• 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

Wartime Versus Restored Warbirds for FSX????

Modernised Vs. Wartime Warbirds of FSX???

  • Do you like to fly WWII configured WBs on FSX, in 1940s condition?

    Votes: 137 77.4%

  • Do you like to fly WB's in modern/restored condition with new avionics etc....?

    Votes: 40 22.6%
  • Total voters
    177
L

letsgetrowdy

Charter Member
Just out of interest, and could also be useful for developers,

But does one prefer to fly clean "restored" warbirds on FSX, for example with a removed gunsight and modern avionics / GPS.
Or does one want to fly a fighter with its original WWII gunsight, avionics, IFF and wartime weaponary?
Just nce to know.

I always like to fly with the modern kit as I feel it suites flightsim's present day scenery etc..
 
I am the same as you - I prefer modern kit inside as per a restored WB but there are some restored warbirds out ther that are fairly orginal, although they may have modern radios - often hidden away.
 
Call it a lack of imagination, but I voted for modern avionics kit. I love the look, feel, and sound of those old warbirds, but when I fly them I always imagine myself in a restored version, flying present-day. The few warbirds I've had the privilege to be aboard all sport some sort of modern radio and nav equipment, though the overall instrumentation is usually a mix of old and new.

One bird that got this right IMO is FSD's P-38. They offered both original and restored versions - something I really appreciated. I can see how the purists would enjoy flying these old beasts as they were meant to be flown, but for me "as real as it gets" includes only flying what's available now.
 
I'm a purist. i prefer original equipment, but thats just me.. i DO like a clean plane, one thats been kept up and in good condition though, and i dont like a lot of dirt, worn leather or such.
 
Yes RealAir did the same thing with their Spitfire, giving one the choice of old or new. But for me it's the new any day.
 
another Purist here, navigating by Map is half the challenge of a warbird, especially when you factor in wind-drift... I like cockpit to look factory fresh of the era or slightly used but not abused, but modern kit hidden away should I ever need it :icon_lol:
 
I know I'm a minority here, but I am like spotlope in that when I fly in FSX I like to imagine that I'm flying nowadays in a restored example, such as the photo below

P-51_Mustang_Cockpit_Picture.jpg
 
Smoothie said:
another Purist here, navigating by Map is half the challenge of a warbird, especially when you factor in wind-drift... I like cockpit to look factory fresh of the era or slightly used but not abused, but modern kit hidden away should I ever need it :icon_lol:
Click to expand...

absolutely right nothing to add:)

but a good highly modified reno unlimited class plane would also be nice
 
As I really don't know how these modern features work I prefer the wartime versions ;)

Cheers,
Huub
 
I am just the opposite, I like a vintage feel to them. My imagination goes parallel with reality in a sense. rather than just jumping in a plane and flying I have to have somewhat of a purpose for a flight, usually a business sense.

I get the most satisfaction of a realistic scenario, does this type aircraft actually operate in this area, does this operator have this in his fleet, does this aircraft fit the type of operations of the particular business I am virtually operating from, etc. When it comes to warbirds, since there is no combat, I have to come up with war scenarios that just involve flying, SAR, recon, formation, etc. I rarely find flying a restored warbird a viable scenario as I don't get into virtual airshows much or reno air racing as that is all about adrenaline and lets face it, there is no fear of dying, so that's out the window, LOL.
 
The fun part for me is exploring and researching history.
Having said that, V.O.S. (vintage original specs) all the way for me.
 
Just as a point to put out there. The current trend in restorations today, meet both sides of this poll - and that is how I like them. Places like Midwest Aero Restorations, or Westpac, or Fighter Rebuilders, or Avspecs, or Pioneer Aero, can, and have, restored many warbirds over the past decade, exactly as they were right off the production line, and into combat in WWII, with proper paint and finish per each individual part throughout, proper instrumentation, completely functional military equipment, original radio equipment, accurate markings, etc., etc., etc. Of course modern radios are still required but they are installed in a way which doesn't interfere with taking away any original equipment, and are placed in areas that don't distract from the overall look. This is how I like them the most - the best of both worlds - and you don't look out of part, flying in a modern-day sim. The only FSX product to do a model this way, for FSX, is Realair, but they certainly won't be the last, and I say that with certainty. ;) (Wozza's recent T-6G fits in that regard as well - with mostly original interior setup, with the addition of a couple of modern radios)

Mathias, I enjoy that part of being a developer, studying original drawings, manuals, tech orders, photos, and working with the guys and gals that rebuild and fly the same aircraft today, and if at all possible, the guys and gals that did the same during the 40's. Unfortunately, you end up, for likely the rest of your life, with tons and tons of useless trivia about a particular aircraft, as you become a walking encyclopedia on the aircraft. :d
 
I'm sneaking over from the FS9 forum once again...don't tell anyone LOL!

I am mixed in this area. I do nearly all of my flying in vintage planes, and I like fitted out with vintage gauges...but I also like modern touches....but I put them on pop up windows. I like having a full function GPS as my navigation skills are very poor. I like having a CD Player in my planes as I like to have some tunes playing on those longer flights (which for me means up to about an hour, sometimes an hour and a half). I like having a pop up window with all my engine and fuel management gauges together in a neat package. I don't like my VC panel totally covered in gauges...just the basic flight guages (air speed, vertical speed, attitude, a compass, a fuel gauge). Radios...don't really use them at all....actually have never taken the time to figure out how to use them since I very rarely use ATC.

The way I think about my sim flying...and this goes to my skinning as well. I approach my sim like I am a mega rich modern man who loves to fly restored vintage aircraft. When I fly a 1935 vintage plane, I do not pretend to be flying it in 1935...but in 2010 after it has been fully restored and returned to flight worthy status. I like to keep as much of the vintage as possible, but mix in those modern aviation touches. My skins depict planes that have been totally restored and fresh looking....I don't weather them, I don't scratch them up, I don't dirty them up.

OBIO
 
I vote for "both".

For those who like it all original and for the few that have been fully restored to original, having the original cockpit is great. But...

FSX is not a combat sim, it's more of a civilian flight sim, so I like modern avionics and instruments that would likely be found in a restored aircraft.
 
Bomber_12th said:
Mathias, I enjoy that part of being a developer, studying original drawings, manuals, tech orders, photos, and working with the guys and gals that rebuild and fly the same aircraft today, and if at all possible, the guys and gals that did the same during the 40's. Unfortunately, you end up, for likely the rest of your life, with tons and tons of useless trivia about a particular aircraft, as you become a walking encyclopedia on the aircraft. :d
Click to expand...

Na, I don't mind the "useless trivia" since I'm not exclusively after result-oriented game developement .
As I said, for me that's part of the enjoyment. In a way I see an FSX plane more as a side product of the studies.
 
In my eyes Vintage is Vintage. I'd like to see the planes modeled as they were. Makes for a better reality sense aside from what's on the outside all painted and pretty. Nothing looked perfect back in the day. Pilots never cared of their chute pack scuffed the canopy as they climbed in. All they were concerned with was that it was still there when they sat down. They wanted the birds to get them in the sky quick..get the job done and get them back safe. Restored is one thing. If you want to look at it sitting in a museum in it's original glory, I respect that and enjoy seeing them. But they don't get flown much being in that state due to parts availability I'm sure. Planes that are Reno style are completely revamped for flying of that nature. I myself would love to see more Vintage stuff modeled old skool.. as it was then but for realistic enjoyment our way.

I'm not speaking specifically military craft. Don't get me wrong, I like the occasional finely crafted model. But I'd enjoy seeing more GA cloth type framings. There's so many out there.

I'd love to see an Aeronca "K" Model done by the upper class modelers that's native for FSX

There's SO much skill out there. And there's SO many planes waiting in line for their native papers.

I voted for the real deal
 
Mathias said:
Na, I don't mind the "useless trivia" since I'm not exclusively after result-oriented game developement .
As I said, for me that's part of the enjoyment. In a way I see an FSX plane more as a side product of the studies.
Click to expand...

I think for myself, i dont know why i do what i do. perhaps at one time, it was to change some part of the world, to be pushy and make people build better aircraft because i was openly competing with them. i got so sick of bad aircraft back then. now days though, i dont know. The hours take their toll, and good aircraft are available everywhere. Now days i think i continue to do what i do, because i havent found how far i can push myself. i love the history, it lets me get into the soul of the period and the heart of the aircraft i'm working on. composits and tubes can go somewhere else. i've little use for buttons and computers. Flight models these days dont need to be complex. you can simply add entries to the config file and plop in an empty airfile and yur good to go, but is it real? is it accurate?? I love these older craft. they make me work, think, and since i did spend time in a very real war, they even make me feel..
but i dont know why i do them..
 
I prefer the vintage instruments. Best of both worlds: vintage instruments that work with modern nav beacons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top