Jump to content
Jason_Williams

Discussion of IL-2 Sturmovik: Desert Wings - Tobruk Announcement

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, PreyStalker said:

 

Microsoft don't really advertise the fact, but changing your current system from W7 to W10 is easy and free !

 

Download the W10 Update Assistant...

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/3159635/windows-10-update-assistant

 

Let it do it's thing. It just needs an hour or more depending on how much data you have and your hard disk speed.

 

When it finishes, you're on W10 and all your documents and files are still there - Magic ! ( Back up important stuff, just in case)

 

Then watch any 10 minute  Youtube video "how to optimise W10". You can turn off many things that are unnecessary and it runs fast and light. 

 

My laptop and my gaming rig used to be W7. Now they both run fine with W10. No regrets.

 

I had two notebooks (an old and a very old one) and two workstations - all setup with Win7. Although I had some concerns about the very old crappy notebook,

I migrated all of them one by one without any single issue. And finally the crappy old notebook run even better than before with Win7. It was a true enhancement
and a very positive Microsoft experience - to be honest the first true positive Microsoft experience ever.

 

Just let the assistant do the work, be patient... and make sure you paid your electricity bill before you start the procedure. Just saying...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know the disk space requirement for the Tobruk expansion? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TDK1044 said:

Does anyone know the disk space requirement for the Tobruk expansion? 

 

Steam is saying 15 GB of storage required - not sure if that is just the expansion  or if one has to add on top the storage space of Blitz on top of that which is a bit under 8 GB.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the North American release of Cliffs of Dover happen in July?....July 11th was it?...hmmmm  :)    :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Redwo1f said:

 

Steam is saying 15 GB of storage required - not sure if that is just the expansion  or if one has to add on top the storage space of Blitz on top of that which is a bit under 8 GB.

~15GB is only the expansion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I wish I could see a sales graf when it's released

Edited by II./JG27_Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, after reading a bit of my book on bombers in the desert, I think I'll buy in for the Wellington expereince alone, regardless of my SP career concerns.

 

Hopefully the MP servers will have like they do in CloD BLitz and you can add AI as your wingmen (although I've never tried it), it seems bomber flights in the desert were sometimes as low as a couple of bombers at a time, so I'll just treat this release as my 'Wellington simulator' and get my jollies bombing stuff online if I have to.

 

It really is a bloody marvellous era and setting, possibly the best, and I know already that CloD gives me the best feeling of flying at the moment (in an entertainment sense), so I ave mo fears on the lushnmess of all that side of things.

 

(If it managed to have a Malta map and a Crete map avaialble to add on at some stage, hmm, well....superb)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

On 7/9/2020 at 2:15 AM, Buzzsaw said:

Hello All

 

This thread has been sidetracked a bit by the discussion of VR.

 

And we have been patient in allowing that discussion to continue to the point of elbowing out other questions.

 

However, there are a number of other threads on this forum where VR is discussed.

 

And TF has responded with a clear answer in regards to our future plans for VR for the CoD engine.

 

I would request anyone with an interest in VR to continue their comments in the other dedicated threads and leave this thread to questions which focus on TOBRUK and its planned content and other features.

 

Thanks for your patience.  🖐️

 

Yes, agreed, so here is a genuine question lost in this thread.

 

On 7/9/2020 at 12:18 PM, Mysticpuma said:
On 7/6/2020 at 10:35 PM, Mysticpuma said:

Genuine question, have the team been able to fix the searchlights yet? By that I mean so they act like searchlights and not a group of dancers waving torches at a Rave?

If you have I'd love to see a video of them.

 

Cheers,  MP

 

Edited by Mysticpuma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another "genuine question"

Are custom ammo belt loadouts working in SP mode in current Blitz version? If not, will they be working in Blitz 5.0?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

another "genuine question"

Are custom ammo belt loadouts working in SP mode in current Blitz version? If not, will they be working in Blitz 5.0?

they certainly work in blitz SP. Although I believe some have said you may need to enable them first in MP. As I fly on both, may just appear to work fine for me (and unless I just loaded all tracer to test it, a change maybe not particularly obvious). But some cannot be changed (easily), the beaufighter springs to mind. Probably others that blitz opened up.

There are a couple of apps out there to enable you to set your own belts as the game one is pretty clunky - but they are old and limited somewhat.

Edited by 56RAF_Stickz
extra info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

another "genuine question"

Are custom ammo belt loadouts working in SP mode in current Blitz version? If not, will they be working in Blitz 5.0?

 

I know it's common that players edit and save ammo loadouts only to  find them gone next time they play. That's the 'Steam Cloud' checked option overwriting the user.ini file. It causes plenty of frustration for those who don't know.

Otherwise I've changed fuel or bombloads in the Options-Plane menu before choosing an offline mission then selecting that plane.

But it's not as easy as it could or should be.  

 

Daz 

Edited by dazako

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, dazako said:

 

I know it's common that players edit and save ammo loadouts only to  find them gone next time they play. That's the 'Steam Cloud' checked option overwriting the user.ini file. It causes plenty of frustration for those who don't know.

Otherwise I've changed fuel or bombloads in the Options-Plane menu before choosing an offline mission then selecting that plane.

But it's not as easy as it could or should be.  

 

Daz 

I do not have cloud checked in Steam options.

 

1 hour ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

they certainly work in blitz SP. Although I believe some have said you may need to enable them first in MP. As I fly on both, may just appear to work fine for me (and unless I just loaded all tracer to test it, a change maybe not particularly obvious). But some cannot be changed (easily), the beaufighter springs to mind. Probably others that blitz opened up.

There are a couple of apps out there to enable you to set your own belts as the game one is pretty clunky - but they are old and limited somewhat.

Will try your method and report back. Editing single missions in the FMB and renaming the mission does not work for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

they certainly work in blitz SP. Although I believe some have said you may need to enable them first in MP. As I fly on both, may just appear to work fine for me (and unless I just loaded all tracer to test it, a change maybe not particularly obvious). But some cannot be changed (easily), the beaufighter springs to mind. Probably others that blitz opened up.

There are a couple of apps out there to enable you to set your own belts as the game one is pretty clunky - but they are old and limited somewhat.

Thanks. I created a custom loadout for the Spitfire MkII in the MP menu, named and saved it. Now it seems to be my default loadout in Single Mission and persists after exiting game and restarting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

they certainly work in blitz SP. Although I believe some have said you may need to enable them first in MP. As I fly on both, may just appear to work fine for me (and unless I just loaded all tracer to test it, a change maybe not particularly obvious). But some cannot be changed (easily), the beaufighter springs to mind. Probably others that blitz opened up.

There are a couple of apps out there to enable you to set your own belts as the game one is pretty clunky - but they are old and limited somewhat.

 

With quick missions... does changing bombers still remove the bomb-load...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2020 at 5:09 PM, Redwo1f said:

 

Steam is saying 15 GB of storage required - not sure if that is just the expansion  or if one has to add on top the storage space of Blitz on top of that which is a bit under 8 GB.

Sorry, I gave you wrong number earlier, the 15GB is the complete Blitz and Tobruk package.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anymore info as to when this will become available?  Can't wait to get flying an F4 again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

With quick missions... does changing bombers still remove the bomb-load...?

do not quite understand what you mean here? I know after I flew online on TWC test campaign server on a recon mission (blennie no bombs) it defaults to having empty bomb load until you put em back. But changing bombers, you mean in a quick mission? Not sure if I have actually ever done that (not much choice to change to from a blennie). Do not think I have had any issues, but then I can also edit and rename QM with FMB ok unlike others report, so I often just rewrite QM as I want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ace_Pilto said:

Dynamic campaign???

 

Possibly third party... possibly after release. Il-2 1946 had two or three dynamic campaign systems over the years. Cliffs had a dynamic campaign at one point (3rd party), so it is definitely possible. I also think that mission scripts allow some randomisation (at least Oleg talked about that at one point)?

 

56 minutes ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

do not quite understand what you mean here? I know after I flew online on TWC test campaign server on a recon mission (blennie no bombs) it defaults to having empty bomb load until you put em back. But changing bombers, you mean in a quick mission? Not sure if I have actually ever done that (not much choice to change to from a blennie). Do not think I have had any issues, but then I can also edit and rename QM with FMB ok unlike others report, so I often just rewrite QM as I want.

 

So, if you change bomber in the QMB it loses its bomb-load (doesn't even seem to have a default bomb load)... so you end up being unable to bomb if you don't use the default airplane. It would be nice if it at least defaulted to a bomb load. Anyway, I once thought I'd gotten it to work with the Ju-87 but I tried the Ju-88 and it doesn't work.

 

I'll probably mainly rely on the FMB... but, given the questions about the GUI and the QMB I thought I'd ask if this was fixed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Possibly third party... possibly after release. Il-2 1946 had two or three dynamic campaign systems over the years. Cliffs had a dynamic campaign at one point (3rd party), so it is definitely possible. I also think that mission scripts allow some randomisation (at least Oleg talked about that at one point)?

 

 

So, if you change bomber in the QMB it loses its bomb-load (doesn't even seem to have a default bomb load)... so you end up being unable to bomb if you don't use the default airplane. It would be nice if it at least defaulted to a bomb load. Anyway, I once thought I'd gotten it to work with the Ju-87 but I tried the Ju-88 and it doesn't work.

 

I'll probably mainly rely on the FMB... but, given the questions about the GUI and the QMB I thought I'd ask if this was fixed.

I'll have a try and see what happens on mine - but possibly be a couple of days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:  I have not played CLOD.  Are there Engine Timers like in BOX? 

 

From the store page: "More precise Flight, Damage, Propeller and Overheat modeling is included"

 

Please tell me that means no hard limit engine timers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, JG1_E_Davjack said:

Question:  I have not played CLOD.  Are there Engine Timers like in BOX? 

 

From the store page: "More precise Flight, Damage, Propeller and Overheat modeling is included"

 

Please tell me that means no hard limit engine timers.

 

No hard limit engine timers. Watch your temps. With practice you can push the engines quite hard and get away with it. Also there aren't little popups telling you you're at combat power or cruise power or emergency power.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, JG1_E_Davjack said:

Question:  I have not played CLOD.  Are there Engine Timers like in BOX? 

 

From the store page: "More precise Flight, Damage, Propeller and Overheat modeling is included"

 

Please tell me that means no hard limit engine timers.

I don't remember "timers" more than I remember "I'd be careful with that" regarding rpm and engine settings.  Everything is relative as far as your engine and they are alla bit different bit even the German machines needed management in the earlier engines.  Lodge a single round from an enemy in any engine in the wrong place and everything you *think* you know about engine management becomes an excercise in a conservative approach or "better luck next time" affair.

 

You can find out for almost next to nothing.

https://il2sturmovik.com/store/cliffs-of-dover/

 

$6.24 right now.

 

It's worth it.  Now if you are hung up on engine timers I'd suggest your issue might have more to do the the pilot and less to do with the particular "sim engine" involved.  Any sim requiring engine management will punish the pilot for failing to keep temps and settings right.  I'm not sure what you mean by engine timers like in Box, because I almost never wall my throttle in anything for more than the briefest of periods.  Doing so in any sim will blow your engine in limited time if you do that.  At least in the WWII sims I am aware of.  Of course this is just opinion based purely on speculation.  You could be a bloody aeronautical engineer for all I know.  Nothing personal meant.  :)

 

Regardless, it's almost free.   Good luck!  :)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ATAG_Flare said:

 

No hard limit engine timers. Watch your temps. With practice you can push the engines quite hard and get away with it. Also there aren't little popups telling you you're at combat power or cruise power or emergency power.

 

Deck chases are always fun in CLOD. With top speeds being pretty similar, it's often the case that the pilot who knows how to push his engine the most, ends up winning the race.

 

Ball centered, radiators closed as far as you dare, and keep your eyes on that temperature gauge ! 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10. 7. 2020 at 0:19, Buzzsaw said:

Níže je obrázek z programu Full Mission Builder ... zobrazuje úplnou mapu z východu / západu, ale ne ze všech sever / jih ... je horní a dolní část další země a moře.

 

Každé náměstí je 10 kilometrů.

 

Tobruk-Map.png

Nádhera  ... excellent work !!! :) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/12/2020 at 6:19 PM, Avimimus said:

 

Possibly third party... possibly after release. Il-2 1946 had two or three dynamic campaign systems over the years. Cliffs had a dynamic campaign at one point (3rd party), so it is definitely possible. I also think that mission scripts allow some randomisation (at least Oleg talked about that at one point)?

 

 

So, if you change bomber in the QMB it loses its bomb-load (doesn't even seem to have a default bomb load)... so you end up being unable to bomb if you don't use the default airplane. It would be nice if it at least defaulted to a bomb load. Anyway, I once thought I'd gotten it to work with the Ju-87 but I tried the Ju-88 and it doesn't work.

 

I'll probably mainly rely on the FMB... but, given the questions about the GUI and the QMB I thought I'd ask if this was fixed.

It depends on if you have saved loadouts for a plane.

I can load up (for instance) the blenheim QM take off mission and swap blenheim out for BR20 or ju88 and can put on any loadout I have previously saved via the main menu - options - plane and then saving a loadout. You do need to have saved loadouts though (and a sensiblre fuel load). Usually there are 2 stock empty and default. Gives you custom you can select or name em yourself. I got several others saved for most planes. So select the blenheim take off QM then swap plane for another, then select one of the loadouts you saved for it. It works for me the ju88 is easiest to see if your saved had put underwing bombs - they are easily visible on spawn. You cannot alter the loadout selected - but you can select the loadout.

ju87 also works for me. Perhaps at some time you inadvertently over wrote a bomb load with empty.

Unless this is not what you mean by losing your bomb load and I teaching you to suck eggs (if so sorry)

Edited by 56RAF_Stickz
extra info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

It depends on if you have saved loadouts for a plane.

I can load up (for instance) the blenheim QM take off mission and swap blenheim out for BR20 or ju88 and can put on any loadout I have previously saved via the main menu - options - plane and then saving a loadout. You do need to have saved loadouts though (and a sensiblre fuel load). Usually there are 2 stock empty and default. Gives you custom you can select or name em yourself. I got several others saved for most planes. So select the blenheim take off QM then swap plane for another, then select one of the loadouts you saved for it. It works for me the ju88 is easiest to see if your saved had put underwing bombs - they are easily visible on spawn. You cannot alter the loadout selected - but you can select the loadout.

ju87 also works for me. Perhaps at some time you inadvertently over wrote a bomb load with empty.

Unless this is not what you mean by losing your bomb load and I teaching you to suck eggs (if so sorry)

 

Thanks! That worked! I'd never known what that 'default, custom' option was!

 

It never occurred to me that I couldn't use the QMB without first using the FMB.

 

It might be good to include a few additional default pre-saved loadouts in Desert Wings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Thanks! That worked! I'd never known what that 'default, custom' option was!

 

It never occurred to me that I couldn't use the QMB without first using the FMB.

 

It might be good to include a few additional default pre-saved loadouts in Desert Wings!

good to hear it sorted it for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After being silent and utterly dissapointed with the original release (Before TF times) I say... hell yeah! why not?

Impress me, Team Fusion. I won't say no to enjoy a good Flight sim if it's finally like that. 

 

👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I sure like the map by the way. Long but plenty of width too  

Edited by II./JG27_Rich
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2020 at 8:12 PM, JG51_Beazil said:

It's worth it.  Now if you are hung up on engine timers I'd suggest your issue might have more to do the the pilot and less to do with the particular "sim engine" involved.  Any sim requiring engine management will punish the pilot for failing to keep temps and settings right.  I'm not sure what you mean by engine timers like in Box, because I almost never wall my throttle in anything for more than the briefest of periods.  Doing so in any sim will blow your engine in limited time if you do that.  At least in the WWII sims I am aware of.  Of course this is just opinion based purely on speculation.  You could be a bloody aeronautical engineer for all I know.  Nothing personal meant.  :)

 

Fair enough, but from my perspective it seems like BOX has taken spec manuals to their absolute limit if not beyond. I don't push it too hard except in high angle maneuvers, but I think it gets a bit silly when I feel like keeping count in my head.  And I've done experiments with BOX, it is variable.  I got a 5min WEP timer engine to fail 9 minutes after the expiration...but that's rare.

 

If CLOD has interesting pursuits where it comes down to better engine management, skirting the envelope makes a difference...but in BOX it becomes "oh, all your engine parameters are normal? Temps OK?  Too bad your engine fails because of a timer that you have no idea of knowing except technochat."  I want to see effects on the engine, like overheating or knocking or vibration or something other than "X minutes = Damage with no other indication."

 

I'll give CLOD Blitz a chance.  I'm dissatisfied with BOX at this point.  The P-47 has 15 min of Water injection but it only works 5 minutes at a time?  BS.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliffs and Tobruk engine management is the pilots responsibility at all times. Some aircraft are easier than others.  All part of the challenge that Cliffs brings and Tobruk will bring. :)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hey everyone,

 

Really looking forward to this! I have been out of the loop and haven't seen much discussion of whats to come next so apologies if this has already been covered. I see from Buzzsaw's post that future aircraft releases are dependent upon Tobruk's success, so I just thought I'd throw this in there for consideration if that happens.

 

 If TFS decide to release future aircraft, can I suggest to place the MC.200 at the top of that list? Hear me out here as this particular aircraft has an importance for how the air war progressed:

 

MC.200 was first moved into Africa in April, 1941 and immediately was recognized as an extremely capable aircraft suited for the type of war in the desert. The short runway takeoffs and robust airframes were of particular advantage where many other italian airframes struggled. The MC.200 could turn with a hurricane and dive with a P-40. Squadriglie had excellent records against mig's and yaks on the eastern front... it certainly deserves far more credit than it often gets. While it did suffer the same poor armament issues, all her contempories also faced, the Macchi's nevertheless quickly replaced the CR.42's, CR.32's, and G.50's as the close escorts for Axis bombers, while MC.202's and 109's provided high altitude cover. This wasn't always the case, but it was a tactic that Superaero often employed against the allies. CR.42's and G.50's were all gradually transitioned into fighter-bomber roles.

Sooo wrapping up here, I also get that Italian birds might not be the most desired in terms of marketability. I just think from a strategic sense, I'm viewing this from the Italian perspective. It's almost like if CloD didnt have hurricanes in the game for BoB scenarios.  G.50's and CR.42's are certainly sufficient for now, and dont get me wrong, I don't think anything is really missing from the game in its current state, but, adding the Mc.200 can really elevate the gameplay in multiplayer campaigns, in my opinion. And it also has the bonus of historical balance against fighters like the hurricane and P-40.  Again, really looking forward to this, just thought I'd throw out some things to consider in the event that TFS plans additional aircraft in the pipeline. (But of course fully understand if that's not even a consideration right now too!). And I naturally couldn't pass up a chance to throw some love at the Mc.200's!  o7

Edited by Control_Freq
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Control_Freq said:

Hey everyone,

 

Really looking forward to this! I have been out of the loop and haven't seen much discussion of whats to come next so apologies if this has already been covered. I see from Buzzsaw's post that future aircraft releases are dependent upon Tobruk's success, so I just thought I'd throw this in there for consideration if that happens.

 

 If TFS decide to release future aircraft, can I suggest to place the MC.200 at the top of that list? Hear me out here as this particular aircraft has an importance for how the air war progressed:

 

MC.200 was first moved into Africa in April, 1941 and immediately was recognized as an extremely capable aircraft suited for the type of war in the desert. The short runway takeoffs and robust airframes were of particular advantage where many other italian airframes struggled. The MC.200 could turn with a hurricane and dive with a P-40. Squadriglie had excellent records against mig's and yaks on the eastern front... it certainly deserves far more credit than it often gets. While it did suffer the same poor armament issues, all her contempories also faced, the Macchi's nevertheless quickly replaced the CR.42's, CR.32's, and G.50's as the close escorts for Axis bombers, while MC.202's and 109's provided high altitude cover. This wasn't always the case, but it was a tactic that Superaero often employed against the allies. CR.42's and G.50's were all gradually transitioned into fighter-bomber roles.

Sooo wrapping up here, I also get that Italian birds might not be the most desired in terms of marketability. I just think from a strategic sense, I'm viewing this from the Italian perspective. It's almost like if CloD didnt have hurricanes in the game for BoB scenarios.  G.50's and CR.42's are certainly sufficient for now, and dont get me wrong, I don't think anything is really missing from the game in its current state, but, adding the Mc.200 can really elevate the gameplay in multiplayer campaigns, in my opinion. And it also has the bonus of historical balance against fighters like the hurricane and P-40.  Again, really looking forward to this, just thought I'd throw out some things to consider in the event that TFS plans additional aircraft in the pipeline. (But of course fully understand if that's not even a consideration right now too!). And I naturally couldn't pass up a chance to throw some love at the Mc.200's!  o7

At some point we would like to add the C.200.

 

For TF 5.0 we had a choice between the C.200 and the C.202.

 

The G.50 is very similar in performance to the C.200... maybe a little worse... but it flew in the same time period and also in N Africa.

 

So we decided on the C.202.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was definitely a good call to put priority on the C.202 over the C.200.

For all I know the Macchi fighters (200, 202, 205) shared a lot of common components (wings, tail surfaces, etc.) so it might be a relatively easy job to transform the 202 into a 200 for a future expansion. On the other hand if it's not quite as easy I'd rather see time and effort being put into a more unique aircraft, such as the Re.2001 of which a reasonable number (for Italian proportions) of aircraft was produced.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2020 at 7:06 AM, JG4_Karaya said:

Was definitely a good call to put priority on the C.202 over the C.200.

For all I know the Macchi fighters (200, 202, 205) shared a lot of common components (wings, tail surfaces, etc.) so it might be a relatively easy job to transform the 202 into a 200 for a future expansion. On the other hand if it's not quite as easy I'd rather see time and effort being put into a more unique aircraft, such as the Re.2001 of which a reasonable number (for Italian proportions) of aircraft was produced.

Yes, the C.200 shares a lot of similar components... but the devil is in the details.  😉

 

Would be easier to do a C.200 than a Reggiane though.

 

For TF 6.0, (if we go there) we would be more likely to do a Savoia Marchetti SM.79 than another completely new Italian fighter type... the C.200 or C.205 would not be considered 'new'... they would be developments of existing aircraft.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The loadout issue has been fixed in our latest build, it now works as expected I believe. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

Yes, the C.200 shares a lot of similar components... but the devil is in the details.  😉

 

Would be easier to do a C.200 than a Reggiane though.

 

For TF 6.0, (if we go there) we would be more likely to do a Savoia Marchetti SM.79 than another completely new Italian fighter type... the C.200 or C.205 would be continuations.

 

Please go for the C.200 if possible!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...