Jump to content

6FG_Big_Al

Members
  • Content Count

    656
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

536 Excellent

3 Followers

About 6FG_Big_Al

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Germany
  • Interests
    Dinosaur/W40k/History-Fan :D

Recent Profile Visitors

1882 profile views
  1. I like the system as it is right now. As RedKestrel said the negative G's are a bit strange and would probably benefit from a look at it.
  2. To be honest, I think that the question is a bit unfair and perhaps a bit blatant. Hardly anyone here will say that they reject realism. I myself am no exception, of course I want realism but the question arises (as some of you have already pointed out here) to what extent it is realistic to see airplanes disappear at close range. It cost me my virtual head more than once because enemies simply disappeared despite all efforts, only to appear shortly afterwards and shoot me down^^. I also agree with Scharfi the others that perceiving a movement in reality is much easier. Of course it's not exactly the same from the ground but still a day and night difference.. And unfortunately it can't be realistic in any way to zoom in completely to spot an opponent. Our eyes have no zoom function ^^ (if we speak about realism) and the fact that you have to use it to not be completely blind misses the general idea. Therefore I liked the idea of scaling (with the now as alternative visibillity known variant) quite a lot. No question, on long distance the contacts were way too easy to see, but the approach was good. (Even though this variant was rejected and killed by the community). Accordingly, I believe that you should continue in this direction. Even if it then goes more in a direction that is considered to be"unrealistic".
  3. A new map, new outfits and fuel system improvements for tank crew (and hopefully in the future for the aircraft). Thank you for this unforseen update πŸ˜„
  4. I would love to see this πŸ˜„
  5. I can only post this when it come to 190's πŸ˜„
  6. Thanks for the info I'm really eager to see the Martlet and the Wimpey in action
  7. Intersting thread. I have the same problems as Kalle and the others here. I first thought it was another AMD issue but obviously all cards types are affected by it to some degree. Fingers crossed that they fix it. Since the switch to deffered shading there are some ongoing graphic issues that they need to take care off.
  8. Nice work πŸ˜„ Hope to see more in the future
  9. Generally I do not find it bad that the outer cannons cannot be removed. In the current situation of the DM 2 x 20 and the 2x 13 are certainly enough, but from what I have read many units were equipped with them or even with the 2x 30 mm (Those that were hunting bombers) . Of course there are some aces, like in the picture above, that still let removed the outer cannons, but I'm honestly not sure that this was the norm at this time . I'd rather see the bubble canopy for the A8/F8 as a modification, or, as Bremspropeller had already mentioned, a possibility to add the "increased emergency power" as a modification to be able to portray the early A8.
  10. It was^^ The version of the Typhoon that we get won't have the car door. So the design will be similar to the existing Tempest bubble canopy that we have ingame.
  11. Hi @-DED-Rapidus, to answer your question yes the settings of the driver are default. Even when I did a small mistake. (The current version of the driver is: 20.7.1) The ingame settings are under the spoiler. If there is anything else I can do or test, don't hesitate to ask me
×
×
  • Create New...