Thanks @DennyA ! My thoughts exactly. I had hoped that my original post was clear enough, but apparently not.
Jan
-
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
Aeroplane Heaven Lancaster available!
- Thread starter Rallymodeller
- Start date
Jan
Rallymodeller
Charter Member
Rivet counters. Can't get away from 'em.
All I want is one sans turrets so we can do RCAF 10BR and 10MRs. And a Lancastrian would be nice. But those are *wishes*. What we got is plenty good enough.
I do not have the Haynes 'owners manual' for the Lancaster - you might be thinking of someone else in this thread.
I agree the bombs look a bit corroded, but then they were stored outside on many bases, particularly the ones built in a hurry once Bomber Command started to expand after 1940. I doubt it would have been more than a week or two before they acquired a patina of rust. The more delicate stuff, like fuses, were kept under cover until needed, of course. I also suspect the photo's colourisation is a bit off, with the concrete, the side of the H2S radome, and the inside of the port bomb door all looking a little too brown-ish.
But I've never even thought of looking at the bombs...I'd much rather AH put any available effort into a variant with H2S, no exhaust covers and no mid-upper-turret
I would like to see that too. At the end of the war, Britain couldn't afford to buy its Lend-Lease Liberators outright, so they went back to the US, and Coastal Command used the Lancaster ( sans top turret, as you say ), in a very nice sea grey colour scheme. A good subject for our Master Painters here. But first, I want AH to do the Lancastrian !
DennyA
SOH-CM-2023
Though I certainly wouldn't protest RCAF/Coastal Command paint jobs even with the turrets. Perfection is the enemy of fun, or something like that.
But I would pay $$$ for a RCAF/Coastal Command/Lancastrian models add-on package, Baz! (But totally understand that we are not the masses here.)
But I would pay $$$ for a RCAF/Coastal Command/Lancastrian models add-on package, Baz! (But totally understand that we are not the masses here.)
Last edited:
The danger is that we stifle people and return to the Sim Outhouse of old, where any sort of criticism seemed to be Verboten. Back then, anything short of unalloyed approbation provoked the ire of moderators, both official and self-appointed, and thus the forum became pointless as a place of discussion. That's why I gave up on the place for so long.
I don't want to see this Lancaster thread become a debate over how the forum is run, but I must stick up for @ftl818 - he is probably keener on the Lancaster than any of us, and wants it perfect. The same is doubtless true of John ( Bomber_12th ). It is not that idle catch-all expression 'rivet counting' - Aeroplane Heaven has clearly put an enormous amount of effort into this model, and people who have a more intimate knowledge than most want the details to be spot-on. If anything, a desire to refine the Lancaster is a compliment to the quality of the product, not a detraction from it.
As for driving developers away, well they have their own platforms, including product pages and social media. As far as I'm aware, SOH is for the simulator users - a place to discuss add-ons freely. Otherwise, what is the point of being here ?
There is no problem whatsoever in discussing add-ons freely. None. But IMHO nitpicking and rivet counting are not on.
Also, as Bazz indicated in this thread, they have their support line for issues. We can and should discuss the products presented to the community, just without bashing or nitpicking.
And if people have remarks about my moderating, feel free to send me a pm (called conversation on the new server). I'm still fairly new on the job, but I do take it seriously.
Priller
How can you discuss a product 'freely' and then, when people go into the more detailed aspects of that product, it is deemed 'nitpicking and rivet counting' ? Where is that highly subjective dividing line ?
You're right - "We can and should discuss the products presented to the community...". On this thread, I've yet to see anything rude said to AH, or unfairly critical of the Lancaster - all I have seen is a debate on the finer points of this truly excellent aircraft; observations, suggestions, and queries - that is not rivet counting.
Jan, I am not singling you out - others have made more of an issue than you have. It just annoys me when people are dismissed as 'rivet counters', rather than being politely disagreed with. We are all aviation enthusiasts, some are even aviation historians - we all want things to be as perfect as possible with aircraft we have a particular interest in. It is to be commended, not condemned.
DennyA
SOH-CM-2023
Okay, I don't want to call out anyone specifically, but when the sequence is:
1) Someone points out issue with plane
2) Developer explains why decision was made to do it that way
3) Original person continues to argue that the developer made the wrong decision
4) Others jump on
...that doesn't help anyone.
(Meanwhile, small file made available on flightsim.to that addresses #1 and has the potential to make everyone happy.)
If the answer in #2 isn't satisfactory, the constructive thing is to open a communication channel directly with the dev in via email rather than continuing to berate them or question their decision in a public forum, hoping to gather further support for your quest. Especially when a fix is so easy.
There are so many examples of where criticism isn't constructive, or worth continuing, in past discourse. Anyone remember the complaints about a DC-3 landing gear strut that went on for what felt like years a while back? The guy on the official MS forum who decided to point out that the textures on Lagaffe's amazing Aeronca "could have been higher resolution" on a freeware plane that looks wonderful, writing off planes completely because of the detail in landing gear wells, all kinds of stuff.
Constructive feedback and feature requests are fine and why we have forums and support channels. (The latter are much more useful for actually getting changes made.) But harping, or using insulting tones or questioning the competence of developers or writing off a dev because MS didn't support them doing further work on a plane they did under contract... I'm amazed any developers post on forums at all anymore. And far fewer do now than when I wrote a similar lament during the P3D days here. I remember when numerous devs were regular posters here.
Overall Sim-Outhouse has some of the most reasonable discourse I see on modern forums; the official MS forums can be a cesspool of negativity. But perhaps consider the 3,000 things done right when posting about the things you'd like to see done differently and how that might come across both as a fair representation of the product to others considering buying it, and to the devs reading feedback.
No product is going to be absolutely perfect in this realm. The sim, and the experience of desk flying vs real flying, prevents that. Feature and improvement requests have to be balanced against the realities of creating a product that will sell to enough people to justify the time spent developing it.
I read an article about the Lancaster that points out the plane had over a million rivets. Man, when those guys finish counting, this is gonna get even worse.
1) Someone points out issue with plane
2) Developer explains why decision was made to do it that way
3) Original person continues to argue that the developer made the wrong decision
4) Others jump on
...that doesn't help anyone.
(Meanwhile, small file made available on flightsim.to that addresses #1 and has the potential to make everyone happy.)
If the answer in #2 isn't satisfactory, the constructive thing is to open a communication channel directly with the dev in via email rather than continuing to berate them or question their decision in a public forum, hoping to gather further support for your quest. Especially when a fix is so easy.
There are so many examples of where criticism isn't constructive, or worth continuing, in past discourse. Anyone remember the complaints about a DC-3 landing gear strut that went on for what felt like years a while back? The guy on the official MS forum who decided to point out that the textures on Lagaffe's amazing Aeronca "could have been higher resolution" on a freeware plane that looks wonderful, writing off planes completely because of the detail in landing gear wells, all kinds of stuff.
Constructive feedback and feature requests are fine and why we have forums and support channels. (The latter are much more useful for actually getting changes made.) But harping, or using insulting tones or questioning the competence of developers or writing off a dev because MS didn't support them doing further work on a plane they did under contract... I'm amazed any developers post on forums at all anymore. And far fewer do now than when I wrote a similar lament during the P3D days here. I remember when numerous devs were regular posters here.
Overall Sim-Outhouse has some of the most reasonable discourse I see on modern forums; the official MS forums can be a cesspool of negativity. But perhaps consider the 3,000 things done right when posting about the things you'd like to see done differently and how that might come across both as a fair representation of the product to others considering buying it, and to the devs reading feedback.
No product is going to be absolutely perfect in this realm. The sim, and the experience of desk flying vs real flying, prevents that. Feature and improvement requests have to be balanced against the realities of creating a product that will sell to enough people to justify the time spent developing it.
I read an article about the Lancaster that points out the plane had over a million rivets. Man, when those guys finish counting, this is gonna get even worse.
Would you believe it...I just added my Coastal Command livery to f.to ... and another livery of exactly the same aircraft was uploaded two hours previously!
Coastal Command Livery for AH Lancaster for Microsoft Flight Simulator | MSFS
✓ Coastal Command Livery for AH Lancaster is a Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 mod created by keithb77. Download for free to enhance your experience in MSFS 2020.
flightsim.to
There are so many examples of where criticism isn't constructive, or worth continuing, in past discourse. Anyone remember the complaints about a DC-3 landing gear strut that went on for what felt like years a while back?
Yes; wasn't it YoYo who made the observations ? He went into some detail, eventually including a diagram of the problem. I've tried searching for the thread, but it seems lost to history. I stand to be corrected, but I believe AH corrected the undercarriage, based on what he said. That is my understanding of it, anyway.
None of the above applies to anything that's been said in this thread. Harping ? Insulting ? Nope - everyone's been perfectly polite. It's been a rational discussion about a flight sim add-on.
Would you believe it...I just added my Coastal Command livery to f.to ... and another livery of exactly the same aircraft was uploaded two hours previously!
View attachment 169643Coastal Command Livery for AH Lancaster for Microsoft Flight Simulator | MSFS
✓ Coastal Command Livery for AH Lancaster is a Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 mod created by keithb77. Download for free to enhance your experience in MSFS 2020.
Very nice too. I shall be grabbing that!
I've bought a copy of "Avro Lancaster in Military Service 1945-1965" by Martin Derry and Neil Robinson. There are a number of interesting colour schemes at the end of the book- one of them is a Lancaster MR.3 RE186 in a very Shackleton-like overall Dark Sea Grey, with red squadron codes. It was assigned to the School of Maritime Reconnaissance at St. Mawgan in the mid-1950s. Strictly speaking, it needs one without the dorsal turret, but I might have a crack at it myself... unless you got there first.
Indeed it is! I wonder about the crest in the side of the nose - is it a squadron crest, or RAF St. Mawgan's crest ?
Looks nice and should be easy, but I'll leave that one to you
I've another in mind once energy recharged!
Think the badge is this one
Re the bomb bay, John Nichol's book Lancaster, whilst not exactly authoritative, does include a photo purporting to be a Lancaster bomb bay with 4-abreast bombs...as implemented by AH.
I've another in mind once energy recharged!
Think the badge is this one
School of Maritime Reconnaissance (Royal Air Force) Round Pin Badge
School of Maritime Reconnaissance Round Pin Badge measuring 23mm. Free P&P to UK customers
www.giftshop.uk.com
Re the bomb bay, John Nichol's book Lancaster, whilst not exactly authoritative, does include a photo purporting to be a Lancaster bomb bay with 4-abreast bombs...as implemented by AH.
Last edited:
See? This is what happens when I'm away for a couple of hours...
So here's my take on criticism in this little section of mine*:
Insulting criticism will get you called out in a hurry. Further action will be taken at higher levels if it continues.
Constructive criticism is welcome - especially if you have already found a solution to an issue such as a tweak to landing gear points that will benefit the rest of us. But, if the developer states that they prefer support issue be brought up through a different channel, that is their choice, and no one else's. Don't expect results/updates/patches from issues discussed here. If @bazzar wants to take something brought up here and address it, that's up to him, but he has already stated that AH's support channel is elsewhere.
Opinions are like @$$holes - everybody has one, but nobody wants to see the ugly ones!
*While I always welcome @Priller's help, the responsibility for this section ultimately falls on me. But since I can't be here 24/7, I have to rely on everyone here to at least try to behave like adults.
So here's my take on criticism in this little section of mine*:
Insulting criticism will get you called out in a hurry. Further action will be taken at higher levels if it continues.
Constructive criticism is welcome - especially if you have already found a solution to an issue such as a tweak to landing gear points that will benefit the rest of us. But, if the developer states that they prefer support issue be brought up through a different channel, that is their choice, and no one else's. Don't expect results/updates/patches from issues discussed here. If @bazzar wants to take something brought up here and address it, that's up to him, but he has already stated that AH's support channel is elsewhere.
Opinions are like @$$holes - everybody has one, but nobody wants to see the ugly ones!
*While I always welcome @Priller's help, the responsibility for this section ultimately falls on me. But since I can't be here 24/7, I have to rely on everyone here to at least try to behave like adults.
You weren't here. I did my best.
You do a fine job, Jan. You're a good moderator.