|
|
#1612
11-12-2010, 02:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
The profiles i showed are just examples.
But how do you know wich skin is used the most? Still the G6/AS could use a new skin. Purple with green isnt exactly know as standard Luftwaffe cammo? Last edited by ImpalerNL; 11-12-2010 at 02:31 PM. |
|
#1613
11-12-2010, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is in fact impossible to make a real "generic" texture since a lot depended on the place where the aircraft was produced, when, where it was employed and by what unit. As a result the default textures are, in fact, not really historical but approximations following known guidelines on camouflage patterns and colours along with a few tactical markings. So each default is not always going to be spot on for each an every location for all possible timeframes.
But each default also has to be generic enough to allow for broad use so creating defaults is always a walk on a tightrope. |
|
#1614
11-12-2010, 04:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://users.hol.gr/~nowi/luftcam/index.html
I found this site. Dont know if this is of any use. The bf109 RLM camoschemes from 1939-44' are pretty easy to find. But the late 44'-45' camoschemes are rare. Last edited by ImpalerNL; 11-12-2010 at 04:49 PM. |
|
#1619
11-23-2010, 06:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If I'm going against a big (or tough) bomber using a plane armed with pellet guns, like a Ki-43 or Hurricane I vs. a TB-3 or B-24, I just have to get close and try to start a fire or kill the pilots. What I do find unrealistic are the uncannily accurate gunners who have perfect situational awareness and seemingly limitless ammo, who can ignore G-forces and sometimes defy even death itself. |
|
#1620
11-23-2010, 07:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ground vehicle/ship movement
While I know that ships and vehicles don't have AI and that it would be difficult/impossible for them to have it, would it be possible to incorporate the following options into a future patch:
1) The ability to automatically make a ground vehicle/ship make zig-zagging deviations as it travels along a set course instead of traveling in a straight line. That is, on the FMB map, the vehicle's waypoints go in a straight line, but in the game, it zig-zags/swerves as it travels. This was standard procedure for ships during the war, and was sometimes practiced by ground vehicles, either to avoid attack from the air or to present a slightly angled armored surface to potential enemies directly to the front. In the FMB, the option to zig-zag could be set up as a checkbox. If left unchecked, movement would be straight by default. 2) The ability to make ground vehicles/ships move in formation, centered around a central point, without having to define individual waypoints for each individual vehicle. This would allow mission builders to quickly set up historical formations such as convoys of merchant ships traveling in a "box" flanked by destroyers or a squadron of tanks advancing in a line abreast or an echelon. With proper spacing between vehicles, formations could zig-zag/swerve in a realistic fashion. 3) The ability for a ground vehicle/ship to swerve if it gets within a set distance of a certain object rather than colliding and doing the "bumper car" routine. Currently, ground vehicles back up one vehicle length, turn 30-45 degrees and then try to go forwards. It would be more realistic and more elegant to have the vehicle turn immediately when it gets within a set distance from another vehicle (less than 1 vehicle length?), make travel along a < or > or ( or ) course (an arc or two opposing 30-45 degree turns) and then continue along its previous heading. |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
