Someone had a critique some time back about our P-40 not looking like a B or an E. Here they are side by side.











Still grinding out Burma terrain...

Wow, I've never seen -E gun barrels poking out that far before.

We will stop posting pictures until the release. This is becoming absurd.

I love the meshes you guys have built for those! they look pretty spot-on!

Must have been a gloomy day, though eh?

Don't do that Zerocinco. Depending on which picture I look at I've seen the barrels out as far as you portrayed but I have also seen shots where the barrels don't stick out quite so far. I'm not sure if it is a varient thing or not but there are historic shots of P-40Es with shorter looking gun barrels.

Consider the medium: I've been up close and personal with 2 different P-40's - they look fine to me!

Regards.

J. P. Kelly

Thanks, Joe. Me, too.

The fact is that people have been corralled by Google. And I am guilty of it also.*

People will see a picture and assume that it is the standard for an entire series when it is really not...especially in the field in WWII in Asia and the Pacific. Granted, everyone cannot "be there" or there would be no sims. But a lot of what is taken as right is wrong and it makes everything that follows just as wrong.

Here's an example: Almost all the camouflage colors for the Vietnam War planes are wrong. They are ALL wrong on one monitor or another on top of that. So everyone seems to standardize on one version and that leads to a lot of pinkish tans, verdant greens and brilliant whites. I saw them every day for two years in one place or another. Then when you change the lighting, it is all wrong again. Sundowner has two color schemes: his and YAP. YAP's is better looking in mixed light. His is better looking in the clear. Vietnam was seldom clear.

As far as the form, I recognize that a pixel here or there changes the way an airplane looks. Men have a particularly sharp eye for compound curves and you know exactly why. I explain to artists working for us that an airplane's form is a lot like a woman's body. That usually ends up with them drawing women's bodies in Max for a couple of hours before getting back to me with the price for our airplane.

But you cannot make money pleasing rivet counters. There is no end to it. Something will always be wrong because we have to compromise. We have two P-40 types. We have 3 B-25's. Every one is a new invoice. We will have to get by with one B-17, one PBY, one of a lot of things. In the end, there are no keels on the ships, the men's eyes don't move and it's all make believe anyway. So we stick to the axiom that we provide an experience looking out of the cockpit. Anything else is beyond the abilities of even Pixar. Our target is people who fly the missions and seek an experience.

*I liked the paint job on the Akagi's B5N2 flight commander's plane so much that I made it the standard for all of them from that ship...but only one plane was painted that way.

It's a matter of perspective and personal level of immersion: personally, I can't wrap my mind around what 'rivet counters' enjoy - 'so much time spent on the 'physical' as opposed to enjoying the experience.

Years ago when I was deep into scale modeling and competition I had entered a show on Long Island with a 1/48 scale Mk. 1 Spitfire on a grass field diorama with pilot running to the plane.

One of the judges was the renown (renown if you are part of the scale modeling world) Shep Paine.

My diorama took 4th at show and while I was packing up Shep happened to walk over and we started talking. He complimented me on the 'Spit and then said, "You know, you would have placed higher if your grass was at the correct height - it was out of scale."

I said, "The Grass!?"

Shep replied, "Yes - 'too short".

Does anyone need any further explanation....?

Regards,

J. P. Kelly

The grass.

Nope. No explanation.

LOL!

Regards,

J. P. Kelly

It's not perspective, depends on if the plane had the M2 or M3 .50cal guns.
I've seen static planes in museums that should have had M2's that had been fitted with M3's because they were easier to get.
Or they used M2 receivers and M3 barrels.
Problem is that the two guns have different length barrels and receivers so the M3 usually sticks out of the wing farther.
And to complicate things even further, there are 3 different .50cal barrels, a 36, a 45, and a 47 inch.
Saying all that to say this, I've seen pictures of in-service P-40's where the guns didn't extend much beyound the leading edge and other where the barrels were sticking out quite a bit.
I suspect a lot has to do with available parts in theater,or in other words, you make do with what you have.
If you have to go raid the trucks in the motor pool, or beg, borrow, or steal MG gun barrels from the grunts to keep the planes in service then you do it.

I hope you reconsider. It's been neat watching.


Wheels

Wolf,

When I used the word 'perspective' I was referring to the attitude one has in their approach to flight simulation; not the difference's between various marks of aircraft. Further, I was speaking for myself in context.

Personally, while I enjoy historical research and develop pride in my knowledge of combat aviation I understand the limitations of the media involved. Again, so I'm clear; personally, I'd rather spend time with a sim that provides me with the 'feel' of the time period. If it does, and in my experience, very few sims have done that in the past 25+ years, the actual physical attributes of the aircraft involved (referring to distinctions by mark/type) mean very little to me.

Regards,

J. P. Kelly

Sorry Joe, when I said prespective, I was talking about the angles that a lot of photos are taken from and I thought you were too.
I've seen two pictures of the same plane where you'd swear up and down it was two different planes.
Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Wolf257,

LOL - 'looks like we both mis-understood each other! Honestly, I had no idea you were talking about angles/photos!

No apology necessary!

I guess we'll both have to wait for the 'virtual ready room' so we can understand the nuance in 'conversation'!

Regards,

J. P. Kelly