The A2A Simulations Community

you probably haven't seen me here earlier,but i have every a2a simulations product and am a big fan.here are my marks on wwII fighters:

mitsubishi m5 zero: 12 out of 10 points.this is one of the best planes i'we flown in a while.both interior and exterior models are excellent.no obvious bugs.high level of detail(but i havent been in the real thing,so i cant be the judge of that).all in all superb.

bf109: 10 out of 10 points,there were a lot of bugs in the 1.0 release,so that works against it a bit,but there were all fixed,and it is working fine now.nice models,you missed a couple of things in the vc,but i guess that is flight simulator limits

p-47 thunderbolt:now,the problems start here:i saw a p-47 in the local aviation museum,and the textures aren't that plastique.they dont look realistic,they are supose to be less shiney.
everything else was ok,so it is 7 out of 10 points.

p-51 mustang:same texture thing as the p-47,vc looks like someone made it in 15 minutes,i was slightly disapointed,i mean,this is wings of power,right?and i saw better virtual cockpits on freeware aircraft.still,the performance are by the book,and there is visible realisam,so it still scores 5 out of 10 points.

spitfire:i hope i am not offending anybody,but this thing is not worthey of having a wings of power logo on it.the vc is all wrong,again,i saw a spitfire close and personal,and it looks wayyy different.than,the wheels are too small,and it shouldn't takeoff like having a rocket up its ass,it feels like i am riding a rocket,but that is still a prop.and i saw with my own eyes that it can be done much better.(e.g. plane design spitfire for fs 2004) They are a company three times smaller and they built something much much better.so,this is a big failiure,but atleast you tried. 3 out of 10 points


i dont regret bying it,becaouse the zero itself provided me countless hours of fun.nice package,apart from some bugs...

I would like to make a few comments if you don't mind..

1) Most of these models are quite old. Some produced many years ago.

2) The BF109 VC was built utilizing imaged directly provided from vintage photos. I'm curious what you think is missing? According to our photos, everything is there.

3) The P-47 is old. It is currently getting a work over with the new Accusim package.

4) The P-51 is getting the same treatment as the P-47, and is one of the earliest A2A models.

5) I'm really interested where you saw this Spitfire. Was it a MK1? All our information regarding the MK1 was taken directly from vintage photos when building the VC and exterior.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/A ... pit040.jpg

This is just an example. Often museum pieces don't always have everything that the originals did. The plane only weighed some 5,800 lbs fully loaded but had a V-12 inline 1030HP Merlin engine. She had considerable torque when taking off and was very light on the controls. You also have to remember the role of the plane, a quick reaction defensive fighter for the most part. Or at least that was the role the plane played in the BoB. The MK1 was the first variant (which is what we was modeled), and there are numerous versions of the plane with different cockpit layouts (but all fairly close for the most part), armaments, etc.

During production pictures were taken both vintage and new and used as a schematic when building the model. Quite literally an overlay. So unless the pictures are wrong, the model covers the contours of the original as best possible. Think of sketch paper, that is similar to how it was created.

All A2A models are created utilizing as many vintage documents as can be acquired and are generally passed by a real pilot who flew such planes or currently is. They give us the thumbs up before we release anything. Using this method I feel rather than "guessing the numbers, look or feel" we are able to get a pilot's impression of each airplane. A2A strives at every opportunity to also make it a point to see, feel and touch the real thing every time we create a new aircraft (with a few exceptions like the Uhu, since no plane exists as it did in WWII).

If however you feel our documentation or modeling is wrong, please provide any pertinent information, screenshots, etc and we will do our best to correct any issues. It is our goal to provide the most realistic and best simulation possible, so your input is welcome.

Glad you are enjoying the planes!

_________________

YouTube video: Spitfire Mk.I and Hurricane Mk.I start up and take off in tandem "at RAF Cosford airshow 2008." Notice how quickly the Spitfire's tail comes up when the pilot begins his take-off run at the end of the clip. Also note the wheels and undercarriage on the Spitfire.

Here's a short demo video of another game developer's WIP interpretation of the Spitfire Mk. I's cockpit. It makes for an interesting comparison to the A2A Simulutions version of the same aircraft, if nothing else.

_________________
I like Thunderbolts! (Link to MySpace tribute page)


120th Fighter Wing, Montana Air National Guard

in the bf-109 i'we been in,the oxygen system is a bit different,but that is not a big problem.the spitfire vc lacks the following:iff transponder pushbuttons,they are painted,but they dont work.the signaling switchbox is also painted,but it doesnt work.there should be a military style radio(a,b,c,d chanels,and off button) in the upper left part of the panel.the primer handle is not that simple,it screws and unscrews before priming.the pedal adjustment knobs dont work.there is supose to be a cockpit wind handle,and a cockpit jettison handle(the second one is on the roof of the canopy,the first one on the right side of cockpit.and you might add an flame effect in the engine exaust during startup.a propeller driven aircraft is not supose to be that powerfull,compared to every other spit out there,yours is the fastest.i am very glad that the p-47, and p-51 are being reworked,those are great warbirds.as for the pictures,belgrade aircraft museum doesnt allow flashes,and is too dark for taking photographs without one.offcourse i dont mind for the coments,what are forums for if not for comenting things.

While I can agree that the functionality of some of the models' cockpit controls aren't entirely accurate (ie, the Spitfire primer doesn't twist to unlock), it appears to me that some of your suggestions are erroneous for the Spitfire Mk.I. I believe that some of the equipment you think should be in the Spitfire's cockpit, chiefly the canopy crank, are more appropriate for later variants of the aircraft.

I'm not an expert on the Spitfire by any means--I spend my leisure time combing Thunderbolt manuals so I have my own list of criticisms for the P-47D-20--so I took a quick look at what documents are available at my favorite WWII aircraft manuals forum. You'll need a membership to download these vintage Spitfire pilot notes.

There is no manual at that site that covers the Spitfire Mk.I. However, they do have an Air Ministry pamphlet dated July 1940 that covers the Spitfire Mk.II A and B models. I believe it is reasonable to assume that while there might be a few changes between the Mk.I and Mk.II series, these marks would be more similar to each other than a Mk.I would be to a Mk.V, Mk.IX or especially to a late war Mk.XIV or Mk.XVI. I quickly compared all the pamphlets for similarities and differences in canopy design, communication equipment and cockpit layout.

Canopy design: The Mk.II pamphlet describes the hood as such:
36. The sliding hood over the cockpit is cockpit is provided with spring latches for holding it either open or shut; the catches are released by two fingers at the forward end of the hood. From outside, with the hood closed, the catches can be released by depressing a small knob at the aft end of the windscreen. Provision is made on the door to prevent the hood from sliding shutif the airplane overturns on landing.
37. A small knock-out panel for emergency use is provided on the port side of the hood.

I do not see any further information about how to jettison the canopy. There isn't a diagram or illustration that shows the top of the windscreen either.

The Mk.V pamphlet has similar verbage to describe the operation of the sliding hood, but it introduces how to jettison the canopy in emergency:
30. Hood locking control - (same text as #36 above).
31. Direct vision panel - A small knock-out panel is provided on the right hadn side of the hood for use in the event of the windscreen becoming obscured.
46. Hood jettisoning - The hood may be jettisoned in an emergency by pulling the lever mounted inside the top of the hood in a forward and downward movement, and pushing the lower edge of the hood outboard with the elbows.

I don't see evidence of a canopy crank until the Spitfire Mk.IX and later series pamphlets:
31. Sliding hood controls
(i) On later Mk. IX and XVI aircraft the "tear-drop" hood is opened and closed by a crank handle mounted on the right-hand cockpit wall, above the undercarriage selector lever. The handle must be pulled inwards before it can be rotated. The hood may be locked in any intermediate position by releasing the crank handle which then engages with the locking ratchet.
(ii) From outside the cockpit the hood may be opened and closed by hand provided the pushbutton below the starboard rail is depressed.
(iii) The hood may be jettisoned in emergency (see para. 59).
59. Hood jettisoning
The hood may be jettisoned in an emergency by pulling the rubber knob inside the top of the hood forward and downward and then pushing the lower edge of the hood outwards with the elbows.

--------------------------------------
In regards to the availability and placement of communication equipment, the only pamphlet that I think is relevant in this case is the Mk.II pamphlet from 1940. While all the later pamphlets do show the four button control mounted above the throttle, the cockpit diagram (ie, a photograph with a key) in the Mk.II pamphlet does NOT show this device. Furthermore, the Mk.II pamphlet describes two possible installations of which the pushbutton type is the latter possibility:

Wireless controls

57. The aeroplane is equipped with a combined transmitter-receiver, either type T.R.9D or T.R.1113, located behind the pilot's seat.

58. T.R.9D installation. - With the T.R.9D installation, a typce C mechanical controller is fitted on the port side of the cockpit above the throttle lever. The controls comprise a central knob and an upper and lower lever. The upper lever should be pushed forward for "receive", pulled backward for "transmit" and moved to the central position to switch off the wireless unit; the lever can be locked in the off position by means of a latch that engages in a notch on the controller casing. The lower lever operates the fine-tuning control and is used during flight to make slight adjustments only, the main tuning of the receiver being pre-set on the ground. The central knob is the volume control and should be turned clockwise to increase the volume.

59. A remote contactor and contactor master switch are fitted on the starboard side of the cockpit. The master contactor is mounted behind the pilot's headrest on the port side and a switch controlling the heating element is fitted on the forward bracket of the mounting. The heating element should always be switched off when the pilot leaves the aeroplane.

60. The microphone socket is fitted on the starboard side of the fuselage adjacent to the seat.

61. T.R.1133 installation. - With the T.R.1133 installation, the contactor gear and microphone are as described in paras. 59 and 60 by tthe type C mechanical controller is replaced by a pushbutton electrical control unit.

62. The pushbutton control has a number of pushbuttons, one for switching the unit on and selecting pre-determined communication channels. In addition, there is a switch lever, high can be moved to three positions vis. "receive", "voice-operated" and "transmit", marked R, V.O. and T respectively. With teh lever at V.O., the unit normally remains on "receive" but automatically switches to "transmit" when the pilot speaks into the microphone; if, however, the cockpit hood is open, the noise of the engine will keep the unit on "transmit" and in these circumstances the lever must be moved to R when reception is desired; when the guns are being used, a switch operated by the gun-firing pnuematic circuit keeps the unit on "receive" unless the lever is moved to T. A white lamp next to the switch lever is illuminated when the unit is receiving and goes out when the unit is transmitting. By the side of each channel-selecting button is a green lamp which is illuminated when the unit is operating on that channel.

_________________
I like Thunderbolts! (Link to MySpace tribute page)


120th Fighter Wing, Montana Air National Guard

I sat in both a Mk IX and a Mk XIV cockpit and found the Spitfire Mk I cockpit (as I know it from BoBII) to be very good. Actually the main discrepancy I found was the XIV had a sort of floor, so for example you could not see the rudder pedal adjusters. I checked at home with a pilots manual (cant remember whether it was for the I or II) and found the manual to be like the VC. So, one of these must be true:
- It depends on the Mark
- The museum goofed up
- It was a (field) modification

Anyway, the #1 difference I saw was correct in the VC, so that made me quite confident in it.

Also, some things are a matter of "philosophy":
For example, when looking at the RL checklist for starting the engine, i want to be able to use it. This for me means doing all of the points that affect engine, aerodynamics etc. Stuff like putting on the harness I ignore. Therefore, for me, making the adjusters work would simply be an easter egg and is IMHO not important.

I cannot speak for the team, especially our fine modelers here, but if something that has no purpose is not modeled and animated, is that such a bad thing?

A lot of the things that were brought up could be animated, but would serve to physical purpose in the simulation itself. MSFS for example does not recognize anything but the current navigation and communication system, therefor many frequency bands, especially on older planes simply do not function. This was one of the major limiting factors on the 377 at the navigation station, as much of the equipment could not be made to operate within the confines of MSFS. It therefor was better to simply omit its usage rather than give the guise that it worked and have people ask questions.

Our modeled planes assuredly were built against either real world aircraft or historically documented information, and usually both. While I no longer have the pictures on my hard drive of the MK1, I can assure you that the ones Rob provided me match the model.

There are a lot of issues with interpretation, and finding the most accurate representation of mark and factory (or not if it is the goal) setup is best. A great example is the following picture:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/images/cockpitspit2.jpg

If you look up MK1 on the internet, this picture will inevitably pop up. For all intensive purposes, it looks like a MK1. Noticeably however, the cockpit glass armor is inset. The MK1 glass protrudes from the windshield frame, as well as a few other variants.

http://fc25.deviantart.com/fs31/f/2008/ ... ptre63.jpg

So in this instance, verifiably, the picture above would not be used for any factual or historical information as we know it is indeed not a MK1.

As for the fastness of the Spitty. I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps the others out there modeled it improperly? And it isn't a matter of being fast, but rather quick. The MK1 isn't a terribly fast aircraft when compared to birds like the P-51. It however is a lot quicker, as the video shown proves.

Frankly, there are a lot of things people don't model correctly on the Spitfire. For example, there are plenty of pilot reports that talk about how the nose dropped when the gear was lowered. Not many take the time to place that into the model. Also to note, you can actually flick or snap roll this plane by applying full aft elevator and kicking full rudder, not to mention that you can spin her.

Your comments however have got my interest piqued. I'm scowering through what little information I personally have (mind you, I mostly just make videos and do a few things here and there... I am NOT a modeler) and seeing if there is any validity to what you are saying.

Just please keep in mind... The war went on for many years. There are numerous field modifications, etc that took place in all planes. For example there were over 33,000 BF109s made, inevitably there were various contracts written for the various oxygen tanks throughout the entire war. I would even bear to guess that at any given time there were probably more than one system in use until perhaps the K models.

I cannot stress that our examples are based first on historical photography and data gathered from manuals and pilots, secondary the real planes themselves. A great example is the P-40N that Scott spent good time with at Cavenaugh. Much of the cockpit of that plane differed greatly from the P-40B that was modeled, therefor it had to be taken with a grain of salt and compared to historic pictures and manuals.

_________________

I checked,and i apologize:i indead set in a mark IX.the reason i thought it was the mark I:the description panel was damaged and the x is not visible.i talked to the curator of the museum,and he said it is the mark IX.I prefer aircraft with all systems inplemented,even if they dont have any effect on the simulation,i just dont like skipping pages from the manual,i like it completely by the book.that is why i am here now,and not over at alphasim,where a tupolev 160 overtakes the blackbird at mach 4 and 80000 feet.i am not trying to blame the modelers,they do autstanding work on all of the planes,but implementing systems which dont have any effect on the sim adds to realisam.one more little thing on the spit.the brake preassure gauge dropes to zero if battery is switched off.that is not supose to be like that.also,the leaver on the right side,which you modelled and named emergency gear extend is not really that simple.while indeed it IS used for extending the gear in emergency,it is NOT its only function.it is an emergency suply of hudraulic preassure used for both the gear and flaps,and it wont extend the gear,if gear selector is not in its down position.but i am glad someone even bothered to model it.also one little tip,since i do edit fs planes from time to time,i know something about them.dont set the canopy as main exit.since these planes didnt have spoilers,model the canopy like the spoilers.that gives you the pleassure of partually opening the canopy,not just sliding it between two positions.i liked all p-40 models,but since i never saw one of these planes,i cant comment the cockpit layout.i can tell you one thing about it though,i havent seen anything better out there so far(apart from maybe the plane design spitfire,but that is for fs 2004,so it doesnt count).i am looking forward to new projects at this very moment.

Well, I would suggest you to use more descriptive names instead of generic Bf109 or P40 to avoid misunderstandings.

regards
ROB

_________________
A2A Simulations Inc.

if you ever think about maing an accusim spitfire,here is one more thing,none of the spitfires (realair,wop,just flight,plane design) have it,but the spitfire manual says that the emergency gear xtend should rotate through 180 degrees,and everyone makes that 90 degrees.


quote:if the undercarriage still does not lock down,insure that the lever is in the down position(this is essential)and push the emergency lever (68) forward and downward through 180*(for models after xiv,the CO2 cylinder will lower only the main wheels,not the tailwheel.)
note.-
a)The emergency lever must not be returned to its original position and no attempt must be made to raise the undercarriage until the CO2 cylinder has been replaced

b)if the CO2 cylinder has been accidentally discharged with the selector lever in the UP position,the undercarriage will not lower unless the pipeline from the cylinder is broken,either by hand or by means of the crowbar.

from original spitfire manual