-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
A2A Spitfire out!
- Thread starter shackleton_boy
- Start date
doublecool
Charter Member
doublecool videos
doublecool
Charter Member
Good lookin Paints... 
jeansy
View attachment 31493View attachment 31494
Many Thanks to all you artists :salute:
jeansyView attachment 31493View attachment 31494
Many Thanks to all you artists :salute:
noddy
SOH-CM-2025
Hi there, buying it without Accusim is like buying a Ferrari without the engine.
Cheers.
Hi Paul,
Perhaps you should ask Ferry_vO this question as I understood he flies the A2A Spitfire without Accusim.
Although I definitely do not consider myself an Accusim expert, in my opinion Accusim is nothing more or less than a maintenance module for a model. In other words it doesn't increase reality in the flight model, it just adds 'wear and tear'. And despite Scott's absolute brilliant marketing videos the technique used is very similar to the technique RealAir already used in FS2004 to blow up the engines and trigger the 'oil' effect from their Spitfires.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate A2A's efforts to make the simulation more interesting, but simply do not share the opinion from some, who think Accusim makes flying more realistic. I once made a remark about the A2A P-47. In my opinion when flying the P-47 took really at much effort as it takes to fly the model, the pilot hardly had the time to fight enemies.
To come back to your question. When the flight model is done correctly you should be able to fly the A2A Spitfire 'by the book' with and without Accusim. However A2A uses some pop-up screens to alter things. I don't know whether these screens only come with the Accusim module, in that case it might be impossible to change cockpits and propellers.
Cheers,
Huub
Perhaps you should ask Ferry_vO this question as I understood he flies the A2A Spitfire without Accusim.
Although I definitely do not consider myself an Accusim expert, in my opinion Accusim is nothing more or less than a maintenance module for a model. In other words it doesn't increase reality in the flight model, it just adds 'wear and tear'. And despite Scott's absolute brilliant marketing videos the technique used is very similar to the technique RealAir already used in FS2004 to blow up the engines and trigger the 'oil' effect from their Spitfires.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate A2A's efforts to make the simulation more interesting, but simply do not share the opinion from some, who think Accusim makes flying more realistic. I once made a remark about the A2A P-47. In my opinion when flying the P-47 took really at much effort as it takes to fly the model, the pilot hardly had the time to fight enemies.
To come back to your question. When the flight model is done correctly you should be able to fly the A2A Spitfire 'by the book' with and without Accusim. However A2A uses some pop-up screens to alter things. I don't know whether these screens only come with the Accusim module, in that case it might be impossible to change cockpits and propellers.
Cheers,
Huub
GypsyBaron
Charter Member
That statement is about as far off base as you can get!
Accu-sim is far, far more than "a maintenance module for a model".
Way, way off base there.
You obviously haven't read many posts concerning Accu-Sim and what it is all about. It adds
more "reality" than FSX was capable of though innovative programming that runs outside of FSX.
Maintenance issues arise when the aircraft is not flown properly. The physics involved are
far and above anything FSX offered in flight modeling.
If you haven't actually flown the A2A Accu-sim Spitfires, you might want to do that
before making such ludicrous remarks.
Paul
Right... A2A go through all that trouble of painstakingly (and expensively) researching the real aircraft, including mounting cameras in the cockpit that record all the gauges during all stages of flight etc., just to come up with an Accu-sim model that is based on pure fiction. Do you really believe that?
By the way, neither the P-47 nor the Spitfire take much effort to fly once you are familiar with the procedures and the limitations. It becomes second nature to such a degree that I see no trouble whatsoever in performing dogfights while keeping a lid on the gauges. Of course, reaching that stage of familiarity with the aircraft took, and still takes, a bit more time than you clearly invested before bashing it on the internet with unfounded statements.
Bashing members based on your feelings is also not good tactics. Lets face it that none of us, save the developers really understand 100 percent what and how accusim does things. Now, yes, A2A's accusim runs outside of the sim, but do not forget that when it comes down to it, it still has to interact with fsx's failure engine. It is a visual repreentation that displays failures and allows you to remedy based on readings created on how you handle the aircraft in relation to how it is supposed to be handled, is my understanding. It is great, but in reality, I too think it is just a very good, more complicated take on a technique that was and has been used by several developers.
Thank you gentlemen! I couldn't have asked for for better examples to support my opinion.
Gispybaron/Paul, when I'm that far off, can you please explain me where Accusim contributes to the realism of the flight model. For your information I did read all the post concerning accusim, I have watched Scott's very entertaining instruction videos and to be honest it made me almost decide to purchase the Accusim Spitfire. However when I was offered the chance to have a closer look at it. I came to the conclusion that, although definitely very nice done, A2A works around the limitations in the same way as everybody else does and Accusim is not really more than a number of clever packed xml files. The strong point from Accusim is that it makes the simulation much more inter-active and therefore more entertaining. But I don't really consider this automatically more realistic.
Jigsaw/Patrick, first of all I didn't have the intention to bash anybody. As I have mentioned repeatedly, what I expressed is my personal opinion and as like I said earlier I really do appreciate A2A's efforts. However expensive research does not not automatically imply accuracy, you need to have the skills to translate this into a model too. Their research definitely paid off because the models are really great and quite accurate. At some points I have my personal doubts about the flight model, but as I'm not a real life pilot and I have to admit never flown a Spitfire Mk.I, I will keep these for myself. For me the main reason which could make me decide to buy the A2A Spitfire are the high resolution textures by Martin 'ICDP' Catney. Accusim does not have much added value for me personally.
Thanks JP for you comments, because I thought I had not been clear in this. It is like you said, old techniques used in a very nice way. But in principle a Ferrari isn't that different from a Volkswagen.
To close this I would like you say one small thing about realism.Gentlemen please go to you sim and start the A2A Accusim Spitfire and look at the exhausts. Now look at this video from the real thing. I agree is a neat effect on the model and I do like it, however as you could see, it is not very realistic..... But something we jut prefer things which aren't fully realistic. Nothing wrong with that! Do you ever go to the movies?
Cheers,
Huub
[YOUTUBE]cv0Onh6NzPA[/YOUTUBE]
Gispybaron/Paul, when I'm that far off, can you please explain me where Accusim contributes to the realism of the flight model. For your information I did read all the post concerning accusim, I have watched Scott's very entertaining instruction videos and to be honest it made me almost decide to purchase the Accusim Spitfire. However when I was offered the chance to have a closer look at it. I came to the conclusion that, although definitely very nice done, A2A works around the limitations in the same way as everybody else does and Accusim is not really more than a number of clever packed xml files. The strong point from Accusim is that it makes the simulation much more inter-active and therefore more entertaining. But I don't really consider this automatically more realistic.
Jigsaw/Patrick, first of all I didn't have the intention to bash anybody. As I have mentioned repeatedly, what I expressed is my personal opinion and as like I said earlier I really do appreciate A2A's efforts. However expensive research does not not automatically imply accuracy, you need to have the skills to translate this into a model too. Their research definitely paid off because the models are really great and quite accurate. At some points I have my personal doubts about the flight model, but as I'm not a real life pilot and I have to admit never flown a Spitfire Mk.I, I will keep these for myself. For me the main reason which could make me decide to buy the A2A Spitfire are the high resolution textures by Martin 'ICDP' Catney. Accusim does not have much added value for me personally.
Thanks JP for you comments, because I thought I had not been clear in this. It is like you said, old techniques used in a very nice way. But in principle a Ferrari isn't that different from a Volkswagen.
To close this I would like you say one small thing about realism.Gentlemen please go to you sim and start the A2A Accusim Spitfire and look at the exhausts. Now look at this video from the real thing. I agree is a neat effect on the model and I do like it, however as you could see, it is not very realistic..... But something we jut prefer things which aren't fully realistic. Nothing wrong with that! Do you ever go to the movies?
Cheers,
Huub
[YOUTUBE]cv0Onh6NzPA[/YOUTUBE]
Unfortuatly off base again. Accu-sim is an entire game engine completly optimised to run alongside FSX. It completly by passes the default generic stuff. The generic stuff is either working or broken it doesnt know what anything is other than good and bad and brakes the entire engine accordingly. Accusim has the full wear over time, the different elements affect each other as they wear (Note the spitfire offers indivual compression tests), and indeed brake and of course its completly dynamic whilst also engaging the FSX environment, re: altitude, weather conditions etc. Of course these things all affect the FDE on the fly, as proven by the prop changing ability on the fly. Everything affects something else dynamically with the end result being only once it has passed through the whole engine.
The option to not have this fidelity is given, as we understand not everyone wants it. I made sure from the initial accu-sim develop that there was an on/off button etc. There are plenty of occasions when I personally fly sans accu-sim simply for ease of use and for the non by the book flights were time is the limiting factor. It is of course in our best interests to cator for as many as we can.
What are you referring to? What is supposed to be different between the sim and the real start?
Lewis, so we are on the same page: I feel like you took offense at my post, and I am sorry if you felt I was discrediting. Like I said, no one but you really truly 100% understands the workings. That was just how I had understood it to work. Thanks for the clarification. I have and thouroughly enjoy the accusim'd spit, one of my most frequent flyers for sure.
Now, i think this has gotten to the point where arguing is pretty silly, so I'll say to whomever asked (i forget, sorry) that wether or not you should get accusim is completely up to you. If you just want to hop in and go, then don't buy accusim. If you want to pretend you are a real, by the book british defender of the crown, the by all means, purchase accusim. I should probably mention that accusim can be turned off if you find yourself in a circumstance where you don't want it.
Now, i think this has gotten to the point where arguing is pretty silly, so I'll say to whomever asked (i forget, sorry) that wether or not you should get accusim is completely up to you. If you just want to hop in and go, then don't buy accusim. If you want to pretend you are a real, by the book british defender of the crown, the by all means, purchase accusim. I should probably mention that accusim can be turned off if you find yourself in a circumstance where you don't want it.