Cripple

Ooooo - here we go again...:music_whistling: VR, as it stands, is predominantly visual. Yes, there is head-tracking, but that merely enhances the feedback to one's optical receptors. Certainly on the high street we are looking at an influx of headsets, not bodysuits or tactile gloves. Which mean the OP question can be rephrased as "will wearing a headset stop people building cockpits?" I would think not. One is still going to need things-to-press-and-twiddle. In fact, the inability to see the old plastic typewriter may actually encourage more people to build switch-boxes and other assorted controls... plus somewhere to mount them all. Also, as touch-typists and anyone who has put their socks on in the dark can attest to, with sufficient practice one does not even need to sit and watch where one's fingers are going. The flip side to this, as the OP has noticed, is that one also doesn't necessarily need all the dials, displays, decals, and rivets currently seen in the average pit. In fact, as some wag pointed out in a previous thread, you could literally use a cardboard box with switches mounted in the appropriate places. Personally I don't think pit building will end up this Spartan though, for no better reason that the greater the fidelity of the 'pit the less jarring the transition from physical cockpit to optical illusion (and back again). Plus you would like the GF to see it as a plane rather than a old box.:smilewink: Surely a lessening of the complexity of a build is a Good Thing? Fewer dials = fewer gears = fewer drivers = fewer problems... no? Yes, if one happens to be contemplating a build now, or has began building in anticipation of VR. However consider the poor guys who've sweated blood building something that looks (despite being compressed-sawdust-and-glue) exactly like the latest ZoomDakka 3000. So exact that they can sit in it and their eyes are fooled in to the suspension of disbelief. Great. Only now there's a lightweight monitor that covers your eyes and functions as a 6DOF head-tracker too... but it means they can't see all their hard work. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.... (You have to feel for them; it must be like back when LCD screens and projectors popped up - suddenly having a 13" CRT deadweight built in to the front of your "F-16" wasn't as cool at it seemed when you lugged it home.) What does "hardcore" actually mean here, anyway? Short answer, not a lot; and the OED definition is certainly not a particularly flattering one. I suspect the (self-defined) "hardcore" set will indeed continue to build visually stunning pits, but this will no longer represent the minimum level of fidelity required to suspend one's disbelief ... if one uses a VR headset (which no one doubts do not currently represent a mature technology, and one must accept the current limitations). VR is not the deathknell of pit-building. Rather the opening of another road to completion - which may not be the liking of all existing builders, either from sour grapes, elitism, frustration, over-investment in an existing approach, or a mix of all of the above. Take your pick, according to what you see written before you. :)

Beat me to it!

Ahhhhh! Sorry, I was initially reading that in the middle of the night. All clear now. :)

So, let me see if I'm following this... as you pull the handle the rod is moved, and the wee thingy on the rod presses the micro-switch inside the box? I like it! (What's the other micro-switch for? The one outside the box.)

I can confirm that I am seeing the pics too. Coming along very nicely! :)

Thanks. :-) To be honest, the inspiration thing works both ways... if it wasn't for the forum and posting of one's progress (and seeing that of others), it would be more tempting to shelve the project at times. I noticed that the ED Spitfire is coming along, and Normandy too... :-D

Been a looooooooooooooong time... and quite an "interesting" one too. I'd got most of the instrument panel in situ when my junkie-scumbag neighbour flooded me out. Aye. The bedroom and the spitfire room are basically gone (see pic of the damage). Fortunately I painted the spitfire with Cuprinol and used exterior grade ply! :lol: Seriously though, I'd have been "very annoyed" to the point of doing physical damage to said neighbour if a year's worth of project had been junked due to his stupidity. I am also please that I designed her to split in two (after removing a few screws) along the datum longeron, thus fitting through a normal domestic doorway. I know some of the A-10 "experts" expressed doubts over the necessity for this, but I would (regrettably now from experience) recommend any cockpit design can easily be redeployed from room-to-room (or even residence to residence). There is a wee pic of her in her temporary hanger in my gym. I even pat her occasionally like one would an old war-horse... Insurance are dealing with the damage, but my schedule has been put back maybe 6 months. My workbench is now in storage and my tools are... over there somewhere. That said, I got my labeller just as this all happened and I have been able to start getting the labels on the instrument panel. They aren't engraved brass, but do fine for the 3ft test - which is fine for me. So, yeah... I'm still here, and so is she. Getting that itch to maybe start on the rudder pedals or the control column. Just need to find a place to work!:music_whistling:

Nice work with the brakes. Doing the same for my spit.

+1 Yes, using a VR headset will require a different approach to input than one might be used to. However let's be mindful of what the keyboard is actually designed for: the entry of alphanumeric data. Nor are they used in the real world for flying aircraft, any more than I would use a hotas setup with 26 keys for typing a letter...blindfold. I mean I could, but it wouldn't be the best peripheral for doing so. Yes, you will probably need to learn how to do certain things in-the-dark. This is no different from how real (military) pilots train, and have done for some years (I have a WW2 log that mentions being signed off on blindfolded checks). Nor is it any different from playing dakka-quake-2000 (or whatever) used the wsad-etc keys, plus numeric to change weapons etc. It's just a matter of learning new (or different) skills. No, you shouldn't need to run a monitor as well. How would you see it with the googles on anyway? As an aside, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when typists worked on manual typewriters they used to take a hand off the keys to operate the old carriage return. They were still able to touch-type. Experience, that's how.

Anyone else notice our wee friend is the leading image in the current newsletter? No more info on the mk IX in it, but the image is surely encouraging...

Too right! Well said, Klem...

Amen to that! Anything that helps people believe they can have a go is fine by me. Apache - V nice! :)

Tsk! There's an easy solution to this.... one of each! There you go; Judgement of Solomon. Both parties are now happy, and can admire their perfect spitfire from opposite sides. :thumbup:

Yes. Because I'm paying to play a *game*, not scooting over Frog-land circa 1944... and, if I was, I'd likely fly-what-I-was-bloody-given. :smilewink: However, as I said previously, assuming I had the full choice of my mission types and aircraft load-out (cos the RAF worked like that, didn't it?), I'd be flying the top-cover for you mud-worm-chaps... with full wings.:thumbup:

I'd rather have the high level performance myself, as Reg designed them. Leave the ground pounding to the Hurricanes. :P You are also looking at (from the pilot's notes, AP 1565 J,K &L) a higher stalling speed with "clipped" wings. A value of 3-6mph at all loads is quoted.

Hmmm, to me Jazz like that tends to evoke a more American theme (if that makes sense?). It is also very... civilian, and to my ears *too* upbeat for aircraft that was rushed in a stop-gap (albeit one that performed wonderfully). More snare-drum? And make the brass sound rather less... raw? Alternatively there is a more modern take of the classic aircraft. It might not be to everyone's taste, but it is by British musicians and certainly gets the ol' blood pumping! :P [ame] [/ame]

Is this the proposed actual music? As someone who listens to 40s radio I find it a bit "jangly" and actually rather grating...

Had this thought whilst in the shower the other day, and I am kinda thinking out-loud, so please bare (heh heh) with me. Now, the Spitfire mkIX is fairly close to being released. As an aficionado, I know that the mkV is pretty close to the IX, and the Seafire III is pretty close to that. Do you see where I am going here: three planes from one (almost). Now, of course it isn't that simple. Nothing ever is. However, if the bulk of the graphical and flight modelling for the IX has been done, then it would become a lot easier for a development team with access to that to modify the relevant sections rather than starting from scratch. We can't expect ED, with their already massive commitments, to work on what are essentially variants of an existing (virtual) airframe. However, what about a 3rd party development team? I fully admit this is a far from fully-formed train of though, and I can already see problems with this concept: chiefly that ED and not about to just release several years of expensive work in to the public domain for Joe Nobody to hack in to something that might be polite be called an almost-Seafire. However I still believe the idea has potential to be worked upon. What do you all think? (This wouldn't be limited to the Spitfire, of course. It is just the airframe I am most familiar with. I believe the 109 family could similarly be expanded.)

Nice work. I do like seeing people's personal builds... particularly if they give a good explanation as to why they made certain design decisions. :)

I'm liking it! :) It is both logical and well planned out, yet looks relatively simple too. Modular, for ease of build and transport. An innovative modern evolution of the ol' "bathtub" 'pit (which other builders could do well to take note of...)

Ahhhhhhhh! Now that makes sense. :) Reasonable hypothesis to work from. Now, who'd like to crowd-fund my purchase of a type-c helmet for... testing purposes? :music_whistling:

Cheers for that info, F-4B. I have the "newer" control box for the 1133, but was never sure why it had replaced the 9D. From a purely personal perspective, and having tried it out in my 'pit, I have to question that rationale for deletion of the headrest. One's view is obscured by the dirty-great slab of armour plate and frame 12 -> aftwards; but unless one has eyes in a funny place, a ~6" pad at the rear of one's skull has no negative effects upon either head-movement or peripheral vision.

Yup. It's fairly easy to acquire. The ebay bundles of Spitfire manuals on a CD usually contain it.

1) Even looked out of the window on a submarine? Exactly, that's going to be a bit of waste of the DCS engine. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge (WW2) U-boat fan, but even I would acknowledge that it's 99% boredom as you track the enemy down... then hide from them. Modern subs surface even less frequently too. 2) If you want to sub-hunt from the air, do you need the sub to actually be sub-marine? Can't it just be an invisible (or very very small) surface vessel who's radar/sonar return is modified by the notional depth it is at? You're hardly going to be expecting to acquire them visually, then straff them while they sit on the surface, are you?

I was about to ask the same thing. From the Mk.V manual it's mod no.662, but I can't find anything else about this mod so far. :( (I knew about this but made the decision to put one I my 'pit anyway as I like the feel of headrest, and it looks nice and "Spitfire-y")