Classic British Flight Sim

Right. Spent the last half hour in MSFS taking a few shots of the PD and AH/JF Lancs at similar angles to do a fair comparison.

PD Mk II...



...JF/AH Mk II (same plane!)...



...PD Mk I Special topside...



...JF/AH Mk I Special topside...



...PD Mk III Special...



...JF/AH Mk III Special (again same plane, but forgiven as it is Guy Gibson's! )...



...PD Mk I Special side view...



...JF/AH Mk I Special side view...




So, after losing the will to live after doing all those, impressions.

Nice VCs on the new JF/AH one - certainly nicer on the eye than the PD one (a year younger of course), and better modelling of the internals of the aircraft, although no virtual crew except in the external views, so you flying solo! Nice little detail, such as the creep markers shown on the tyre in the last shot above. Nice modelling on the whole. As the pictures show above, the textures are a little misaligned in places (generally the same place - the letter in front of the stbd roundel. These textures on either side also suffer from being blurry when switching views (until you've zoomed in and out on them), and the red of the letters appears rather loud, reather than the muted red as seen on the PD version...

...and the props! (The PD version also has those beautiful prop disks)...

All in all, about equal, except in the externals, where PD's is a fair way ahead IMO.

Oh dear (again!),

I don't like Ed's textures with aircraft reflections turned on (as you have) and he know's this already so I'm not talking out of school.. but at least they're aligned. The lighting inside the AH model is far to high hence the reason for the side window looking very strange. Tyre creep markers are a nice addition but are far to bold.. I don't like things to look like they've just come out of the factory as you can tell! Tyres on the AH model look a little oversize to me.. Ed's look in proportion

It DOES look better than the WoP Lanc mind you though the best thing I can think of to say about that is that the panel isn't half bad. I was VERY tempted to part company with some hard earned and I'm glad I didn't now. The less fussy or more gamey users will go for it and think it's the doggies. They'll also have the Addictive VC10 and Trident in their collections too

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Why is the astrodome at the rear of the canopy so different between the two ? :think:

Ed ?

DaveB wrote:It DOES look better than the WoP Lanc mind you ... They'll also have the Addictive VC10 and Trident in their collections too

Hey, the first bit I don't mind, but don't get all personal on me I was 15 when I built that Lancaster!

IMO, If the PD one could be merged with the JF VC.. bingo.

Dan.

Hi Dan, I wondered if you'd show up 15 you may have been and a darned good effort it was but surely, you must have been paid for your services and with payment comes the target

If you made it again now, would you do it the same.. that's the important question

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Indeed, but I was hired after the project was finished

IF I were to make a Lanc again; many moons of experience would mean that it would be a completely different venture!

Dan.

I spent last night in the various VC positions ignoring the outside of the aircraft - and frankly, they have done quite a superb job. The bomb aimer's position is just breathtaking - one of the few VC's I've been in that puts you 'there'. One thing I do particularly like is the subtle perspex 'rainbow' texturing. No idea whether or not it is accurate, but to me one of the things that 'looks right' so it is.

I almost found myself reaching for my parachute pack to lie on and protect the family jewels as so many bomb aimers have related!

I am making a list of major errors - without being stupidly pedantic (which I don't see as constructive) - in the hope that they may be persuaded to patch it. It would be a shame if they didn't because I really feel it deserves the ha'porth of tar - even if just to correct the nose, line the textures up and correctly label R5868 as a BI and not a BIII ...

Hot_Charlie wrote:...and the props! (The PD version also has those beautiful prop disks)...

IMHO,
I prefer the animation of the AH prop disks over the PD.....But, just my opinion

Prop discs are something very subjective.

If you see a prop in real life, it looks like a disc - a shiny disc. It's not possible to make a perfect representation of it in FS...

In a photo or a video, unless there is a long exposure, the prop will be "frozen" in a blur.

As far as the astrodome is concerned, I believe I got it right. There should perhaps be a hint of framing around the bottom, but there should not be a raised base to it.

Ed Walters wrote:Prop discs are something very subjective.

If you see a prop in real life, it looks like a disc - a shiny disc. It's not possible to make a perfect representation of it in FS...

In a photo or a video, unless there is a long exposure, the prop will be "frozen" in a blur.

I like them the PD way - they look like a nicely taken photo... no seing individual blades...