![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I think the main problem with the trees is their density: it's incredibly hard to see tree-trunks when flying (certainly if I have flown over England, the trees just appear as clumps of dense foliage on the ground) so the team should really look into assessing how they look and interact together. The trees in RoF look great when flying, and despite being basic objects, look better to my eyes than CloD's trees.
Nice screenshots in this update. I'm awaiting the news on the patch more eagerly though.
__________________
Luthier: If not for your guys' criticism and incredibly high standards, we'd never have become what we are. Keep it up! Source for the sceptical: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...11&postcount=9 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I can't understand why we have 2 same thread now about Friday update...
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() We have this one for discussion and your thread for questions (just like last week). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The last few update threads have been questions only, with a general discussion thread to supplement it.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
So does the 109F indicate a Barbarossa map and campaign?
Though it'ld be good in a 'leaning accross the Channel ' senario or North Africa as well. Oh do we know what model? Last edited by Skoshi Tiger; 06-29-2012 at 02:36 PM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Does Lagg cockpit have less polygons than Spitfire's one for instance? I notice that canopy curves are more angular when viewed from the inside than in a Spit. I really hoped they would be more rounded.
Textures may be a bit worse because of worse Soviet paint. ![]() Maybe it is just me. Love CloD's 109 and Spit cockpits - top notch work. Last edited by Ataros; 06-29-2012 at 02:50 PM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Eagle |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Probably an easy question for the 109 afficionados...
I always thought that the main difference was the type of nose gun (15mm in the F-2, 20mm in the F-4). So, apart from people telling us that the 109 in the screenshots is a specific model, are there any external differences between an F-2 and an F-4 that we may distinguish them ourselves? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The major difference between an F-2 and an F-4 was the engine, the former having a DB 601N (requiring C3 100oct fuel) while the latter had a more powerful DB 601E which had the added bonus of running on B4 fuel. The armament thing is not as clear-cut, even though the F-2 left the factory with the MG 151/15 and the F-4 with the MG 151/20. But because of the similarity of both weapons it became pretty common pretty soon to rebuild the original 15mm cannon with a new barrel and new breech parts into the more powerful MG 151/20 (the very first F-2 captured intact by the RAF already had a 20mm cannon). |
![]() |
|
|