Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

109 Excellent

About I/JG54_chuishan

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Shanghai China

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm sorry but tons of disappointment has just hit me... If it takes a special 'teaser' a day before hand to announce something that may come at the end of the year? And it's something that obviously puts the cart ahead of the horse? A LOT of basic and key features are desperately needed for the Tank Crew to make it playable: Accurate armor, penetration and ballistic system? Some decent game modes specifically designed for tank battles? Manual gear box for the drivers? Correct and useful optics for tank commanders? A decent terrain interaction system to stop making tanks running on 'invisible flat tarmac'? A useful Command & Control panel for commanders to issue orders? Crew voices? None of these basic features has been correctly adopted and the game experience of Tank Crew is literally broken. And now you are going to add yet another two new vehicles? Those tracks are not performing satisfying enough out in the wild and yet you are going to add something runs on wheels? Excuse me I just can't see the point of adding any new vehicle before you guys adopt these basic and essential features into the game, as to merely make Tank Crew playable.
  2. Thank you for the answer and advice! I was wondering why the "parts" option in FMB is unclickable πŸ˜† Still practicing mission building skills, making full use of basic triggers. This mission is specifically designed for MP Luftwaffe side, since my Chinese friends prefer MP experiences. I suppose we still lack some handy function for MP players, for example some markers on the map telling the location of major targets, like those in GB series. Also I found a lack of damaged objects in the FMB, especially damaged armor units and vehicles, thus raising some issues in recreating some scenarios like Dunkirk beach head... which should have contained a lot of deserted equipment. Finally, may be adding some sort of tags on FMB objects for mission builders to recognize which module they come from is a good idea? I believe it can reduce the confusion drastically. πŸ˜„
  3. Hello folks! I've encountered some trouble in mission building. I'm a TOBRUK owner and I'd like to build BLITZ only missions for my friends to share. However I have no clue on "BLITZ only" content in my FMB... All contents from TOBRUK and BLITZ mix together. I made a full scale "Operation Dynamo" mission but found that only TOBRUK owners can enter my mission hosted... Also my friends with BLITZ could not open my mission, showing "This mission requires parts that have not been required Tobruk:100". I tried to delete ALL the contents and objects that may possibly come from TOBRUK, but get disappointing results. Any idea on this? If I need a "BLITZ only" game version to make a "BLITZ only" mission?? The compressed file contains my "Dynamo" missions made. v1.0 is the original mission made and v2.0 is my attempt to delete all TOBRUK contents. Dunkirk test.zip
  4. Requesting a couple of P-40s flew and fought by AVG in China-Burma campaign, 1941-1942. 1. P-8185 No. 75, pilot William Reed, 3rd PS "Hell's Angels", Kunming China, 1942. The aircraft somehow retained its original RAF wing roundels. 2. P-8127 No. 47, pilot Robert T.Smith, 3rd PS "Hell's Angels", China 1941. 3. P-8177 No. 38, pilot Henry Geselbracht, 2nd PS "Panda Bears", China 1942. Thanks in advance!
  5. Thank you for the clear-up Sokol1! I would say... that the original vibration effect is a bit too much... Actually I'd call it 'shaking' rather that vibration. πŸ˜†
  6. !!! Is it possible to show more test screenshot? Or we have to wait for official announcement?
  7. Wonder if it is possible to add some vibration in the cockpit when engine is started, in idling power and during taxi? For the time being the cockpit is completely still when engine is started. Although it's only a minor feature, but I think it helps with creating better immersion. Hope TF can consider adding this feature?😜
  8. Making more of them please! The axis front-line AF is too close to the front line, which causes vulching and spawn camping, and all the AFs in vicinity of Gambut are unavailable. To me the following arrangement for this particular map is more favourable: EDIT: Sorry for my typo in the picture:) And if a dogfight map is needed, I think Dangerdogz server has done a good job by making a mock-up Tobruk pocket and keep everybody concentrated in the Tobruk harbor area. Sadly for Chinese players living in UTC +8 time zone, we have to stay up until at least 1 o'clock to take a mere sip for a populated server... And it's too demanding for us to either stayed up until 4 o'clock or getting up so early to enjoy a 50-player MP environment. I desperately want a populated server to enjoy but only find it a kind of luxury... 😭
  9. Thank you Han to provide us a chance to thoroughly discuss this issue. First I'm afraid that I have to disagree with part of your opinion. Yes, realism is the first priority for us to consider in plane visibility and No, reasonable comfort should be allowed in this game that we, as players, can purchase and enjoy. Secondly, with doctrine emphasized, I would like to give my suggestion on this issue: (1 Please try to minimize the difference between people using different screen. My friends with 32in 4K screens can spot contacts 8km away with maximum zoom but me with a 15in 1080p laptop screen can only spot 4km contacts on the same condition. 2) please try to incorporate a consistent LOD setting and render targets in a more stable manner. I kept suffering from contacts stop rendering at medium range with a certain deflection angle. 3) Please try to incorporate a rigid solution on silhouette of the contacts, and the contrast between different background and the contact. Besides I think that pursuing a real spotting experience not with our own eyes but with screens has gone a bit too far... On condition that 'what is real spotting experience' is still a controversial topic with standards changing from person to person and thus difficult to perceive. Not to mention that people use different screen and VR sets, which make it even more difficult to make spotting experience consistent. I personally recommend to have a reference to Cliffs of Dover's system in spotting. Although this system leans a bit more to the 'Comfort' side, it's a rigid and relatively persuading solution for the time being. Over the years I've seen little or no complaints relating to spotting on Cliffs of Dover communities and forums. To sum up: Strike the balance is more preferable to me.
  10. Being curious to know whether carrier operation is within your consideration?
  11. The Siege of Malta and carrier operations with carrier aircraft set.
  12. As the first week of the initial release has passed, is it possible to make public all the skin templates for TOBRUK aircraft? @Buzzsaw Can't wait to see AVG Hawk-81 skins and battle dress for Malta Gladiators!
  13. Just installed the updating patch, having issue in sound effect for all the cannons. In external view I can hear the cannon firing, but in cockpit I can only hear machine guns. I notice all the cannons suffer from a serious sound volume reduction. The volume is way lower than machine guns in the cockpit. Also having some machine gun sound playing issue as reported by Dirtbag above. @69thSpiritus
  14. Just installed the updating patch, having issue in sound effect for all the cannons. In external view I can hear the cannon firing, but in cockpit I can only hear machine guns. I notice all the cannons suffer from a serious sound volume reduction. The volume is way lower than machine guns in the cockpit.
  • Create New...