Gambit21 Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Rjel said: A great documentary about the P-47 is A Fighter Pilot's Story with Quentin Aanenson. Aanenson did a great job narrating his story. It is or was on DVD. Well worth watching. Thanks...I'll look for it.
FuriousMeow Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 35 minutes ago, Rjel said: I thought the cuffed prop was to better the climb rate? I think that's it, I read something about better cooling which didn't make much sense.
Venturi Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 1 hour ago, FuriousMeow said: Madcop, they had several parts of the MiG-3 incorrectly modeled for the 3D model, someone pointed them out, and they were fixed. If there's a problem with the compressor air intake, point it out - it will get fixed. You're acting like's a sin against your bloodline or something. For everyone else that knows the P47 - are those cuffed props and won't that help low speed cooling? In the vertical for example? On the other hand, they modeled the tail of the P40E way too large, and it was pointed out, and wasn't fixed. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/24637-p-40-external-3d-model/?tab=comments#comment-379687
616Sqn_Tyggz Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 I wouldn't want to derail the discussion. But I haven't seen the devs address the evidence provided supporting the usage of 25lb boost for the Spitfire IX. Am I missing something? Anyhow, the P-47 looks alright. Not my cup of tea, but it looks preferable for ground attack in comparison to the IL-2 2
HBPencil Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 Thanks for the nice 'lil update devs @Madcop as others have pointed out it's worth taking the time to post a thread in the correct sub-forum politely pointing out those errors you've spotted with supporting photos. The devs may or may not act on it but it's worth a shot, good luck ? 1 hour ago, Tyggz said: But I haven't seen the devs address the evidence provided supporting the usage of 25lb boost for the Spitfire IX. Am I missing something? You aren't missing anything, the devs haven't said anything about it. 1
Legioneod Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, PainGod85 said: So what are the engine ratings going to be on the P-47? All depends on the fuel we get, if it's the standard fuel then it will be 65-67" max and if it's 150 fuel it will be 70" P-47 time at WEP is a little bit more difficult, it had water injection for about 15 minutes but you could still just use dry WEP instead of using water, though dry WEP was at a lower power setting from what I've read. 10 hours ago, DSR_T-888 said: Why did we get the P-47D-28 instead of the P-47D-30? It'd be nice to have a modification upgrade to the D-30. Would be nice but it would require a new cockpit and dive flaps. Keep in mind the D28 and D30 are exactly the same performance wise, the only difference is that the D30 had dive flaps and a different cockpit layout. Both had the K-14 gunsight and dorsal fin, though the dorsal was less common on the D-28. Edited June 16, 2018 by Legioneod
-TBC-AeroAce Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 9 hours ago, Madcop said: Look at a 109G-6 or G-14. Try to find a picture showing you the compressor air intake and look carefully at the shape and size of it. Now compare that to the 3D model. They simply took the one of the F model , and this is wrong. That may sound nit-picking , but it's one of the characteristic of the G model. With the G-10 and K models , this was even bigger! But I'll shut up otherwise…,after all a Bf 109G-6 looks like a Bf 109F when spotting it at 500M. Why should we care ? Who cares for all these differences… you maybe, I for sure! Suppose they had forgotten the "Beule" on the wings and on the MGs… would you have been happy ? Well , the compressor air intake has the same importance... I just hope they still can rectify this on the G-10 and K models, but it looks like they do not really care. Hope to be wrong. Madcop. If it is wrong let them know in a nice way with some proof/reference they can work with and it will be fixed. 1
Raptorattacker Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 10 hours ago, Madcop said: I just hope they still can rectify this on the G-10 and K models, but it looks like they do not really care. Hope to be wrong. I can almost categorically say that.... ermmmm..... you are wrong. How can you SAY stuff like that, really? This team as a whole is one of the most conscientious groups running a game (or running a lot of anything) that I've come across. That coupled with the (generally) constructive comments of the Community makes for a pretty happy ship to sail in. You cannot expect to zero in and obsess about something and expect it to be rectified just like that. There's a saying (can't remember who it was) 'No-one thinks about you as much as you think about yourself'. These people have a ton of stuff to deal with and are at it pretty much 24/7. I would imagine that a lot of those involved are in it for vocational reasons as much as anything else. Give 'em a break mate? 1
Danziger Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 The 3d modelers are also pretty busy. Some of the MiG issues were fixed when there were breaks in work during the BoM cycle. They haven't had time to go back and make corrections for a while with the current pace of work. 1
BOO Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 15 minutes ago, Raptorattacker said: I can almost categorically say that.... ermmmm..... you are wrong. How can you SAY stuff like that, really? This team as a whole is one of the most conscientious groups running a game (or running a lot of anything) that I've come across. That coupled with the (generally) constructive comments of the Community makes for a pretty happy ship to sail in. You cannot expect to zero in and obsess about something and expect it to be rectified just like that. There's a saying (can't remember who it was) 'No-one thinks about you as much as you think about yourself'. These people have a ton of stuff to deal with and are at it pretty much 24/7. I would imagine that a lot of those involved are in it for vocational reasons as much as anything else. Give 'em a break mate? 11 hours ago, Madcop said: Look at a 109G-6 or G-14. Try to find a picture showing you the compressor air intake and look carefully at the shape and size of it. Now compare that to the 3D model. They simply took the one of the F model , and this is wrong. That may sound nit-picking , but it's one of the characteristic of the G model. With the G-10 and K models , this was even bigger! But I'll shut up otherwise…,after all a Bf 109G-6 looks like a Bf 109F when spotting it at 500M. Why should we care ? Who cares for all these differences… you maybe, I for sure! Suppose they had forgotten the "Beule" on the wings and on the MGs… would you have been happy ? Well , the compressor air intake has the same importance... I just hope they still can rectify this on the G-10 and K models, but it looks like they do not really care. Hope to be wrong. Madcop. I no longer rivet count in sims - it'll be fixed or it wont. Doesn't take away from the majority of my enjoyment as I rarely leave the in-cockpit view in order to float alongside my ride like an angel (realism and all that). The work BHH and RaFiGer have done to the Fs and G Templates respectively show that there are many differences in their reference material to the "official skins" in everything from rivets to access panels. So I do say that the official skins and normal map may not stand up to close expert scrutiny. This said the 777 team, whilst full time and professional game devs, also have a whole bigger picture to paint.....constantly. And sometimes good is good enough in the bigger picture especially given the talent existing in the community and the opening up of the opportunities to change things like normal maps by the devs. Perhaps the only "meh" I could throw in about the G6 onward is that the G6 (and its presumably bigger wotnots) was a collector aircraft retailing at the same price as other collector aircraft that shared no commonality with existing models. Perhaps a little more effort into getting the details right could have been made. Either way it doesn't bother me. I'm happy with the G6 onward in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps with the right tone of approach and well documented supporting evidence in the right forum would influence an alteration down the line? What I cant buy is the "do not really care" line. This IL2 engine IS 777s sole focus now. Whilst then may have inherited it ( I'm not sure) they have spent years working on it to improve it as well as expand it. Its all they do and its evident just how many hours per week they spend doing it over the "normal" working week when we are sat at leisure, scratching our butts playing it. I would say they care immensely but can only care as much as competing demands, budget, timescales and one eye on the future can allow them if we are still to have them here in 2 years time producing future content. 2 1
Jade_Monkey Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 Im ready for the P-47! I asked my mom to make a painting based on some expensive poster in amazon I'm never going to buy. She gave it her own touch: 6 1 3
Lusekofte Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 On 6/15/2018 at 5:39 PM, LukeFF said: Bubble canopy Thunderbolts were by far the most common variant at this time, so it's not a surprise at all that they chose the D-28. Yes I know, I simply adore the razorback, no critique intended. 1
I./JG1_Baron Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 To LuseKofte: I'm sure that if there's enough buyers, Razorback, P-51B/C and many new planes will also be. Only a personal vote. 3
Legioneod Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 41 minutes ago, I./JG1_Baron said: To LuseKofte: I'm sure that if there's enough buyers, Razorback, P-51B/C and many new planes will also be. Only a personal vote. A razorback would make sense for a 43-44 scenario and it's almost guaranteed if they do a New Guinea theater. 1
Trooper117 Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 (edited) A razorback still makes sense in 1945... there are plenty of pictures of bubble tops and razorbacks flying or standing side by side in 1945. You only have to look at some of the FG histories and you will find them. (in the ETO) Edited June 16, 2018 by Trooper117 1
EAF_Starfire Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 20 hours ago, Madcop said: Look at a 109G-6 or G-14. Try to find a picture showing you the compressor air intake and look carefully at the shape and size of it. Now compare that to the 3D model. They simply took the one of the F model , and this is wrong. That may sound nit-picking , but it's one of the characteristic of the G model. With the G-10 and K models , this was even bigger! But I'll shut up otherwise…,after all a Bf 109G-6 looks like a Bf 109F when spotting it at 500M. Why should we care ? Who cares for all these differences… you maybe, I for sure! Suppose they had forgotten the "Beule" on the wings and on the MGs… would you have been happy ? Well , the compressor air intake has the same importance... I just hope they still can rectify this on the G-10 and K models, but it looks like they do not really care. Hope to be wrong. Madcop. I feel for you. When or comes to the Spitfire Mk. IXe, you will see some artistic freedom as well. It is a shame, but I believe it is an error. Same with the G-14. But I doubt they did it on purpose.
blockheadgreen_ Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 1 hour ago, EAF_Starfire said: I feel for you. When or comes to the Spitfire Mk. IXe, you will see some artistic freedom as well. It is a shame, but I believe it is an error. Same with the G-14. But I doubt they did it on purpose. The Aero Vee filter intake on the IXe is too narrow.
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 4 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said: Im ready for the P-47! I asked my mom to make a painting based on some expensive poster in amazon I'm never going to buy. She gave it her own touch: Not sure how her FM's are but the layers are obviously flattened too much, the modelling is off, and it is not optimized for my monitor. Frame rate appears to be 0-1 and is not compatible with my Vive Pro either. I quit, I'm leaving, your mother does not care about her customers!!!!!!!! 5 1
Poochnboo Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 Hmmm....Will these be the next two releases? Oh Momma, I want that Thunderbolt.
Missionbug Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 Thunderbolt looks awesome, enough said. Any news on the third party stuff? Much more interested in knowing how that is progressing personally I have to say. Wishing you all the very best, Pete.
ShamrockOneFive Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 39 minutes ago, Poochnboo said: Hmmm....Will these be the next two releases? Oh Momma, I want that Thunderbolt. Best guess. FW190A-8 appears to be next in the pipe and may release by the end of this month. Seeing as the P-47 flight model is being worked on, that would logically be next in the pipe and therefore come out sometime in July or possibly early August. All speculation.
Marcio Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 Hello developers and members! As said : "At the moment, we prepare to release another important update that will bring required functionality to support Steam requirements for the distribution of a new contente.". Does this mean that for future upgrades and purchased / downloaded battles / airplanes, will I have to download steam to my computer? I already bought and downloaded some content and never needed Steam on my computer. Will it continue like this, or should I have Steam from now on?
Alexmarine Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 8 minutes ago, Marcio said: Hello developers and members! As said : "At the moment, we prepare to release another important update that will bring required functionality to support Steam requirements for the distribution of a new contente.". Does this mean that for future upgrades and purchased / downloaded battles / airplanes, will I have to download steam to my computer? I already bought and downloaded some content and never needed Steam on my computer. Will it continue like this, or should I have Steam from now on? Unless you are in case B or C you don't have to do anything or having to use Steam at all.
Marcio Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 10 minutes ago, Alexmarine28 said: Unless you are in case B or C you don't have to do anything or having to use Steam at all. As I have a IL-2 Account registered since 2016, I am in case A! Many thanks for the quick reply !!!
Poochnboo Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 2 hours ago, 19//Rekt said: .as the days of Gabreskiing begin!! Yes, and I'm hoping to see the skinners do every single bubble canopied Thunderbolt the 56th flew. I will install them all! 1
Legioneod Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 10 hours ago, Trooper117 said: A razorback still makes sense in 1945... there are plenty of pictures of bubble tops and razorbacks flying or standing side by side in 1945. You only have to look at some of the FG histories and you will find them. (in the ETO) I agree but at this time in the war the majority of P-47s were bubbletops, I'd love to see a razorback one day preferably a D-20 but I understand why they chose to do the D-28 Hopefully we will see a few more P-47s one day, my hope if for the P-47D-20 (for at least one razorback), P-47-M, P-47-N (for the pacific) 19 minutes ago, Poochnboo said: Yes, and I'm hoping to see the skinners do every single bubble canopied Thunderbolt the 56th flew. I will install them all! I plan on doing lots and lots of skins for this beauty. I can't wait to get started.
=27=Davesteu Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 Specifying the P-47 D & P-51 D blocks to be released, this DD is a substantial one in my opinion. Very happy with what's announced. Not mentioning the P-38 is probably a good sign because you are still working on the "droop snoot" modification, right? 6 hours ago, Legioneod said: P-47-N (for the pacific) Unlikely we will ever see her, but I think it is by far the best looking bubble canopy P-47. I'm irresolute regarding the P-47's overall visual appeal, but the razorbacks and the P-47 N contribute positively. Even with the earlier design fin installed, the D and M somehow look out of proportion to me. Also I like the more squarish N wings way better.
=27=Davesteu Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 "TORCHES, PITCHFORKS, TORCHES & PITCHFORKS, ..." - happy days being the one selling these to you guys. Luckily I didn't tell about the Spitfire visually being by far the most overrated popular aircraft.
Ouky1991 Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 Are we getting english speaking pilots with Battle Of Bodenplatte?
Yogiflight Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 24 minutes ago, Ouky1991 said: Are we getting english speaking pilots with Battle Of Bodenplatte? Would be pretty funny, if there were russian pilots in the american and british aircrafts.?
Ouky1991 Posted June 17, 2018 Posted June 17, 2018 19 minutes ago, Yogiflight said: Would be pretty funny, if there were russian pilots in the american and british aircrafts.? Indeed, that would be funny. So is there a roadmap?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now