Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. No, it comes with the fact of being experienced. Funny how the outstanding feature of the 109 is always that it was a handful to operate (in one anecdote or another) - no matter which pilot you ask or which book you read.
  3. Just wondering, If this is so good, why did HTC not use these type of glass and use this fresnel lenses.
  4. Hi RAP, i cant like it as all my likes are gone! Sorry!!😐 I dont know if i t is clear what i meant. Its the round mud cover on the wheels. The P-51 and the Jug didnt have it. I see these two versions only on the P-38 Are you referring to these too? Thanks for your help!
  5. One thing I do wonder is if the increases view range will enable bombing opera at higher altitude to be effective?
  6. Right. This is an old thread!
  7. Isn't this pretty much true for all carrier engagements? IIRC no carrier battle lasted more then just a few days, so under your logic not one of those famous battles merits a BoX. And I would sure like to see that someday!
  8. Well, after reading most of the pilot memoirs/reports available (not just allied test pilots) i have quite different view about 109. And yes, many of them have flown different types of fighters during/after the war. With all of it's well known quirks it was not easy plane for novices for sure, but experienced pilots could beat pretty much anything with it. And that was not just about the speed.
  9. It depends on the model really. Most of them, especially the latest ones, have most of their undercarriage and such in the .gtp files and are able to be manipulated but only SEEN with your 'Mods On' checked. The way to make anything 'disappear' is to render it pure black on the Alpha layer. I did it on a couple of MkV Spitfires to make the cannons disappear. https://youtu.be/PlRYwYJ1ijU Thing is, it can often interfere with any layer below it in the 3-d model as to render something invisible often has quite a disturbing effect on things near/around it! Let me know if you have any joy, I'd be interested to see but personally I'm not a fan of the 'mods on' way of doing things, just can't be a***d... Rap
  10. Nice 😃 looks beautiful and i just love the Green P-38s. Hope you keep doing P-38s as there is a lack of P-38 skins atm. In particular i hope you do some 9th Airforce P-38s (474th FG, 370th FG and 367th FG) as those were the only units still operating the P-38 in northern europe at the time of operation bodenplatte (since all 8th Airforce P-38 units such as the 20th FG that "california cutie" belonged to converted to the P-51 during the summer of 1944).
  11. Thanks Julian!! I really appreciate your work!!!! As you know i am no skin maker!!! TOOO OLD
  12. Rift 1 here. You can fairly easily scan the arc from 260 to 100 degrees. For the rest, you can use the techniques RL pilots used, i.e. don't fly in a straight line, fly in a zig zag pattern that allows you to check your six.
  13. I think the theme is on the alpha channel, according to szelljr
  14. You, as a pilot, are often inundated with a metric ton of available information that can help you confirm from longer distances. I suggest tapping into a series of internal questions when you spot “something”. For example: Are the over a friendly or enemy target? Their behavior over such an area is a good clue (which is why I HATE when a pe2 flies home at treetop level right over our own objective. I immediately think it’s a 110 on a bomb run!) The best behavioral clue I see is attention. Where is attention being paid in that other plane? Do you see them in lazy orbits over their objective? They’re looking for bombers to bounce below. Are they rocking wings or changing direction? Likely searching skies for other fighters and might be a friendly escorting a bomber into that same target. Are they over 5km in altitude? 90% of the time it’s a 109, especially in earlier plane sets. In BoBp maps, is it trailing thick exhaust? 190 100% TL:DR: Use contextual information before you can identify the target to form a conclusion. Then while you move in, confirm your conclusion using your ID techniques. You should ID as a confirmation, not as the full assessment.
  15. Not since the last update.
  16. Hello. Lovable, thanks a lot! The stencils are made from a serif face font, but the originals were sans serif as far as I know. I will redo the layer and then post it here for your consideration/update. Have fun!
  17. I'm pretty hyped about the Yaks to be honest. This is the Yak of all Yaks for me and a plane I've been waiting for a long time. I hope they do split the Yak into two planes. Not only because I would buy three collector planes instead of two, but I think they could do a great job milking some more variants out of two models instead of just one.
  18. Yes, despite, rather than because of, its pitiful bombload. More due to the aforementioned teamwork etc.
  19. BAD BOY😀 Hi Julian, thank you for answering. I can ask RAP how to do it! S!
  20. Thank you it's so true Excuse me? PE2 destroys TAW ... This makes no sense .... P40s and P39s are obviously not the best aircraft, but you throw some Yaks in there it's doing fine. Comparing the P40 or the P39 is like comparing the Folgore to the Yak1b ?? LOL, like the domination of reds on TAW .... Interesting. lol I know THIS is the big problem ...
  21. Er, yes, quite extensively. See this test after the propeller-update from @J5_Hellbender Spad at 215kph, SE5a at 220kph, D7f at 194kph, and D7f with Alt Throttle 205kph! Which of course gets used judiciously. The FC spec for the Spad is 219kph(RoF was 220), so the Spad is slow without even talking about later engine variants, it's just under-modelled, and of course even 219 for a 1918 Spad is dubious. Bender sums up.." In other words, we have a 1918 SE5a and a 1917 SPAD XIII"
  22. Yes I'd love a Lancaster (or just more bombers in general). No I don't think it should be added for the usual reasons. Resources, cost, optimization, setting etc. Its a shame the sim has been set up the way it is, but in the end you have to face the music. At least for now... Maybe someday as an AI only plane. @BraveSirRobin Strongly disagree with that sentiment. "Yah flight simulators. You sit in a chair, pull on a plastic stick, and pretend to shoot at things, and spend lots of money, so much fun"... I mean c'mon man, lighten up a little 😉 Flying bombers is enjoyable for some people. Particularly in single player campaigns.
  23. Damn Brems, you beat me to it. Was trying to type almost the same thing on my phone while out for breakfast. Imagine if the FW 190 had unfettered access to the DB series engines, without the political roadblocks that Willey threw out there.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...