Cripple

Sounds amazing. :) Good point, RB. I think there is a bit of an over-emphasis on the "whistles-n-bells" graphical features at times, over the functionality.

Sorry. Meant to reply sooner. They are a mix of old semi-period 40s/50s gauges, and "clocked" versions of the more difficult to obtain ones - such as the fuel gauge. They are non-interfaced "dumb" gauages, and pretty much expensive window-dressing as I'm planning to use the Rift headset to generate an entirely simulated cockpit. I was originally gonna use a poster of the instrument panel, but it seemed a rather cheap-n-nasty move given the effort put in elsewhere. So I went for more work on the panel, which I am justifying as being for those cockpit familiarisation drills (aka "sitting in the cockpit having a cuppa before work"... I can't be the only one who does that!) and a certain degree of kudos points from the non-sim crowd who pop their heads in to it. It should also hopefully reduce the VR-disorientation from taking the headset on/off.

Thanks for the support, guys. Keeps the interest up. I second the idea of a poll or graph. Might to useful for newbies to see who's building what, and whos brains to pick accordingly? Anyway, just a wee update. Here are my take on the spitfire's very distinctive rudder pedals. Made from a t-handled seed dibber, scrap ply, those aluminium carpet thingies, and paint. :) Still got to mount the bar between them and interface them, but progress is progress!

Indeed. How on earth is a K4 "above the Mustang when engagement happens", unless you were to start at the same airfield (at the same time)? If you have the height advantage you can even dictate whether to engage or not.

That ^^

... "as long as they fly the Mustang." I repeat my question: historical accuracy aside, does the simulated P-51D require this modification to keep it competitive (rather than game-winning) at this time?

I am very sorry you see that as an insult (petty or otherwise). I was merely suggesting that your objectivity in this matter may be... compromised. This is not about debating historical fact here. I believe we are debating whether it is necessary (or even appropriate) for the *simulated* P-51D to be "buffed", particularly at point when the resources to do that would be taken away from other WW2-related projects, such as the Normandy map and forecasted aircraft. Is the existing Mustang so bad that it needs a priority engine upgrade? Doesn't sound like it... (I'm Scottish, actually. Look at the info to the right. I chose to view that as an oversight rather than a deliberate insult though.)

Isn't that's something to do with the 109's cannon, versus half-a-dozen 50-cals in the Mustang? How will a boosted engine assist with this? Or are you after bigger bullets too? :music_whistling: (At the risk of making this sound ad hominem, can we really expect someone with a P-51D "sig" to be approaching this objectively and dispassionately?)

Nor the current model. QED

*I* am not... What I am doing is objecting to others attempting to do so ("historically plane X in TAF-Z had Y, therefore Sim-X should have Feature-Y"), whilst simultaneously claiming this is not a historical sim ("because plane Sim-A has Feature-B"). Follow? If anyone wants a bigger will...er engine for the Mustang, fine - it won't magically make anyone a better pilot. But please do not try and use an appeal to the gods of Historical Accuracy if this is not a 100% accurate historical sim. (However, if it's not a historically accurate simulation, then exactly where is the problem with having a smaller peni...er engine on the current sim-'stang? Just not big enough, eh?):P

That's not the most common usage of 'relegated' in (UK) English btw. In fact, I've never heard it used in that context. It's more commonly used as a pejorative, as per definition #1 - hence the confusion.

Spot on. One cannot claim historical precedent to support one's position, whilst simultaneously claiming that this is not a historical simulation when contrary evidence is given. Please pick one position and stick to it. Personally, I can't see the problem. Okay, so the Mustang may be (allegedly) "underpowered" compared to her in-game contemporaries, but the individual skill of the pilot has not been "nerfed" (as I believe it is put). Would I have a problem flying a Spit-IX (or even a V) instead of the later up-engine mk-XIV uber-Spit? No. For some it's not about flying the "best" iteration of a particular model... (Who's "hating" on the Mustang anyway?)

:megalol:

The gauges are likely to be a standard diameter. This link might be a good start for guessing which is which. I believe the author is active on here too. http://www.mikesflightdeck.com/dimensions/instrument_cutouts.html I considered doing a Huey-pit myself at one stage, so I'll share the bits of info I've collected. Apologies if it duplicates anything we already know.

What about a camera lens test chart? http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/lens_sharpness.html

Looking good! Coincidently, I've been making rudder pedals out of wood and bits n bobs too... :D

I approve :)

And some of us and very interested in doing much the same... (Thanks, Krupi et al for the research. Look forward to a definitive answer.)

Thanks for that. I've never had a good look at the inside of a Mirage before... Oh, someone better point out to the Americans that those dimensions are in millimetres. :P

Seafire mk-whatever would be nice. "Interesting" to land, but suitably similar to a spitfire to allow cross-development (once the appropriate spit is out).

Can still reach out and touch it... Oh, and one only has the goggles down for flying. How much time do we spend just admiring our pits and sitting in them to have a cuppa and a think - er, I mean "cockpit familiarisation drill".

Erm, did I miss what you are flying? You mention problems with the HUD... Would that still be as much of an issue on WW2-era aircraft, which tend to try to give the pilot markedly less info (and specifically don't have a HUD)?

Evening all, Thanks for the support. Would you believe I've been at this for a year now? Anyway, here is another wee update as I've finished up the dash panel. Not bad for window-dressing. :P (Apologies for the crappy phone pics...)

Good Lord, is that still going? VR is far less attractive when you have to mount two CRT monitors to your flight goggles... :P Seriously though, why are we looking at two rapidly polarising positions here? Unless you have some tactile feedback gloves tucked away (or are flying fully glass cockpit) then you are still going to need some way to activate all the little switches - ergo building cockpits are not exactly dead in the water. That said, the fidelity bar becomes considerably lower once you pop a pair of goggles on... which must be a bit aggravating if you've slaved away getting 1,523 rivets placed accurately. As for why a professional air forces aren't using VR: because they have REAL planes, maybe? In other words, their needs are different. They aren't so much wanting to play a spot of Blue-on-Blue-Dakka-2016 as train the buzzcut-boys for getting in to the Real McCoy. Turning one's head about to admire the vapour trail and generally having a gay ol' time is far less important than making sure the lads don't press the wrong little button at the wrong time - at the taxpayer's expense. I like the desk though. You can always add more buttons as the bug bites you.:thumbup:

Oh. My. God! Amazing work. And so fast too. Totally putting me to shame here... :P