale plans (particularly for cockpit rather than the airframe as a whole). Switch-count still rather high. Specialist switches required. Parts more available on other side of Atlantic. No period map on DCS. Foreign, and not widely known to non-aficionados here. Bubble canopy. After a lot of swithering it was rejected in favour of another WW2 fighter. 1) Spitfire mk IX (It's worth noting that there was a tough choice between the IX, the XIV, or a 'pit for both. The IX won, mainly as the updates on the XIV from the developers dried up - and I find the IX more aesthetically pleasing both inside and out.) Pros: It's a SPITFIRE! There's not a male over the age of about 10 in the UK who doesn't appreciate the Spitfire at some level. Hell, even non-aviation people know what you are talking about when you say "I'm building a Spitfire". Got lots of info already on it. Plans available at a reasonable cost. Seems fun, yet also rewarding, to fly. Nice lines, as it will be sitting in a dedicated room. Switches and the like available. Low switch-count. Original or similarly-aged parts available and affordable in UK. No toe-brakes. My accent fits. Kudos Points. Similar flying skills can be picked up on existing sim aircraft (P-51). Cons: No software available on DCS at present. Wiggly-stick probably harder to make. No period map at present. Entire frame needs built before flight controls etc can be mounted. Some original/replica parts V expensive. No virtual airforce support at present. Build would be entirely DIY, and learn-as-you-go. This will take a loooooooooooong time. Well, it won out in the end. I'll admit that the P-51 was close contender, mainly as the software is already out there. However a couple of points clinched it for the Spitfire. Firstly, given my decision to use the Rift for the display, I'd be waiting for that anyway so a software delay is not such an issue. Secondly, and I'm not ashamed to admit it, if I'm going to have a large toy plane sitting in my spare room, I want one that people will actually recognise - one that is a feature as well as a personal plaything. Besides, I had Spitfire bedsheets as a child, and I've wanted one ever since. Not having a couple of million kicking about to get a real one this seemed the next best thing... It actually became a simple choice once I asked myself "if you could build one (and only one) sim-pit to fly about in, what aircraft would it be?" There was only one aircraft it could be.

Thanks, Lynx. That's some nice stuff you have on your page there. I'm afraid that I'm more of a pencil-n-paper man than this 3D printing stuff...:music_whistling: Anyway, more pics. This is the framing essentially done. I still need to get the sliding canopy made but as far as the frame goes... done! :D Now for a quick sand, a skim of filler in places, then the interior green paint on it. Phew.

Yes, and no. I cannot "read" all the text on the analogue dials on my wee simulated P-51, but I can "see" enough info to judge my airspeed, height, manifold pressure, rpm, etc whilst fully zoomed out in the cockpit. That's the beauty of dials with hands - rather like clocks with hands, one doesn't need to read the numbers. I don't drive. Never have, never will. What's your point? I presume it is something to do with pixels-per-inch of the display on the monitor vs the effective resolution of my eyes. Pardon? Is this a cow-the-size-of-a-house question? If the objects are viewed the same distance, then yes; otherwise yes, as long as we take in to account the size/distance scaling factor. Short answer: No. Longer answer, depends where you are viewing it from surely. Even in a real cockpit you can cover a 4" dial with your thumb... if you hold said thumb close enough to your eye. No. See monitor vs eyes answer above. This is a (current) hardware issue, surely? ---- I think the point, that has been missed, is that these days pilots (as far as I know) don't fly with a little telescope to spot enemy aircraft with. Nor to they have a little drone to get an external view, or have little blue labels on sticks above friendly aircraft, etc. "Realism" is a sliding scale, but I firmly believe that being able to "zoom" beyond what one could see my pressing your nose against the canopy and squinting really hard is blatantly unrealistic. The main problem, however, is one of Balance. I personally am more than happy to sacrifice some absolute realism to allow a more level playing field. For example, allowing people who haven't blown several month's wages on dual Knobmeister-3000 graphics cards and a 4K monitor big enough to have apes worshipping it to compete on an equal footing with those that have. How that is done is a separate issue... :P

Ooooooo! Thanks for sharing that. She's really is a wee beauty, even though she's not "all-grown-up" yet.:P Agile little beast too... cannot wait to fly her. (Oh, and thanks to others for the info on calibres and HF/LF/engine variations. It's all very interesting actually.)

Ach well... just as well I've got to wait for a) the rift (or similar), and b) my pit to get finished! :P Progress though. Progress is good.

Thanks.

Thanks Toxaq et al. Have you seen the p-51 stuff on shapeways? I reckon this would look *gorgeous* in a P-51 'pit with the right paintjob on it. http://www.shapeways.com/product/7CNKNEHEK/fuel-tank-selector-usaaf?li=shop-results&optionId=57599183 (I'll elaborate on this in due course, but I nearly started on a P-51 myself. However I knew in my heart-of-hearts I'd want a Spitfire when one was released...) Anyway, I haven't seen a right-angle in weeks :mad: and I'm still beavering through the windscreen, but here's a wee teaser in case anyone thinks I've got bored or dropped dead. More thinking and trying rather than actual "work" going on here right now.

To be honest, after seeing that image I don't care if the wings are clipped or not! Hell, I'd pre-order that in a heartbeat... (Any guesses as to when yet?)

Just another quick photo update. Got the upper coaming and door done. Making a curved door is... interesting, certainly. :music_whistling: So, *why* am I making the whole cockpit for a simulator? And why am I doing this *before* any instruments or controls? Well, the short and simple answer is because it's as easy as any other way. The spitfire, if you look at pictures of the inside of the cockpit, it isn't like a modern bathtub-with-panels jet. Instead every switch and control is basically hung off part of the aircraft frame. I had two options: a) have the parts I needed on custom stalks and extensions above or below an arbitrary datum, or b) duplicate the fuselage frame. I went with option b). Next stage: front canopy.

Aye, Spitfire for me though... :D Considered the P-51... until I heard the Spit was imminent(-ish). She's always been my first love, and parts for her are easier to get over this side of the pond. Slow-but-steady build log on here - link in my sig. Have you considered scaling up a set of large scale (1/4 or 1/5th scale) model plans?

Nice work! Great to see another couple of people working on ww2 birds on here...

Hello again all... Just a quickie for now. Got the coaming supports up, which was a bit tedious (to say the least), and the stringers for frames. The girl is really showing her curves now. :) (At a later date I'll explain *why* I'm building the whole cockpit frame first...)

Evening all! Another wee update for you. Busted a nut yesterday getting this lot done and mounted, but the upper frames are now finished and attached. Beginning to actually look the part. :) Sitting in it is rather... eerie. I've left the "floating rib" partial frames off until I fit the seat support, but with them in place it feels very closed in - even without the skin on. Also, when you crane your neck to get a view out through the wee peepholes next to head support you certainly get an impression of what the real thing must have been like. Onwards and upwards.

Heh heh - I keep telling myself that when he's swinging on my headset lead... :mad: Anyway, I said I wasn't going to post a WIP of the bits I was fiddling about with, but I couldn't resist. 24 hours ago this elevator trim wheel was: a pound-shop funnel, a cheap cookie jar lid, a pack of dowels, the lid from my cod-liver oil tablets, some tape, a tube of superglue, and some Greenstuff (2-part expoxy putty for the non-GW people). Annoyingly enough I've used up all the greenstuff I had, and need more to tidy up the rim and that, but thought I'd spray in black to see how it looked. Aye, I'm happy with that! It's got the knobbly outside and the annoyingly dished interior of the real thing. I know the pill lid is non-authentic, but I reckon the twisty-marks on the top of it will look rather nice when painted white. Oh, and it was all done "by eye" too... I know I *should* have measured the circumference, divided by blah-blah, subtracted, marked out, etc, but I just stuck dowels down about a finger-width apart and trimmed the funnel until it fit. Sometimes it's fun to just wing it without the ruler. :thumbup: (You'll see the size of what I usually work on lying on my messy work desk too)