|
|
#61
03-01-2011, 12:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised once the third-party scene takes off for the new series.
 After all, we had plenty of early-war birds turn up after the initial release even for Il-2, the Gladiator, for example, even if it was created as an export version. Lots of guys from European countries other than England and Germany have an interest in the earlier types because they were the main types in use in their countries. The Buffalo for Finland, for example.BTW, I think one of the guys earlier in the thread had it nailed when he pointed out that give the screenshots we've seen of the armament screen and the info that many have given regarding the profusion of different variations of the cockpit/head armour styles among all three models, equipping any aircraft as an E-4 instead of an E-3 will likely be more of a case of choosing the belting. Admittedly that creates the "inaccuracy" of being able to fire older-type ammo with the newer MG FF/M, but given that on choosing the ammo you're semantically choosing the gun it's loaded into, and in terms of the damage model and aircraft weights there ought not to be a noticeable difference in the MG FF -> MG FF/M transition so I don't think it really matters. The real omission is the E-1. Last edited by TheGrunch; 03-01-2011 at 12:51 AM. 
|
|
#62
03-01-2011, 12:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
After thinking for a bit - either what you propose or perhaps "armored" or "unarmored"?
|
|
#63
03-01-2011, 12:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It's not something that anyone's going to criticise you for if you don't use the most closely-translated name, though, I'm sure.
|
|
#64
03-01-2011, 02:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
EDIT: Seems i was a bit slow  Quote:
|
|
#65
03-01-2011, 05:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just to ad: the additional headarmor and even the additional windscreen armour was also possible with the early, more rounded canopy...
IF the mineshells are available in the amunition selection of the E-3 i would be very surprised, not to say dissapointed... And btw, who would fly without them!
|
|
#66
03-01-2011, 06:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
- it's perfectly fine.
|
|
#67
03-01-2011, 06:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
When the Spitfire I came into service there was only one wing type, hence there was no letter for it. In 1940 the letter "A" and "B" were added to distinguish between the machine gun armed and the canon armed version. Spitfire II and V used the same system, "A" meaning machine gun armed, "B" canon armed. Then there was introduced the "universal wing" and machines with it were given the "C" letter. Sounds like the wing type letter system, but then the Spitfire IX with Merlin 60, 61, 63 came in service, and the wing type system wasn't used initially! They all had the "universal wing" but they were simply called Spitfire IX without the "C" letter. When the Spitfire IX with Merlin 66 was introduced they were given the name Spitfire IXB - simply to distinguish between the different engines. Obviously not the wing type letter system. After this the wing type letter system must have been "applied" retroactively to all marks.
|
|
#68
03-01-2011, 12:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't think it would be that bad. Better than leaving the E-4 out entirely.
|
|
#69
03-01-2011, 01:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Its weird how the usual lufty whiners don't seem to be concerned about that, yet they are concerned about which type of 20mm cannon they get (and upset it's not the better of the two).
|
|
#70
03-01-2011, 01:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hey Mom, some kid at school called me a "Lufty Whiner".
Now's the point that I start thinking about if the Dedicated Server has restrictions on aircraft slots, ammo, types, etc... If I remember correctly, it does. Simple enough for online mission builders to limit numbers, etc... Spit II and E4/N limited to a few per side, for example. Quote:
S! Gunny Last edited by TUSA/TX-Gunslinger; 03-01-2011 at 02:11 PM.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
