Spitfire!!!!

[bazzar]

The gauge debate

As we edge closer to release, we are getting a lot of differing comment over the cockpit finish. In particular, a lot of people are surprised to see new-looking gauges etc.

I would just like to point out some logic here.

If an aircraft in the Battle of Britain, was say, a month or two old, then why would it have aged gauges? Why would the instrument markings be brownish stained or faded? Why would the cockpit be incredibly scratched EVERYWHERE?

Some of these aircraft were delivered fresh from the factory with the paint barely dry and were lucky to get through one day of battle before being destroyed, sadly, along with their pilot.

Anybody who still doubts whether I am correct or not should take a look at this original film of a Spitfire "Daily Inspection"from 1940. It is of a 19 Squadron Mk1. Pay special attention to the close-ups of the ground chappie adjusting thew gauges. Any signs of wear, scratches, paint-fade?

Brownish stains and decay only appears on aircraft that have had many years of service and are not restored. Instruments, in particular, spend their lives behind glass, with a bezel sealed by a rubber O ring. It takes a long time for an instrument to decay.

We wish to portray the Mk1A as it would have appeared during the Battle of Britain.

Anyone who wants a Spitfire to look like like it is 70 years old with the relative ageing, is welcome to repaint the model the way they wish. We will be releasing authentic finishes.

 

[Bomber_12th]

I agree completely, Baz!

Take for example the recently-released Milviz Corsair - I saw one Youtube review where the person presenting the video was delighted by the cockpit looking "80 years old". Which, as you put, raises the question, why would you ever want the cockpit/plane looking 80 years old? Whether it be during WWII or now, none of the planes then or today, flying, would look that aged or neglected. The only ones you'd see looking like that would be those surviving today, since WWII, never restored and having suffered decades of exposure to the elements and/or people climbing on them for a great many years.

 

[jetstreamsky]

Absolutely right, this trend for everything to be worn/damaged is just over use of texturing techniques rather than any real situation in the majority of cases.

 

[bazzar]

As far as I know, ground crews took the greatest pride in the machines in their care. I am pretty sure they would not allow "their" pilot to take off in anything less than the best they could turn around. Sure, in the worst days of the Battle, little time was available for cosmetics but even allowing for that, apart from general wear and tear around the airframe where people step or scratch with harnesses etc., there just wouldn't be the deterioration that is often depicted in flightsim warbirds. Later in the war, maybe but not a few months into it.

 

[DennyA]

I'm reading the superb book They Gave Me A Seafire right now and he goes into a fair amount of detail in various chapters about how many fitters they had maintaining each plane. Yep, unless they were flying multiple sorties a day in the African desert, I would not expect them to be dirty or worn.

It's an Internet thing, a need to try to prove worthy knowledge, sadly not always backed by actual... worthy knowledge. See also: People complaining the simulated Spit Mk IX doesn't cut out with negative Gs.

That's for the video link! That was fun to watch. Hopefully someone will re-scan that someday at a higher resolution, but I'm glad it exists at all.

 

[jankees]

As far as I know, ground crews took the greatest pride in the machines in their care. I am pretty sure they would not allow "their" pilot to take off in anything less than the best they could turn around. Sure, in the worst days of the Battle, little time was available for cosmetics but even allowing for that, apart from general wear and tear around the airframe where people step or scratch with harnesses etc., there just wouldn't be the deterioration that is often depicted in flightsim warbirds. Later in the war, maybe but not a few months into it.

I have to agree with you there. As you may know, I like my aircraft worn, but I also know that quite often, ground crews took extreme pride in the aircraft they maintained, and in some cases even got medals for extremely good maintenance. So especially early on in the war, when they couldn't make the aircraft fast enough, I'd imagine them to be looking real good.
At the same time, later in the war, at remote bases and advanced airfields, under bad weather conditions, some older aircraft could become extremely worn.
I'm currently painting corsairs, and you won't believe the amount of wear and tear on some of them:

and the same will be true for Spitfires and Mustangs

But in the summer of 1940? these look very nice I think

 

[bazzar]

Yes Jan, Corsairs, especially later in the Pacific campaign suffered enormously. Mainly due to being sandblasted by coral sand where they were stationed in the islands. Wing leading edges and props were not alone in having the paint quite literally removed down to the metal if not the primer. Must have been a nightmare for crews.

Summer 1940 was long and hot so no mud to speak of, just the odd paint chip from stones and of course the obligatory scuffing on the wingroots from the pilot's boots and the crew assisting him into his harness. The rest was oil and fuel stain mostly. Some paints reacted to damp and heat so there were patches where discoloration would occur. This usually shows up as large dirty patches in the camouflage in B/W photos but they were not degraded or dirty, just the way the light caught the surface.

 

[bazzar]

On Final.

We've now finalised the textures, inside and out and buttoned up the flight model. She now tracks straight and true on takeoff roll with just a touch of rudder correction. After some work, we now have a working castoring tailwheel. Some other features include TR9 radio inside the opening radio/ballast hatch, correct BoB pattern goggles and oxy mask for the animated pilot and of course that beautiful Merlin engine behind removable covers.

There's a small selection of liveries and a new model of N3200 as restored with a pilot wearing a leather-covered bone dome and late oxygen set.

Currently we are finishing the sound-pack and manuals so not far away now. In the meantime, here's a few latest pics from the sim.

 

[ZsoltB]

 

[bazzar]

Here's N3200 as she is today with modern pilot complete with bone dome.

Working oxygen panel and night blind for the gear indicator lights.

There's battery starter cart

A chute ready for the pilot and a TR9 in the radio/ballast hatch.

See you soon!

 

[noddy]

Looks wonderful and looking forward to getting my hands on it.

 

[ZsoltB]

I waiting !

 

[shotgunshack]

I agree completely, Baz!

Take for example the recently-released Milviz Corsair - I saw one Youtube review where the person presenting the video was delighted by the cockpit looking "80 years old". Which, as you put, raises the question, why would you ever want the cockpit/plane looking 80 years old? Whether it be during WWII or now, none of the planes then or today, flying, would look that aged or neglected. The only ones you'd see looking like that would be those surviving today, since WWII, never restored and having suffered decades of exposure to the elements and/or people climbing on them for a great many years.

Check out this treasure trove of colour WWII pictures. On the right hand side half way down is a 222 Sqn Spitfire Vb being serviced. 222 were visited by a photographer in 1942 and several superb pics are extant. Very useful for wear and tear info.https://www.flickr.com/photos/8270787@N07/albums/72157605269786717

 

[jmig]

I am looking forward to this release. it looks wonderful.

 

[c87]

The welds on the canopy release!! Seriously, the texturing on this is phenomenal! Beautiful job.

 

[Adrian Petford]

Outstanding work! I can''t wait to fly her.

 

[jankees]

Baz, I was drooling over the Spitfire shots on Facebook when I noticed something.
Shouldn't the text in the circle be the other way round, so readable from the walkway/cockpit?

 

[bazzar]

I'll take a look Jan, thanks.

 

[bazzar]

A couple of videos to be going on with.

We are recently contacted by Into the Blue video productions asking to make a preview video of our forthcoming Spitfire Mk1A. Naturally, we agreed and here's a link to the video. Now this is NOT a review video as it was made earlier in the development and things have changed and been added since.

What it is is a delightful romp through the Lake District of England and shows some of the features in use in the cockpit. We especially liked the airfield beat-up at the end and of course, Elgar's finest to go with it.

The producer is obviously a competent pilot and handles the Spitfire really well.



https://youtu.be/Q696pQ1Xtpo

The other video is a result of an exciting collaboration with Authentikit, designers of superb simulator flight controls. We have worked closely with Authentikit to develop a very special set of controls, dedicated to the Spitfire Mk1A. The video details the controls and how to assemble them from the very clever and beautifully produced kits. These controls are a very cost-effective way to own a set of replica Spitfire controls and we believe, are well worth considering.

Check them out here:

https://youtu.be/40p6INAQ8Bc

 

[Dimus]

Looks gorgeous Baz! Thanks for sharing those videos.

Can I make a comment on the prop blur? I always make this comment to all developers, some listen, some don't. Prop blur is almost non-existent in real life, just a soft shadowy disk, that is what the eye sees. The prop blade blur effect is more cinematic, due to film fps. It is actually annoying to have this effect in front of you when flying from the VC and is not what a pilot would see.

It would be good if we could have at least the option of a realistic effect and keep the cinematic for screenshots.