• 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.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

In case you guys missed it.....RCS B-25 for FSX is out

This is one of, if not, the best freeware aircraft I have in my hangar. It even beats many of the planes I have paid for.
Make sure you do not try to load it manually....as I usually do. As the instructions indicate, it won't work correctly. So I uninstalled and loaded according to the manual. Everything works fine now.
I fly the MAAM B-25 in FSX and it works okay. This one does better and I will use it more than MAAM's. This is not a knock at MAAM, I love their B-25 and TBM even if it is not FSX.
 
Great shots guys, off to give it a go. Anyone remember the issue awhile back where they supposedly used MAAM's copyrighted material when they created their version? I was wondering what the outcome was if there ever was an outcome.
 
Great shots Bruce!
I - finally - realized that i need an envmap for my portovers (they are on an extra HD) :icon_lol:

EDIT:
I think it's better now with the envmap from Bob (envmap_replacement_fs9.zip @Avsim.com) - thanks Bob!

Am i the only one who is missing the effect files?
 
MCDesigns said:
Great shots guys, off to give it a go. Anyone remember the issue awhile back where they supposedly used MAAM's copyrighted material when they created their version? I was wondering what the outcome was if there ever was an outcome.
Click to expand...

There was no supposedly. It was proven by independent investigations.

Enough time has gone by now that what went on is fairly immaterial, but the fact remains that the aircraft is right mess of different versions and variants, specifically to differentiate it from the base model of MAAM's aircraft.

As a fictional B-25, for a flight sim, it's not that bad. As a supposed representation of a real aircraft, it's utter hogwash.
 
Bruce Thompson said:
Don' be so bloody picky, it's free and if you can do better then lets see e'm.
Click to expand...

All I did was answer the question. I'm just not as blas<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cianp%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->é with other people's property as Mr. Chaffin evidently is, I guess.

Just out of interest, if someone released another design group's (payware) model for free, then I assume you'd say anyone who didn't use that was "picky" as well?

Edit:

Lateral-G said:
Can you elaborate?

-G-
Click to expand...

Two good examples:

1) As I have already mentioned on this thread, the pintle mounted gun was never fitted at the same time as the two guns fitted alongside the bombardier's position - the reason being that no Norden bombsite = nose gun, Norden bombsight = two side guns. You'd hit the (very delicate and expensive) Norden with the pintle mounted gun in the rig presented here, which would be a "bad thing".

2) Find a panel that has that configuration anywhere on an existing or wartime B-25. It doesn't exist!

At least they finally removed the (non standard - only on the MAAM aircraft) eyebrow lights from the gauges at last, by the look of it. That took long enough.
 
Had I known the history of what you are saying Ian, then I might have worded things a little better.

Maybe you should take it up with them in person, we all hate Pirates, but I don't think you should knock a another mans work unless you know the full facts of the matter.

This is the Best Site for us Simmers, but there are times when it seems to be nothing more than a Forum for pulling things apart rather than trying to encourage people to do better.

Now I am going back to fly the B25 and enjoy it, for what it is, a nice model.
 
IanP said:
Two good examples:

1) As I have already mentioned on this thread, the pintle mounted gun was never fitted at the same time as the two guns fitted alongside the bombardier's position - the reason being that no Norden bombsite = nose gun, Norden bombsight = two side guns. You'd hit the (very delicate and expensive) Norden with the pintle mounted gun in the rig presented here, which would be a "bad thing".
Click to expand...


I guess these are incorrect as well:

(not trying to start a flame war but just doing a quick search on google for B-25J pics)

-G-
 
I don't know the whole story and i'm not a B-25 expert.
This aircraft has been built from stolen parts of the MAAM B-25?
 
Those aircraft also have the post-war collector rings on the rear of the engines (done for noise reduction) so they're not as good reproductions as they could be, no. ;)

So it's not historically accurate. Neither are most warbirds flying today, for a large number of reasons (even if it's just that they have a GPS fitted so you can find the airshows... ;)) - the only reason I brought it up is because we were told when RCS first released the model that it was based on a real aircraft. It couldn't have been, unfortunately, because no aircraft were made like that. Those aircraft would not have had pintle nose guns and the Norden at the same time in combat - or they wouldn't have a Norden for long!

It's entirely up to you whether you use it or not. I have no say in the matter. :)

Nils: Yes, originally, but it has been significantly modified since then. If you're interested in the history, I can send you links to the detail, but other than that, seriously water under the bridge.
 
This is a link to Roy's website http://www.roychaffin.com/rcs-panels.html
and his side of the story here http://www.roychaffin.com/rcs_statement.htm

Not being personally involved in the dispute , nor having any person first hand knowledge, I would just like to say that I have had a good relation with Roy over the last several years and have found him to be very honest and sincere. I for one beleive what he has said, as any my dealings with him have found him to always be respectful. His work is second to none, and I wish him the best of luck in the future. Just my two cents worth. Don Harris
:monkies:
 
Unfortunately, Roy's version does not match reality.

I, personally, was involved in Bill Rambow's package projects before Bill approached Roy to ask whether he could use some of Roy's panels. Bill then approached Roy to assist with the creation of a DC-3 panel. I still have the original packages, both before and after the inclusion of Roy's panels.

You may say that Roy is honest and sincere, Don, but I will say that he lied. I can and will state that here because I can and will also stand up in a court of law and state that, with evidence. However, I don't think anyone is stupid enough to take this that far.

The facts are that MAAM removed the rights from Roy to use any part of the model and/or textures after he left the team, because his product would be in direct competition with the MAAM-SIM model. That letter is also in the public domain and, indeed, I believe is still published at Avsim along with the retouched texures and photographs that Roy did not have permission to use. I'll link to it later, when I've eaten, as dinner is almost ready and I really couldn't be bothered with all this again right now. If anyone wants links in the short term, "Roy Chaffin" and "MAAM" at Avsim should yield their investigation and the statement. There's more around than that, but that's easy to find.

All of that, however, relates to a version of the RCS B-25 that is at least two, possibly three, earlier than the one just released. My only problem with this one is the fact that it is not a reproduction of a wartime B-25. It is not the same package as the original dispute was over.
 
Thanks Ian. I found something at Avsim, via Google, which is not very nice and i also read Mr. Chaffin's statement.
I don't say something against Mr. Chaffin and i absolutely don't know who is right, but i don't feel comfortable with the aircraft because it's still a FS9 model ("redesigning and rebuilding just about everything from the ground up" ...a FS9 model for FSX SP2/XPAck:confused:).
So i will remove it because it's all a little bit strange (RCS_B25_RAF_Register.exe?).
 
A work of art! The minimal VC is a shame (although what is there looks brilliant!), and she is remarkable in external view. A real beauty, but without the full VC I probably won't fly it very often.
 
Well, whether the MAAM Mitchell is dated or not, I, personally found it better for my purposes... the model is more detailed, the system loads a good deal less... and the external paint seemed rather dark on my machine. So, it didn't last long (taste more than anything the reason).
I did know previously of the MAAM-SIM issues, but I did not know the whole story. Reading Russell Strines article showed me the reasons for the dispute, and it is likely that the plane would have been deleted for that reason, even if it has been modified beyond recognition.
At any rate, this is a gem for freeware in FS9... I am just spoiled by my payware!
 
If you are referring to the registration bat all that does is register the gauges in fsx so you don't have to double clik each gauge the first time you use it. To bad others don't use the same method. As far as Google is concerned, you can't tell me you believe everything you search for now can you? I don't like piracy either, not defending it, but to willy nilly (for the brits) accuse someone of it without more than you are saying is hypocricy. In the U.S.A anyways you are innocent until PROVEN guily. Accusing someone just ruins the person with out trial. If you had read the disclaimer on Roy's website, you would have both sides and maybe not so quick to judge. If this gets me kicked off this board, so be it. Not trying to run down Ian, but this is a forum and I don't think Ian was trying to get this involved or was I. I am done with the soapbox.:focus:

Nils said:
Thanks Ian. I found something at Avsim, via Google, which is not very nice and i also read Mr. Chaffin's statement.
I don't say something against Mr. Chaffin and i absolutely don't know who is right, but i don't feel comfortable with the aircraft because it's still a FS9 model ("redesigning and rebuilding just about everything from the ground up" ...a FS9 model for FSX SP2/XPAck:confused:).
So i will remove it because it's all a little bit strange (RCS_B25_RAF_Register.exe?).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top