Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Excellent

About buster_dee

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

600 profile views
  1. I used the canned Normandy map with the small island to the North. It has huge runways and, after TD removed an obstacle towards the East of the South taxiway, all of it played fine (human and AI). If I recall, the full fuel load is not needed on any stock map. Reducing that opens up more airfields.
  2. I provided data (some line drawings and crude models) for that observer pit. I liked the rebuilt results (though some things, like IFF and comm sets, are missing), but I was disappointed that the radar was a 'mantle piece.' I would love to play that position in conjunction with a human pilot. B17 II had an interesting feature whereby AI crewman were average until you played their station; if you were good, they got better. Understandably, this kind of implementation would cramp pilots with no intention of carrying a live radar guy. But, it would sure be nice to not only play the position but be of some advantage to the pilot. Servers could enable/disable the player slot (but retain pure observer). Daidalos Team (I was a member at the time) was working towards a night bomber/fighter theme that fell short. I had delivered a couple of Wurzburg radars (Riese, and fixed/transport D), and was working on a Mk VIII set for the Mossie. My most obscure was a Seeburg Tisch bunker, which I never handed over (I could almost picture the Team's bewilderment). Someone else had made the German airborne sets. After 20 years, I'm still longing for this missing element in air combat. Sokol1, no wonder I can never find the enemy
  3. That Martlet is going to get me into trouble. I'm lukewarm about fighters (because I have NO skills), but like the drama of fighting Uboats from a postage stamp with machines who's best quality is taking a beating. That little fighter (and Sting Bags) always make me long for North Atlantic (or Gibraltar) sim. In the meantime, I'll just enjoy TFS' creativity. Can't wait to take the 'underdogs' for a spin.
  4. About that Martlet: positively svelte when compared to it's F3F big bro.
  5. Dang. I was watching like a hawk, then dozed off. Hind teet for me. Now that my wallet is already open, hubcaps for the lawnmower.
  6. He sure can mix a video. Excellent.
  7. It would be interesting to have heard from wartime pilots about 'bending' the checklist. I thought I understood the video fairly thoroughly, but the hydraulic pressure comments confuse me now. "Kick-out" pressure implies the 'master' gauge should not be deflecting unless you're using something hydraulic. Huh?
  8. LoL. I showed him that video to argue that we were animating the mags incorrectly. There were funnier gaffs. On our 1st coop test, only one landing gear was down. When we raised the gear, the other came out of the top of the wing. When the nose was shot off, the bombardier levitated through the rest of the flight. I think some of the control surfaces were reversed as well. It was all soon sorted. Thanks Wheelsup. I had forgotten about it. Watched it again; they sure knew how to make training videos.
  9. The Wellington high over the desert is my favorite. The game engine's handling of lighting is superb--and why I like Cliffs. As to GUI quirks, I very much agree. If TFS makes something, I will buy it, but my brain is too old to retain how to get around these quirks.
  10. Wheelsup, dont' take this wrong, but does your 'name' refer to the rush to mix it up or to your landings? They are polar opposites
  11. Avimimus, what did you mean about the B-24 being more maneuverable than the B-17? It's supposedly tougher to keep in formation (I guess the Davis twisted when over-corrected, then sprang back and made you chase it the other way). I'm not arguing--just interested in what way you mean it. I like it when buses act like sports cars.
  • Create New...