Cripple

Or just shoot the bally thing! :P (Oh, and 165 were apparently flying Spit.IXs at this time: http://www.rafcommands.com/Ross/Fighter/165F.html ) [ame] [/ame]

At least one twin-engine bomber from each faction would be a useful next step. Different to fly, different battlefield role, multi-crew options (once they get that to work), and gives our interceptors something to intercept... ;-)

Well, you are all waaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of me. I read the email at work, and am ashamed to say it took me far to long to notice the full wings. Thanks ED for the update, and a particular "Thank you" from me for listening to our whinging about it. :P Now, about buying that early alpha release....? Heh heh. ;-)

Thank you for the replies regarding the Deadman Build Instructions. Firstly, a couple of wee heads-up: 1) I am a native (UK) English speaker, and considered (without any false modesty) to be pretty damn good at it even amongst my peers. Therefore my apologies if anything I say (write) seems condescending or directly insulting. It is not mean to be so, and most likely a misunderstanding on your part. I am more than happy to clarify anything contentious. 2) Myself and "Deadman" have had an run-in on another thread last year. For some reason, despite the topic in discussion being whether one could operate controls blindfolded, he chose to suggest that one should only listen to the opinions of someone who had built two cockpits; then subsequently followed this up with a direct ad hominem attack when asked to clarify his statement. Given the above crass and elitist 'two-pits-or-STFU' comment, and his perceived status within the building community, I freely admit that I am expecting more of Deadman (or anyone else who subscribes to this school of thought) than I would of Joe Nobody. In fact I would expect the quality of: planning, explanation, build, support, and indeed deportment to be a cut above the rest of us. Hence why I may be erroneously seen to be "nitpicking". Anyway... onwards and upwards. A) Maybe the pdf and/or the initial posts could be amending to clarify exactly who this 'pit is designed for, and limitations of said design. I may have misunderstood HMA's comment about hoping to see more builds, and seen this as a Volks-pit designed for consumption by the masses. It is not, and requires a significant amount of space for the pit - presumably on the ground floor and with access to a larger door for rolling on the trailer. That may be implicit or obvious to veterans of Viperpits or this Cockpitfest-thing, but I would suggest that we cannot assume that everyone will have that knowledge. Or indeed the space. I trust we are not wishing to discourage anyone thinking of building in their 3rd-floor flat or back-bedroom from starting one? B) Similarly, if the design of this cockpit is dependant upon other elements (as covered in Deadman's post #6, point D), should this not be explained in either the document or the initial posts. For example, *if* it is important to recess the beams, the say so... and say exactly why. Otherwise, other's may also perceive that it is not necessary and risk buggering up their entire build. In other words, if this is one part of a bigger build, then you need to alert potential builders to the other parts of it. C) My apologies, I could have sworn I saw a remarkably similar build on a different site when I was contemplating an A-10 myself last year. D) Deadman, I am willing to take your word as to the accuracy of your(wooden) pit up to a point, although I would be interested to see the diagram that shows a 3/4" plate under the entire cockpit. I knew the 'hog was armoured, but... E) A decision needs to be made as to exactly who the pit is designed for: novices or the more experienced. Currently I am reading that the justification for the 1:1 scale cockpit bow is for " some one of perhaps moderate to no carpentry skills", whilst at the same time suggesting this same individual makes the aforementioned recesses in 2x8" beams and makes 10-degree cuts with a circular saw - I would suggest those are far from trivial cuts, and would be daunting to anyone without experience using such a power tool. A mate of mine has built and plumbed a sizeable extension to his house, and I believe he would still balk at this. F) That is if it has been specifically designed for specific novice builders at all. If this is simply one-man's personal take on the A-10 cockpit, then that should be made clear. Currently it is presented more like a How-To rather than a How-I-Did-it. G) Deadman, I fear you misunderstand me when I talk about using a table of offsets: "Less (sic) cuts equals less time cutting and less chance of error in cutting." I am not actually suggesting one makes any more than one cut round the drawn curve. What I suggesting is that one gives the builder a table of offsets; they then lost this on to a grid of correct size, join the points with a best-fit curve, and cut round that (once). Lofting is not complicated, as most children learn how to measure and join-the-dots. It also costs one considerably less than £20. All the bulkheads and the instrument panel in my build were lofted directly on the plywood with nothing more complicated than a pencil, a rule, and a bendy bit of plastic (for the curves). I can happily try and demystify it for people as it may open up that "Black Art" to others, if anyone wishes. H) I like how a scrap of offcut has been used for radiusing a curve. That's the sort of thing that makes it easier for people to build a 'pit. Thumbs Up! I) I still fundamentally believe that Deadman's 'pit is over-engineered, thus increasing the cost and weight without much in way of justification (so far). His bald statements about these other parts and the use of canopy bow simply do not cut it for me. Wood is extremely strong in compression, and even one sheet of 3/4" ply cannot be snapped over one's knee. In fact, the point of failure of the canopy bow would most likely be where it joins to the lower fuselage, not the bow itself... ergo, the canopy bow itself is over-engineered. If one is using it to lever oneself out of the cockpit then it needs to support that weight (plus a reasonable safety margin) - any more is wasteful in terms of cost, weight, and complexity; and should not be copied blindly. Don't believe me? How about if I said I pull myself out of my cockpit via a strip of 45mm x 5mm (1.5" x ~1/4") of stripwood? (see pic) That's what the cockpit side-rail is made of, but because it supported every 6" by a skinny rib of 3/4" ply it takes enough of my weight. The rest of my weight? Well, the left hand is on the 34x34mm spruce longeron, while my feet push me up from the frame 7 bulkhead - which is a piece of 3/4" ply... end on. QED. J)"Your concerns and critique of the plans seam to be based on your not understanding the pit and the parts that will be fallowing. As all ways all views and comments are welcome as long as they are constructive and not considered arrogant or condensing." (as written) I can only assume that English is not your first language either, Deadman. This is why I have cut you a considerable amount of slack in the past. As I mentioned above, there may be misunderstanding due to a lack of clarity, rather than my simply not understanding. Seeing as you chose to bring it up, let me also make myself explicitly clear here: a desire for comments not to be arrogant nor condescending (as I believe you meant to say) cuts both ways. What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, and neither one's post count nor one's perceived status gives one licence to act otherwise. In other words, all comments are welcome in an open forum - so long as they are all delivered in a manner befitting polite discussion. I trust that is clear enough for all parties?

I don't think we are allowed to say "nitpick"... Deadman got upset about it once, I believe.

Nicely collated! I remember reading the earlier drafts of this when I was toying with doing an a-10 myself. Couple (++) of wee points: a) Is the layout the most efficient usage of the ply sheeting? I reckon you could squeeze parts 23,24, & 28 on to the same sheet of ply as parts 17 and 10 (and the canopy bow squeezed in elsewhere), saving a few quids-worth of plywood sheeting. The middle-most canopy bow could even be split in to two or three sections as it will be sandwiched between two others and glued to formed (another) laminate. Think like a sewing pattern's cutting guide, where bits are squeezed in to make the absolutely best usage of the expensive fabric. b) It seems a wee bit... over-engineered. I've been using 18mm ply myself recently, and it is pretty solid stuff! I'm only using it for the loadbearing areas - the bulkheads (and even then, with cutouts) and small piece for the base of the seat. In turn, I've been using 34x34 pine for the structural longerons, and stripwood for the stringers, with no structural problems. In hindsight, I could probably have got away with 12mm ply for the bulkheads. One has to ask, "how much of the 'pit structure actually needs to be weight-bearing, and to what degree?" For example, the seat will be the area that carries the weight of the pilot, both when seated and when climbing in. Considered the seat, via part 20, is mounted so as to spread this weight over no less that four mighty 2x8 beams (see picture) - is the usage of a large 18mm ply base then really necessary? Removal of those could reduce this to a 2-sheet build. c) Use of offsets. It's a minor point, but I was able to work up the curves for the Spit from a table of offsets (taken from the real thing). Perhaps that might be a helpful way of describing the curve of the canopy bow, so it can be drawn directly upon the wood rather than printing out a pattern piece 1:1? d) Simplifying the build. Again, a minor point; however I am curious as to why the floor piece 20 is rebated in to the beams rather than simply screwed directly to them? It could simplify the build, at a minor aesthetic cost. e) Breakdown & Transport. (Seem also point b)There doesn't seem to be any provision for this, aside from the fitment of wheels. How heavy is the finished pit? Will it fit through a normal domestic door, or does it have to be built in situ? That's just what leapt out at me so far...

And, at 30-40 quid per aircraft, will take a large number of sales to even get that stake back - let alone make sufficient profit for future investment. Which is why, as I have said in previous discussions, we (as a group) cannot afford to become elitist in either the choices of aircraft or our attitude to new blood (who may well ask daft questions or ruffle feathers). More punters = more sales = more cash = more planes = more choice = more punters = etc. No new blood will lead to a decrease in sales once we own all the modules we want. QED.

Don't forget the shiny metal case that doubles the price, and an OS that only art students can view as intuitive....:doh:

^^ +1 :)

Hmmm, been just over a fortnight. Feels like longer. I had my first real taste of the dreaded Pit-Builder's Funk the other week. To put it mildly, I hated everything I saw and was tempted to take an axe to the lot of it and build a bloody Elite Dangerous "sim"-pit. It's unusual for me to be so self-critical, but it does happen. I blame the following: a stinking head-cold, too much ED and not enough DCS (the latter requires far less deflection of the ol' joystick), a piss-poor frame-rate when playing, and staring too long at the one bit of wood. My plan was to wire the instrument panel before putting it in place, for ease of wiring. However, one has to balance that with needing to keep the momentum of the build going. It's also a pretty major piece of the cockpit that moves the whole build forward. Oh, and I have a wee picture. I mounted the 1942 ki-gass primer below the dash. Happy with that. :)

Wow! :D Am the only one considering a second 'pit? :P

Open the hood and stick your head out? :P

Hear, Hear, Brixmis! Way too many US models around already or planned. I'm more of a WW2 fan tbh, but I'd buy a Sea Harrier (which I know even the GR's aren't exactly) the second it came out... particularly if they had a few ships in a rather narrow channel. ;-)

Don't see where the "month" came from though...

Proper update time. Festivities notwithstanding, progress is a bit slow at this time of year as my hands are more buggered than usual (from arthritis). However I got my finger (and my sewing machine) out and got a head pad sewn up from some scraps of p-leather I had lying about. That allowed me to finally get the head "armour" plate mounted. Feels good in the cockpit too. :) Pics of headrest and wip dash.

Excellent! Something to shoot down. :D

El Hadji - I think the snag is that the FAQ is not being updated. There certainly have been updates/teasers on the Spitfire mkIX threads, and also in the emailed/facebooked updates. Pics are available here: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/screenshots/ (No idea about any of the others though...) I totally agree about a need for more realistic release dates, or at least some caveat regarding their... mobility. (As an aside, this may also be to do with what one expects from the word "deadlines". I work in the public sector, where a "deadline" is an entirely arbitrary date concocted by management and there is little real expectation that it will be stuck to - and is usually over-run by months, if not years. I understand things are a little different in the private sector though... :P Seriously though, when I hear "deadline" I hear "it would be nice if it could be finished by then, but there is really no imperative that it must be". YMMV, as they say.)

Basically, yup. +1 We are not shareholders in ED, therefore we cannot demand updates nor expect them to acquiesce to our development ideas. Be thankful that they, the developers, are actually active in this forum. Don't get me wrong, I'm champing at the bit for the Spitfire mkIX and decent map/campaign for it; and to be honest if there was another product that could support my needs I'd jump ship. However, DCS is the only place in town at the mo, so we basically have to be patient. Patient, whilst still gently reminding the development crew that we WW2 fans might not be in the majority, but we've still got cash to burn should the right product(s) appear. In my experience a polite smile and a gentle reminder every so often is far more efficacious than "whining"...

Excellent! Thanks for the update. Look forward to seeing more in the future.

But will this "whining" do any good? Or will it, as the other fella pointed out, actually damage the morale of the development team (who are not, as far as I can follow, responsible for the Kickstarter debacle or the artificially raised expectations)? One third-party developer has already stopped posting WIP updates due to such whining and are-we-there-yet-are-we-are-we-are-we "feedback"...

Surely that's part of the risk inherent in supporting Kickstarter projects? It's a bit of a gamble... a punt in the dark, rather than actually paying for an established project.

And *this*, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why I am not planning to use a projection system or Big-F-Off-TV...:doh:

Still here and still beavering away at the dash-panel (almost a separate project in its own right). Here's a wee pic of the landing gear indicator; got a cheap cast from ebay and tarted it up. Interesting spitfire fact: dimming of this indicator was achieved by way of the small roller-blind. Seriously. Onwards and upwards...

I am not "Crumpp", I am not particularly interested in *your* argument per se, and I am certainly not solely debating this issue with your good self. My point, which may have been missed, is that if a real pilot (from the appropriate period) did not or could not do X, should we as simmers be able to do it? And if so, should we be able to only do it when sandboxing and experimenting, or also when flying against others? And, if so, does this have a (negative?) effect on the fidelity of the sim? This is a query, a thought exercise, and an invitation to debate. I feel some of you are taking it a little too personally though...

No... ... but it should still be accurate to it. Otherwise it is no longer simulation, but speculation. Whilst I concur that DCS is not limited to WW2, the majority of the discussion in relation on this thread has been related to WW2 aircraft, particularly the P-51 - hence my quotation. However, in fairness, I shall open my question up: can *anyone* show me evidence that real combat pilots (rather than gamers or real-life pylon racers) tweeked their fuel (and/or ammunition) levels to improve their performance? NB: I am not talking about dropping external tanks, or not filling auxiliary tanks; I mean evidence that the amount of fuel in the main tanks was altered for tactical reasons in the appropriate time period for the aircraft discussed. There we go. :)