I cannot speak for the team, especially our fine modelers here, but if something that has no purpose is not modeled and animated, is that such a bad thing?
A lot of the things that were brought up could be animated, but would serve to physical purpose in the simulation itself. MSFS for example does not recognize anything but the current navigation and communication system, therefor many frequency bands, especially on older planes simply do not function. This was one of the major limiting factors on the 377 at the navigation station, as much of the equipment could not be made to operate within the confines of MSFS. It therefor was better to simply omit its usage rather than give the guise that it worked and have people ask questions.
Our modeled planes assuredly were built against either real world aircraft or historically documented information, and usually both. While I no longer have the pictures on my hard drive of the MK1, I can assure you that the ones Rob provided me match the model.
There are a lot of issues with interpretation, and finding the most accurate representation of mark and factory (or not if it is the goal) setup is best. A great example is the following picture:http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/images/cockpitspit2.jpg
If you look up MK1 on the internet, this picture will inevitably pop up. For all intensive purposes, it looks like a MK1. Noticeably however, the cockpit glass armor is inset. The MK1 glass protrudes from the windshield frame, as well as a few other variants.http://fc25.deviantart.com/fs31/f/2008/ ... ptre63.jpg
So in this instance, verifiably, the picture above would not be used for any factual or historical information as we know it is indeed not a MK1.
As for the fastness of the Spitty. I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps the others out there modeled it improperly? And it isn't a matter of being fast, but rather quick. The MK1 isn't a terribly fast aircraft when compared to birds like the P-51. It however is a lot quicker, as the video shown proves.
Frankly, there are a lot of things people don't model correctly on the Spitfire. For example, there are plenty of pilot reports that talk about how the nose dropped when the gear was lowered. Not many take the time to place that into the model. Also to note, you can actually flick or snap roll this plane by applying full aft elevator and kicking full rudder, not to mention that you can spin her.
Your comments however have got my interest piqued. I'm scowering through what little information I personally have (mind you, I mostly just make videos and do a few things here and there... I am NOT a modeler) and seeing if there is any validity to what you are saying.
Just please keep in mind... The war went on for many years. There are numerous field modifications, etc that took place in all planes. For example there were over 33,000 BF109s made, inevitably there were various contracts written for the various oxygen tanks throughout the entire war. I would even bear to guess that at any given time there were probably more than one system in use until perhaps the K models.
I cannot stress that our examples are based first on historical photography and data gathered from manuals and pilots, secondary the real planes themselves. A great example is the P-40N that Scott spent good time with at Cavenaugh. Much of the cockpit of that plane differed greatly from the P-40B that was modeled, therefor it had to be taken with a grain of salt and compared to historic pictures and manuals.