Cripple

Another week, another update. Nothing too spectacular here, just the upper bulkheads cut out and shaped. Still need to do the inside cuts, but that shouldn't take long.... (Also working on other bits n bobs on the side, but I'll refrain from sharing those until progress is made.)

Oh dear! My apologies, Mike... I actually tried in my last post to pour oil upon the troubled waters, not petrol. :( I hope you will permit me to elaborate upon a couple of points. It seems that the tone and intention of a couple of my posts has been taken the wrong way. I forget at times that this is a multi-lingual forum, and this may have contributed to the misunderstanding. Usually I am more than happy to elaborate upon and debate any contentious points in public, however in this instance I have chosen to pursue this matter in private. I will say that I find debate healthy, and any attitude of it's-my-way-or-the-highway objectionable. That said, I had hoped that my somewhat tongue-in-cheek post on this thread was equally balanced between the two current stereotypes. I fear I should have made the core messages clearer, and perhaps put in earlier (and in bold type): *any* simulator is an exercise in making compromises, and the future tech will likely be a fusion of both (squabbling?) styles. I have no wish to further highjack this thread, but should also clarify my comments about things being realistic enough. One of my other hobbies, which I have indulged in since my teens, is that of painting little men. You know, the inch-high metal and plastic ones. Anyway, over the years, it has become clear that "realism" is less important than what we shall call Verisimilitude - it has to *look* realistic, rather than *be* realistic. To cut a long story short, there is a tendency amongst all miniature painters (and, it would seem, simpit builders) to over-detail their work and not quite know when to stop. What I advocate in that community, and was trying to advocate in this one, is the idea of aiming for it being "good enough" rather than "perfect". Now, with a miniature I would use the Arm's Length Rule - if you hold it at arm's length and close one eye, if it looks fine then it is fine. Now, we cannot do that with simpits... but I find the idea of debating fractions of millimetres to be frankly absurd. I am aware my hands aren't what they used to be, but when working with hand and power tools I find that accuracy of +/- 1mm to be about as good as I can get it. I'd also be interested to know if people could, at normal viewing distance (which is also about arm's length), distinguish between panels that were fractions of millimetres out. The fact that the plans for these may be drafted from photos or be Best Guess makes me even more sceptical of the need for such absolute accuracy. Similarly, due to usually working at a small scale, I used 1:1 simply as a short-hand for adult-sized, rather than implying I'd be getting the callipers out... Thank you. To get back On Topic, as the above gentleman said, the next decade looks very exciting! I haven't been this enamoured by new tech since the first VR "boom" of the 90s (which was unfortunately a bit of a damp squib). Chroma-key with view tracking. Thank you. I couldn't remember the exact terminology, so didn't mention it earlier, but My Mate Baz was telling me something about this. He's waaaaaaay more clued up on cutting edge tech than me (he works in the field, I don't), but it seems that the idea seems to be essentially "Magic Paint" that one can paint on the canopy ... and instruments! Now that was the clincher. See-through goggles, that "draw" computer-generated images over the Magic Paint - you get the full clicky-button cockpit *and* the full view. ( And you don't have to mess about with interfacing and servos either... Sorry, Mike. :P)

To *whom* might you be referring, exactly? Regardless, that could come across as a rather elitist and unhelpful comment. It seems that you are insinuating that someone's opinion is not valid unless he has constructed *two* simpits. Which, whilst not likely to encourage anyone perceived to be a "newbie" to venture an opinion (valid or otherwise) in this forum, is also logically inconsistent. The statement, regardless of your intention behind it, reads like "a man's not a Real Man until he's on his *second* marriage!" Personally, I'd rather get it right the first time... I am pretty sure that's not what you meant though, and you will clarify this in due course. :music_whistling:

That's not too bad when you look at it in comparison actually... :)

Correct... but with not to the fractions of a millimetre with the labelling in the correct Mil-Tech 101 (or whatever) font. Which seems to be what a lot of the nit-picking in some sections of the community is about. At the risk of offending any partisan defenders of each particular faction: VR, as it stands now, is like trying to type a letter in a diving mask and neck brace - great for seeing *around*, you but not so great for seeing where your fingers are. Tri-monitors are like playing the piano in the bay window of your living room - you can see your fingers perfect and a view out the front, but if you look far enough over your shoulder then you still see the sofa and the cat. Both of these are (like many other aspects) *compromises* forced upon pit builders by technology/funds. Which one you are in favour on is largely a matter of what you are willing to do without... If you are a warbird (or helo?) pilot with a relatively limited number of controls to guddle for, then the idea of being able to see in a full 360 with 6DOF is like Christmas and Early Retirement in one; even if it means not being able to see your (real) hands. On the other hand, if you enjoy modern fast jets with their myriad of clicky-buttons and tactical options, then you are going to consider doing that with your (natural) vision removed to be madness; and will accept a reduced field of external view in exchange. (The resolution "issues", which I am *not* going in to, can also largely be seen as a matter of preference relating to one's chosen milieu. The further away one's opponent can launch a deadly attack upon one, the more likely one is more concerned about resolution up front (or on the radar screen) rather than 1:1 360-degree vision through the bubble.) VR is not AR... yet. AR is kinda what VR will grow up to be when it's mature. I don't think anyone is claiming that the Rift et al are the final expression of the technology , far from it. However they seem to be sufficiently interesting to be worth a punt. AR, when it becomes available to mere mortals, should be the best of both worlds - the fidelity of a 1:1 functional cockpit *plus* the 1:1 360-degree 6-DOF view of the outside (virtual) world. Until then, pick the immersive factor *you* need the most - which doesn't necessarily mean the differing perspective is wrong... Oh, and as a final aside I was washing my face this morning. With a wet face and my eyes tightly shut I: turned off the correct tap (on my first attempt), turned 90-degrees (in the right direction), walked three paces to the towel rail (without tripping over the toilet), grabbed the hand towel (without any messing about), and dried my (own) face before opening my eyes. Not tricky. My point is that one readily completes tasks without visually confirming the location of one's hands and fingers. I fail to see how the manipulation of (familiar) cockpit controls should be any more complex. Surely the reason *why* even 40s era aircraft have different shaped knobs (oo-er!) on the various levers is so the pilot is not required to visually confirm which knob he is fondling in the dark, and can rely upon his other senses - allow for a more efficient "eyes-up" scan pattern.

A thought just occurred to me... two words: touch typing. :) Shouldn't take that long to train up then.

No. I feel you are.... Mistaken. Or at least mostly so. 1) One does not require to see one's own fingers to click a switch. At the risk of sounding facetious, most of us are able to turn on our bedside light in the pitch black. Do you look at your throttle 'n' stick when you wiggle them about? I'm betting you can grab a drink and get your hand back on the stick without spilling or stalling too. I believe that Real Pilots train in dumb switch-pits so they don't have to look to *find* a switch, merely to confirm that it has changed position (if that). Hell, we can all WASD and click a mouse without looking at our hands... 2) I'll give you that one. VR headsets have little to do with this particular thread. 3) Er... no. I'm with Vicx on this one. My spitfire pit (see link in sig) is being designed from the ground up to work with an HMD. No moving gauges, no external screens, and, yes, all the correct switches in the correct places. I suspect there way be a wee learning curve in finding them "in the dark" initially, but after the muscle memory kicks in I see no problems what so ever - particularly as you can look down and see what you have done. No more complex than clicking the keyboard shortcut (without looking at it...) while looking down in to the virtual cockpit on the screen. Yes, this does make all the "pretty-ness "inside the average sim-pit a bit superfluous, up to a point. My original plan was to have essentially a correctly proportioned box with the switches and controls placed appropriately. However, we are doing this for fun (and a degree of bragging rights) rather than for pure functionality. We want, in essence, to be able to show something off to friends and relatives. Personally, having spent thousands of hours and pounds on the damn thing, I was something that *looks* a bit like a spitfire when it is turned off too. Hence why I am going for a curved body shell, dumb instruments in the panel, etc. A new thread, I think, is in order for this discussion... However dogmatic statements like the one quoted would be unhelpful.

Spot on! You hit the nail on the head: simulation, not replication; immersion, not perfection. Nice wee 'pit you have there. Few projects to keep you going (as you say), but you can have fun flying whilst you do them. :)

Thanks for the feedback. :) (There's a familiar, and inspirational, name popping up there...) Anyway, here's another picture wee update. Got the upper bulkheads all marked up and ready for cutting out. Re-wrapped my grip with bike tape - not authentic in the slightest but rather nice on my large and arthritic old hands. Oh, and I have acquired a furry co-pilot (two, actually)... this one was rather smug after having stripped all the polythene dust sheeting down from the walls! Funny old hobby this, isn't it? My original plan was for a fairly cheap lo-fi box-with-modern-switches; now I'm buying period(-ish) gear to essentially window-dress the dashboard! I also know faaaaaaaaaaar more about spits than I started... which is now enough to know *exactly* where the damn gaps in my knowledge base are. Heh heh. Got a cd or two of plans too, so I am busy sifting through them for the required info. Some wee nuggets so far though, like the spacing and font for the various switch labels. (Oh, and I am delighted that my "best guess and fudge it" decision to use 36mm wood for the datum longerons is as-near-as-dammit to the actual width of 1.5".)

Cheers. I'll keep my eyes peeled... and restrain myself from e-buy-ing possible duds for the moment. Heh - it's not like I don't have *plenty* of footering to keep myself busy with.

Any news on the cockpit lay-out since the mono-coloured renders? (I'm building a sim-pit, and want to make sure I don't have to change anything too much once this module comes out.)

Thanks for the link, Sokol. I'll pick up the bbc button and the flaps switch, I reckon... Anyway, here's another wee progress picture. Look like half of a big fat balsa plane now. So far, so good. Not bad for an arthritic cripple muddling through, eh? :-P

Excellent point. I shall just wait... impatiently. :P Oooooooo, I was concentrating on the wing tips (or lack thereof) so much that I failed to notice it's the high-back mk IX. Good stuff, ED. (I believe the other Spit in development is clipped and low-backed too...)

Phew! I was worried too. Roll on pay-day and I'll pick up a couple of boards for my ever-growing switch collection...

It looks... circumcised. :P Seriously though, big grin here. Have we got an ETA yet?

Didn't even know you could get pot-style HALLs... Thanks for the link(s). :)

Thanks for the info. Don't have a tracki-ir or the like though. Anyone care to test it? Alternatively, anyone with a Occulus Dev kit care to let me know what the minimum distance between the base station and headset is?

Evening, Planning the upper sections of my sim-pit, and I am wondering: does anyone know if the Occulus Rift does/will have problems with head tracking if there is a persex window (and some thin framing) between the head unit and whatever "sees" it? Imagine a head inside a cockpit canopy, with the tracky-thingy outside. Reckon this will work? I'll either make the who canopy, or just leave my bare head sticking out the top of the spitfire. :P Thanks in advance...

Afternoon, If you google "diy flight sim throttle" or similar there a quite a few projects out there with ideas you can steal. Mostly civil airliner models, but the basic concepts are the same. Tension... well, there seem to be two options. The first one is to have all the levers on the same pivot, and to basically tighten down the washers with a screwed handle - rather like how the real thing works. A second option, which leaves the lever pivot free for interfacing with the pot or hall sensor, is to put the resistance where the lever moves rather than at the pivot point - with scraps of carpet underlay or door draft-excluders, anything that gives a bit of friction to the movement of the lever(s).

Guess what I've been sitting in whilst making vroooooooooom noises and looking over my shoulders? :D Lower frame all done apart from the intercostals. Pretty sturdy now.

Finally, some build pics (rather than wooden shapes and musing)! The lower half of the cockpit is assembled and in situ. Still got to screw the datum longerons in place, but thought I'd share a wee update regardless. Happy Face here as it's all coming together as planned... pretty much. :-P In other news, my credit card hates me after some ebay splurging. I *love* the feel of the old switches though. Oh, and I'm not a serial killer. Honest. The plastic is so I can paint the damn thing without moving it again. Anyway, pics...

Wow! That's a *nice* pit. I'm very impressed, and more than a wee bit jealous. :) How did you interface the flaps switch? I'll admit that one is causing me a bit of head-scratching so far.

Thanks! I'll have a good browse of his wares...

Afternoon All... Been a couple of weeks since my last update, but rest assured that progress is still being made. No big construction updates, unfortunately, as I've been trying to get the "hanger" room repainted and ready for the installation of the cockpit shell. So, what have I done? - worked out how much ply I need for the upper frames. - worked out how I am going to do the smaller ribs that support the cockpit combing. Short version, I'm going to cut 2x frame 9 and 10x frame 10. On each side I'll use 5x frame 10, 4x for the door panel, and an end support. On the port side the door will be hinged, while on the starboard it will be screwed firmly in position - which should give a nice solid handhold for hauling my old arthritic body in and out (see pic). - discovered that Cuprinol "willow" paint is a decent substitute for RAF interior green, and covers both wood and metal fittings with ease (see pic). - after lots of pouring over pictures of old and modern spitfires, and more 1940s wiring diagrams than I'd wish to, worked out the switches I require for the 'pit. The pic is of my first thoughts, and represents a mash-up of marks. The mk.ix doesn't have the reflector gunsight or generator switches, and the "master" switch is like the supercharger switch and on the throttle body. Not going to bother with the IFF at this point as I'm planning to use proper vintage switches, which are Not Cheap. IFF seems not to be implemented in dcs anyway. Anyway, things are still moving, but a lot of it is thinking and planning work rather than exciting build shots. Hope to have the basic cockpit frame assembled and in situ over the next few weeks though.

Oooo - I look forward to seeing progress shots of this. :D I've started building up my own WW2 sim-pit, so here are a few points you might find useful: - 3/4 ply is pretty good to work with. I prefer it to MDF, actually. You can get the shop to cut it to approximate sizes which helps a lot! - Rather than using software, if you have the offsets etc you can actually draft the panels directly on the wood. It looks a bit daunting when you first look at the tables, but after you get your head round it it's basically just join-the-dots. - Toggles and levers; aye, went for those myself. Dunno what the surplus market is like for the corsair, you may be able to find originals or appropriate substitutes. Or, if you are less concerned with fidelity, then substitute modern ... substitutes. - You can never think and plan too much in advance. I'd be interested to know what your plan is for the display of the controls and the exterior view. Personally I'm combining the too and going for an HMD myself. Might not be appropriate if you have to read charts etc in your cockpit - does it really have a chart table and ashtray? :O - Gather as much info as you can. As it seems you are a fan of the aircraft you'll have a running start here. The internet is wonderful, but it pays dividends to invest in a collection or two of blueprints and manuals. They are unlikely to cover everything, but the more info you have then the more sources you can cross-reference to work out what-goes-where. (Just my own experience as a novice builder, and I am sure more experienced hands can pitch in too.) Anyway, great to see another WW2 sim-pit build thread on here. Good luck, and keep us updated.