Finkeren Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 How the hell do you know all that, lol. Well, I used to own a small guide to Bf 109 model identification. This is what I could remember off the top of my head.
Potenz Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I am deeply sorry for hurting you here by crushing your egos. i never say something about you mate, i was just talking about rivet counters
BraveSirRobin Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Freaking out? Or mentioning an inaccuracy after an objective analysis? Is there not something that you care enthusiastically about which simmer Joe couldn't care less about? The porthole nutcase completely freaked out. It was one of the worst internet forum meltdowns I have ever seen. It was also one of the funniest things I have ever seen.
1CGS LukeFF Posted June 4, 2015 1CGS Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Such obvious difference you could see only means something wrong with you. I think to be real simmer you cannot prevent yourself from caring about such details like this. I'm so glad to know that, after all these years of playing flight sims and spending countless hours contributing my time to help the genre through bug testing, writing manuals, and contributing mission gameplay content, that there's something wrong with me and I'm not a real simmer. Next time, Gustav, just keep comments like those to yourself. Edited June 4, 2015 by LukeFF
FlyingNutcase Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 The porthole nutcase completely freaked out. It was one of the worst internet forum meltdowns I have ever seen. It was also one of the funniest things I have ever seen. Too bad I missed the show.
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 The redesigned canopy introduced on the Gustav was always meant to be pressurised. The odd model numbers (1,3,5 etc.) were reserved for the high altitude pressurised versions, which is why the more well known G models are all even-numbered. In reality only relative small numbers of G1s, G3s and G5s (the latter in somewhat higher numbers) were built (apart from pressurisation they were identical to the more common G2, G4 and G6) and none were made after 1943. The easiest way to distiguish a pressurised Gustaf from a non-pressurised one is by the small intake on the side just below the front end of the canopy (where there used to be a triangular window on the earlier canopy) This intake is there only on the non-pressurised versions and absent on the G1, G3 and G5. bf 109.jpg EDIT: Oh, one more thing: The G1 was also made in a lightened version with less armour, no rustsätze fittings and GM-1 nitrous oxide boost. There were also a few G5/AS made. Very few pressurised 109s carried any rustsätze beyond the R1/R2 drop tank. Thank you Finkeren fro the information you provided. So canopy of G2 and G6 are identical. The porthole nutcase completely freaked out. It was one of the worst internet forum meltdowns I have ever seen. It was also one of the funniest things I have ever seen. Yes I have the same feeling here just because you are in this forum.
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) I'm so glad to know that, after all these years of playing flight sims and spending countless hours contributing my time to help the genre through bug testing, writing manuals, and contributing mission gameplay content, that there's something wrong with me and I'm not a real simmer. Next time, Gustav, just keep comments like those to yourself. I am sorry that if I express it in a harsh way. But what could I say if someone tell me that he cannot tell the difference between 5cm and 3cm? Edited June 4, 2015 by III/JG2Gustav05
BraveSirRobin Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I am sorry that if I express it in a harsh way. But what could I say if someone tell me that he cannot tell the difference between 5cm and 3cm? I can say with almost complete certainty that you can't tell the difference either when you're playing the game.
SKG51_robtek Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Because freaking out over a misplaced porthole is absurd. As great as these games are, there are so many things that are constant reminders that you're playing a game and not flying a real WW2 fighter. Things that are much more obvious than a strut is a few cm too wide or a porthole might be misplaced by a few feet. And the priorities of people who freak out over stuff like that are seriously F'd up. It's not the fault of the 'rivet-counters' that your, and many others, expectations of a sim are so shallow! :D 4
BraveSirRobin Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 It's not the fault of the 'rivet-counters' that your, and many others, expectations of a sim are so shallow! :D It's not my fault when the rivet counter dies of a stroke over nothing.
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) I can say with almost complete certainty that you can't tell the difference either when you're playing the game. I do can see the difference from external view. You cannot does not mean that other people has to cannot too. I notice that maybe because I made the skins of AC in BOS a lot. I also made some scale AC model as a hobby. I will never raise similar question in War thunder forum because here is the forum for a Sim. look that beautiful model of AC currently we have already in BOS , why we cannot have a chance to improve it and polish it to make it a little better? I really don't get it, why you are so upset about the interesting finding I present here? Edited June 4, 2015 by III/JG2Gustav05
BraveSirRobin Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I do can see the difference from external view. Really? You can tell the difference while you're playing the game? Sorry, but I don't believe that at all. I'm not upset about it, I just hope they don't waste any time doing anything about it. There are so many more important issues they could be working on.
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 5, 2015 Author Posted June 5, 2015 Really? You can tell the difference while you're playing the game? Sorry, but I don't believe that at all. I'm not upset about it, I just hope they don't waste any time doing anything about it. There are so many more important issues they could be working on. You have the right to don't believe it, but you also should let other people to have right to disagree with you. It seems the development team does really need your smart guidance to finish their job.
BraveSirRobin Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 You have the right to don't believe it, but you also should let other people to have right to disagree with you. It seems the development team does really need your smart guidance to finish their job. Who said you don't have the right to disagree?
71st_AH_Mastiff Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) now, now lady's lets just get along.. Edited June 5, 2015 by 71st_Mastiff
Bearcat Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 If this is so important for you than you should report the bug you found here were it should be. This. I think to be real simmer you cannot prevent yourself from caring about such details like this. some guy would say there have plenty of more important things we need to take care of, for example the FM. but the problem is that is the development team gonna change the FM as what you indicated already? at least I cannot see such clue. If thing is like that why we can not start with changing the things like the 3D model issue? Why you are so obsessive to stop other peoples to something just because you are not caring about it? That is the operative phrase we need to take from this folks.. This is this person's opinion.. we can either agree or disagree.. but we do not need to poo pooo his opinion no matter what we personally feel about it is it relates to our own. I don't get, while you are all being so hard on the OP. He just pointed out an interesting flaw and we're having a nerdy discussion about it. Nowhere did he demand, that the devs drop their schedule to fix this. It's obviously an extremly minor error, that could be fixed along the way, if some on the team found the time for it, or not at all, and BoS would be just as good for it. Let's just have a friendly discussion about this. Non-rivet counters need not attend. +1
1CGS LukeFF Posted June 5, 2015 1CGS Posted June 5, 2015 But what could I say if someone tell me that he cannot tell the difference between 5cm and 3cm? Like I said, better to just keep comments like that to yourself. Not everyone is going to be as enthusiastic or agree with your criticism of certain elements of the game.
SCG_Space_Ghost Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 -snip- There are so many more important issues they could be working on. But they're not.
BraveSirRobin Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 But they're not. How do you know what they're working on?
III/JG2Gustav05 Posted June 5, 2015 Author Posted June 5, 2015 Like I said, better to just keep comments like that to yourself. Not everyone is going to be as enthusiastic or agree with your criticism of certain elements of the game. I never expect everyone is agree with my opion. but please just show some basic respect to other people as what we are doing in social life. 3
LLv24_Zami Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Nothing wrong pointing out issue if he thinks there is one. Let the man speak if it is important to him. I don`t know what the right dimensions of canopy frames are but I just hope the view from cockpit won`t change for worse. Gustav, you should make a bug report as suggested. 4
YSoMadTovarisch Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 There're more pressing matters, like updating the flight models than trivial things like this.
Cybermat47 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Why can't we ever argue over anything important? If you don't like rivet counters, don't post in their threads. This thread had nothing at all provocative in the OP - it was people's responses that were provocative. The OP was just bringing up what he thought was an issue. No need to go flaming him (yes, I know I kinda did that, but I realised what I was doing and deleted my post). And frankly, after taking a closer look... yeah, it does look like the canopy on the G-2 is too thin. So the OP is bringing up a minor issue - but still an issue. Edited June 5, 2015 by Cybermat47 1
fergal69 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) I don't tend to worry about the frame when trying to shoot down aircraft as roo busy concentrating on getting in to the right attack position. Likewise, while avoiding enemy fire. Imagine what the developer of Fighter Wing 2 on the Play Store would say about the cockpit frames...... Edited June 5, 2015 by fergal69
SCG_Space_Ghost Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I don't tend to worry about the frame when trying to shoot down aircraft as roo busy concentrating on getting in to the right attack position. Likewise, while avoiding enemy fire. Imagine what the developer of Fighter Wing 2 on the Play Store would say about the cockpit frames...... The proper sizing of the canopy frame in the G-2 should be a huge tactical consideration for the VVS but since the Yak's flaps behave unrealistically and it is enjoying some pretty substantial over-performance at altitude what does it matter, right?! /s
Recommended Posts