JFM

Climbing out of Kahului.

Color shot with New Mexico in foreground.

Joysticks and controllers… I think that one is a Buffalo.

Good luck having a conversation on a deck full of radial engines at idle and full throttle. 😆

Okay, it's not available on Steam yet but now it *has* been released on Good Old Games. https://www.gog.com/en/game/b17_flying_fortress_the_mighty_8th_redux $13.49 USD. No online requirement. I have a few games on GOG, works fine.

Was supposed to be released today but at the last second they delayed it. Of course, on various fora this delay has caused a scheissestorm of "I'm not buying it now!" hissyfits and conspiracy accusations that might need Mike Lindell's involvement 🤣 So, the wait continues. Here's a vid that shows what we can expect, at least visually. You can see most of the graphics work went into the UI and B-17 interior. Exterior still looks very rough. However, they revealed today that they are indeed working on the B-17 exterior. Here's a screenshot they posted: Price on Steam is $14.99 USD.

I know this was posted months ago but somehow I didn't see it until now. 😃 Although rendered nicely, constructively, among other things, WAY too much flak. At least as regards the 5" bursts. Photos of the dive bombing attack on Yorktown show far, far fewer 5" flak bursts. The CGI above shows a volume of 5" bursts more like that seen/photographed during the torpedo attack, a couple hours later. I mention this because I often see exaggerated flak in CGI stuff. Hopefully Combat Pilot (and Task Force Admiral) don't make that mistake! Yorktown being dive bombed, as photographed from Astoria. Val crashing ahead of the vessel, bomb splashing in wake, Val overhead forward. I see two 5" bursts. Other more distant views of this attack that feature more sky (i.e., more altitude above the vessel) show a few more 5" bursts, but overall about (I estimate) 1/10th of that in the CGI depiction.

Getting hits.

First, probably already ragingly obvious, but I'm not an expert in this area and glad to be wrong, because that's how we learn. 😃 But I don't think Arizona was regarded as an inherently "wet" vessel, and I don't recall comments to that effect as I've read about, for instance, British Royal Sovereigns. (I'm looking for some, though, and will post any here.) Although, over time her (AZ) secondary battery was raised because they were too wet, but it seems that was a function of them being too low in the first place (just saw in a book: "...[they] had proved to be wet in heavy seas and were too low to allow accurate and effective firing"]). Scharnhorst had bow upgrades as mentioned and considerably more sheer but that vessel still seems to have had a lower freeboard than Arizona, but that might be an illusion caused by Scharnhorst's longer forecastle--Scharnhorst was some 170 feet longer overall than Arizona. But there's no doubt over decades that freeboard, sheer, and bulbous bows increased in size. Arizona Arizona after modernization. Note raised casemates (mostly obstructed by sailors in this view). Scharnhorst Japanese carrier Ryujo, infamous for her too-low freeboard. Even after reconstruction, it was still too low.

Her bow wasn’t lower than any other US BB of her time. I’ve not read they were particularly wet vessels, but I have seen pics of her shipping lots of water in heavy seas. That third pic is of her stern, and it looks really low at that angle. Although I’ve seen pics/vids of Iowa’s that had their fantails nearly flush with the sea when sailing balls-out.

Any of the following: MSFS2020: MilViz FG-1D Corsair IL2: Me-262, P-51B, C-47. FC3: Albatros D.II and RE8 ROF: DH2 WOFF: DH2, BE12 The MicroProse B-17 Flying Fortress: Mighty 8th Redux is being released early access on 23 Jan. I'm sure I'll be involved with that for a while--until they release B-17 Flying Fortress The Bloody 100th.

I saw several PH posts on Facebook, which is normally a cesspool of politics and celebrity scheisse. Three more Arizona pics. 😃