IJN_A6M2_21

IJN_A6M2_21 2024-11-09

No permission to download
Overview History Discussion
You are thinking of CFS2.
CFS1 is a lot less full-featured than you are describing. About the only really good thing that can be said about the stock aircraft that came with the game is that there are no bleeds.
When CFS1 came out, FS2000 was probably about to come out. Consider that to program CFS1 gauges, I am using the FS2000 Panel SDK.
There is really nothing wrong with the old heavy CRT monitors. Just about every non-laptop in my house is using an old CRT.
A few were bought cheap because the owners determined the monitors were not Y2K compatible!
The Development Computer that crashed and took most of my source code with it was first assembled around 2000 and died only a couple years ago.
As for quality of models and their appearance, I could have drawn aircraft freehand back in elementary school that were more realistic than the models that came with the game.
If you do not have a reference library, you go to your local public library and check out a half dozen books on the subject.
You really can't claim to have done any testing when one of your aircraft literally goes over 100 MPH faster than what you claim in the description.
I believe CFS1 was really a half hearted attempt at putting out a COMBAT flight simulator to see if there was any interest. They probably never figured that 20+ years later it would still retain a small but dedicated bunch of enthusiasts.

- Ivan.
 
Howdy Ivan!

Yessir, I was jawin’ more about CFS2 than CFS1. Now, don’t get me wrong, CFS1 was the granddaddy, but back then, they had to make sure it’d run on them ol' clunker computers folks had. Graphics weren’t much to write home about—looked like a tin can in a tornado sometimes—but it had to work for the average Joe with his beige box PC wheezin’ in the corner. Heck, some people had to crank their settings down just to keep the game flyin’ smooth, especially when the skies got busier than a hornet’s nest in a windstorm.

Now, don’t tell nobody, but I still like usin’ them CFS1 planes for AI in CFS2. They’re simple, but they get the job done. Let’s be honest—when that AI Bf 109 comes screamin’ past you, dodgin’ tracers and tryin’ to knock you outta the sky, you ain’t sittin' there admirin’ the rivets on the wings. It’s like that beat-up ol’ tractor back on Grandpa’s farm: might not win any beauty contests, but it sure plowed the field just fine.

And listen, I don’t buy into folks sayin’ the CFS1 developers were just sittin' around smokin’ weed, pickin’ up women, and waitin’ for quittin’ time. Nah, those fellas were pioneers, workin’ with what they had and makin’ somethin’ special. Sure, it ain’t perfect—what is?—but it set the stage for CFS2, and that’s somethin’ to tip your hat to.

Shoot, if it weren’t for them, we wouldn’t have all these mods and dogfights today. So, I reckon if someone’s got a gripe about it, they can tinker and fix it up all they want, but let’s not forget the hard work that got us here.
 
That beige box with all the guts removed and replaced is where I started. This was back in the day when a Pentium 133 MHz was considered a pretty fair machine. Actually I started with Zilog Z80 computers. The next one up was a whopping 4.77 MHz Intel 8088 with 256K of memory and no Hard Drive because a 10 MB HDD was about $1000 extra.
My first CFS computer was a Cyrix 150 MHz (about a Pentium 200 equivalent).

That is really no excuse for poor quality modeling. The models we build for CFS1 today are usually not much over 1000 polygons because the software we typically use doesn't allow more. That doesn't mean we can't build some nice looking aircraft anyway.
Add-ons are a great illustration. Just about everyone has the same resource limitations. Some people figure out how to use the available resources effectively and some do not. The ugly aircraft don't necessarily have higher frame rates.

- Ivan.
 
I would have to agree with you, but when I first got into this, CFS was the only game in town.
As for building aircraft for the game, I was out to prove a point: That it was possible to build nice looking aircraft without serious bleeds using the same tools as everyone else. It was just a matter of using the tools in an intelligent manner.
 
It’s been years since I played CFS 1. I’ve no reason to go back but I still have it. I had the Abacus payware and aerosim mods but the aircraft are still not the greatest. Maybe you will fix everything thats wrong with CFS 1 since you’re doing better than everyone else using the tools. Keep up the good work.
 
Thanks for the compliment. It is a pity you don't play CFS1 anymore. I was thinking that you should try out some of the aeroplanes I have put together and see what you think of them. I know of someone who does much nicer CFS1 models than I do: Bretoal. His models have a lot more SCASM work. I am a SCASM beginner by comparison. The issue with his models is that they tend to be rather odd subjects. There are a couple hosted on this site.
At times I also pick rather unusual subjects; I don't know if anyone else has ever built an actual Lavochkin La-7 or a Merlin P-40 for CFS1. Has anyone done those for CFS2?
 
To answer your question Ivan, both were well done years ago; the La-7 was done by Thicko and the Merlin P-40 by Krystof Malinowski. Both are in our library.
 
Thank you, Captain Kurt. I will have to go look for them now that I have a running version of CFS2 again.
Now since I know that you are part of the Library Staff, can you change the author of the La-5FN and La-7 in the CFS1 Library to be me. It is pretty obvious that they are my projects. You can confirm by looking at the FreeFlight Site under the Ivan's Aircraft area.
The old CFC FW 190A is mine as well.
With me as the author, it becomes easier to update when it becomes convenient. I had done a few Russian gauges and they are in my copies locally but I had not gotten to the stage of updating the uploads yet.

- Ivan.
 
Thank you, Captain Kurt.
The Lavochkin were easy to find. The Merlin P-40 was a lot tougher. I basically looked through all the CFS2 aircraft downloads.
Turns out the package a two part series of IRIS P-40s uploaded by Peperez.
 
I am not familiar enough with CFS2 yet to try this. Heck, I can't even remember how to adjust trim in CFS1 anymore.
As for P-40 versus Zero, this was one the first matchups I tried with my own aircraft probably around 2004 or so. I built the A6M5 first and then built a P-40E to give it a good adversary. It was always a 1v1 because of frame rates, but the Zero had the advantage because the AI wasn't smart enough to take advantage of the P-40E's ability to extend.
In real life in a many versus many fight, my bet is on the P-40 because the A6M2 has no sustained firepower. It basically has about 3 good squirts from the cannons after which all there is left is a couple paint chipper Vickers guns which is less than the typical Ki-43 Hayabusa.
Duration of fire is really important. One of the worst offenders is the P-39 Airacobra with a 20 mm Hispano cannon. Total duration of fire is only around 6 seconds.
 
Well, lemme tell ya somethin’ ‘bout flyin’ them Zeros in the game! They got themselves a trim gauge, so you can fiddle with that to keep ‘er flyin’ straight. Now, when it comes to firepower, you only got 60 rounds per cannon, so once you’re outta them big boomers, all you’re left with is the ol’ 7.7 Japanese poppers. Them little fellas shoot the same size bullet as a .303 British round, and don’t let nobody tell ya they ain’t worth nothin’—them things can still tear stuff up good!

Now here’s the kicker: them Vals? Their tail gunners are sneaky lil’ varmints! If you ain’t watchin’ your distance or the angle you’re swoopin’ in at, they’ll light up your Hellcat quicker than a firecracker on the Fourth o’ July. So keep your wits about ya, or you’ll be headin’ back to base with more holes than Granny’s screen door!

Happy flyin’, y’all!
 
hello Ivan,

Nope, definitely not the IRIS P-40. That is a conversion from FS9, no LODs, and not as detailed as Malinowski's. He did a whole series of P-40 marks.

The KM P-40F Merlin engined is here:

km_p40f_v1_with_updates.zip

Curtiss P-40F Warhawk Version 1.0 for Combat Flight Simulator 2 by K. Malinowski and J. McDaniel. P-40 F-10 "10" 64th FS 57FG Tunisia 1943 (Lt. Alexander O. Exon). This is an all-new aircraft with a new panel, new visual model with an all-new VC...
sim-outhouse.org
 
Thank you, Captain Kurt.
I already downloaded that one as well. The screenshot of the IRIS P-40 by Peperez does look like a Merlin engine type and model is also by Malinowski. Eventually I will get to installing them on my Game Machine just to see how they look.
I initially had a tough time with the long tail P-40s because the William Wylam dimensioned drawings I was working from were actually wrong but the error did not become very obvious until the tail was extended. Eventually I found much better drawings which were accurate down to the pixel but those were only from the firewall back.

- Ivan.
 
Deathwind said:
Well, lemme tell ya somethin’ ‘bout flyin’ them Zeros in the game! They got themselves a trim gauge, so you can fiddle with that to keep ‘er flyin’ straight. Now, when it comes to firepower, you only got 60 rounds per cannon, so once you’re outta them big boomers, all you’re left with is the ol’ 7.7 Japanese poppers. Them little fellas shoot the same size bullet as a .303 British round, and don’t let nobody tell ya they ain’t worth nothin’—them things can still tear stuff up good!

Now here’s the kicker: them Vals? Their tail gunners are sneaky lil’ varmints! If you ain’t watchin’ your distance or the angle you’re swoopin’ in at, they’ll light up your Hellcat quicker than a firecracker on the Fourth o’ July. So keep your wits about ya, or you’ll be headin’ back to base with more holes than Granny’s screen door!

Happy flyin’, y’all!
Click to expand...
There is no doubt a 7.7 mm MG can do damage if you can keep the gun on target for long enough. The problem is that depending on the angle, it may be a relatively long time. That is what the USN Wildcats counted on in a many versus many fight.
The cowl guns on the A6M2 actually shoot a round that is COMPLETELY interchangeable with the .303 British round. It isn't just the bullet that is the same diameter. This sounds like insanity, but the Japanese Navy used THREE different 7.7 mm rounds. One was commonly used in their aircraft MG and it was identical to the .303 British. The second was a semi-rimmed round that very much resembled the typical South American 7.65 Mauser round. This round was more typically used by their Naval infantry. I believe the third was the same round but with a fully rimmed cartridge case because some of their machine guns needed that. Imagine requisitioning ammunition.
What gets even worse is that sometimes the aircraft flexible MG were dismounted and used by their Naval infantry as well.....

Flex gunners always seem to be way overly effective. I figure a fighter is not much bigger than a big pickup truck and I have seen a few of those on the rifle range. If I had to take a snap shot at one from another moving vehicle at 200 Meters, I would have a difficult time. 500 Yards would be a "Hail Mary" kind of shot. We came up with a few ways to address that issue of ridiculously good accuracy.

- Ivan.
 
I knew this fella who picked up an Arisaka Type 99 rifle at a pawn shop, right? Fine-lookin’ piece of history. But he didn’t stop there—he walked out with a box of Remington 7mm Mauser ammo to go with it. Now, soon as he showed me what he’d got, I said, “Whoa, buddy, that there ain’t the right ammo for that rifle.”

He just waves me off, says, “Pawn shop guy said it was fine, so it’s fine.” Well, you can’t argue with that kind of stubborn. He heads out back, sets up a target, and starts shootin’. Bang! Bang! Bang! He goes through round after round, and not a single one’s hittin’ anywhere near the bullseye.

He’s gettin’ madder than a hornet stuck in a Coke can, cussin’ about how he bought a rifle that can’t shoot straight. Finally, he hands it to me and says, “Here, you give it a try.”

I just shook my head. “No need for that,” I said. I reached down, picked up one of the spent shells, and asked him for a live round. I held ‘em up side by side and pointed out what was plain as day. “See this? The spent case’s been fire-formed to the chamber. It swelled up because this ain’t the right ammo. The bullet’s too small for the barrel, so it’s just rattlin’ its way out. That’s why you can’t hit nothin’.”

I went on, “Now, you’re lucky here. If the bullet had been too big, it probably wouldn’t have chambered. But if it did, pullin’ that trigger could’ve turned this rifle into a hand grenade. And if the bullet size was right but the powder charge was too much, well, that’d blow it up just the same.”

He stood there quiet-like, starin’ at the shells like they held all the world’s mysteries. Finally, he mutters, “Reckon I should get the right ammo for it.”

I tipped my hat and said, “Yup, that’d be the first smart thing you’ve done today. And next time, don’t go takin’ advice from folks who don’t know a chamber from a choke.”

And that’s the whole story. He learned his lesson the easy way, thank goodness, but I tell ya—some folks gotta see trouble up close before they believe it.
 
Funny thing is that he might have actually survived an oversized round in the Arisaka action.
A few decades ago, there was a test conducted to see what it would take to blow up the Arisaka action and it was something rather outrageous and I believe the barrel split before the action let go.
I wanted a 6.5 mm Arisaka for a while. They were much nicer than the 7.7 versions because they were made much earlier but most were not in good shape. Ones that were just about always had the Chrysanthemum ground off which was a requirement for captured Japanese weapons. I never did find one that I was satisfied with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top