Official Fulqrum Publishing forum
Page 24 of 33 « First 142223 24 2526 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   Friday 2010-11-19 Dev. update and Discussion (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=17383)

AdMan 11-21-2010 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 199680)
Good suggestion here, as long as i wouldn't have to map everything from scratch for every single aircraft. Maybe having a universal, base file or the ability to copy control schemes between planes would help with that, so that we wouldn't have to map universal controls like gear and flaps every time.

For example, i set everything up in the base control scheme, then select a hurricane and see i'm missing some controls, but not all of them (since the basic ones are covered in the base control scheme). I then go into the options screen and start a hurricane specific control scheme. The interface "reads" the information from the base file and transfers the universal control assignments, then i only define the missing controls that are specific to this aircraft and save it as "hurricane".
exactly you have your "defaults" that you set once, then you can go into each plane and customize

as an example, if you're a Nvidia user it would be like your graphic settings in the Nvidia control panel, you set your default settings but then you can select the games you have installed on your computer (games=planes in this analogy), for each option you can choose "use default" or set a customization.

unfortunately this idea will probably go unnoticed and mapping keys will continue to be a monumental task, one of my biggest gripes with PC gaming.

PLEASE READ OLEG, IF YOU NEED TRANSLATION ASK LUTHIER

AdMan 11-21-2010 01:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by addman (Post 199700)
LOL! You're funny, I disagree though. The spiralling tracer effects is really of utmost importance and making sure those spirals are 100% correctly modeled has to be regarded as no.1 priority. If I don't get my spirals then purchase of this SIMULATION is out of the question, spirals spirals spirals....spirals!

P.S All germans shall have mullet haircuts and the english shall have...whatever haircut they have in that foul weather of theirs.
c'mon bro you couldn't have just gone with a different name?

He111 11-21-2010 04:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 199745)
When I read this complete ignorance it just makes me wish we (Britain) hadn't sent out the BEF in the first place when Hitler invaded Poland.

It beggars belief that some Poles seem to think that Britain and her allies was obliged to take on the Soviets in 1945 and free up Poland, like we could, needed to or wanted to anyway. We (Britain) bankrupted ourselves and let go of an Empire in order to fight Germany, sacrificing many people from the Commonwealth in the process. But the most galling of all is the contempt and disrespect you show those who died fighting for this. A thoroughly twisted and obtuse perspective you have He111.
What are you raving about toss-pot? It was all in the doco, at the end of the war when all the allies marched in Victory celebrations, the Poles were not allowed to, thanks to Churchill who was scared of annoying the soviets. It's very sad that the Poles proved themselves more than adequate in the BOB but few are willing to acknowledge that! You have a serious attitude problem.

.

Ibis 11-21-2010 06:39 AM
Will pilots bailing out still be trying their sky diving skills as in the screen shot or will they do as they actually did and tumble from the aircraft?
Looking fantastic by the way.
I'll be in the line up to buy as soon as it is released.
cheers,
Ibis.

Sutts 11-21-2010 06:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by major_setback (Post 199836)
Thanks Setback, another cracking shot I've never seen before. Just shows how ineffective hitting the rear fuselage can prove to be.

I wonder how easy it was to set the wing tanks ablaze in the He 111? I recently read a wartime report somewhere (could have been posted here) stating that something like 1 in 10 .303 incendiary rounds would ignite a self sealing fuel tank. I'd always believed previously that an HE round was required to open a hole up in the tank and expose the fuel to the air to allow ignition. Maybe the tanks took a few minutes to seal allowing some fuel to be exposed to the incendiary effects?

Interesting stuff.

Hecke 11-21-2010 08:35 AM
Looks like the He-111 has painted damage on its wings.
Hopefully this will not be in final because painted damage is from the last century and you've already shown that "real" damage is possible.

Skoshi Tiger 11-21-2010 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sutts (Post 199864)
Thanks Setback, another cracking shot I've never seen before. Just shows how ineffective hitting the rear fuselage can prove to be.

I wonder how easy it was to set the wing tanks ablaze in the He 111? I recently read a wartime report somewhere (could have been posted here) stating that something like 1 in 10 .303 incendiary rounds would ignite a self sealing fuel tank. I'd always believed previously that an HE round was required to open a hole up in the tank and expose the fuel to the air to allow ignition. Maybe the tanks took a few minutes to seal allowing some fuel to be exposed to the incendiary effects?

Interesting stuff.
Shots like these really go to show the necessity of shooting at convergence when your using low penetration rounds like the .303.

Although it is obvious that enough systems were damaged to bring the plane down, 700 rounds is about 29% of a spitfires 2400 round loadout (I think its 300 rounds per gun in the Mk1A)

With my average hit% at about *cough*5%*cough* it would take me a lot of trips to bring down a single bomber.

Cheers!

Romanator21 11-21-2010 09:03 AM
Quote:
Fantastic update. Tells us all kinds of stuff.

That pic of the distant aircraft leaving contrails... Twin engines, narrow fuselage, broad wings with pointed tips and straight, twin tail. Are those Hampdens?
They are Fiat Br.20s mate. It's hard to tell in this attachment (see original post instead) but these planes have a yellow stripe around the fuselage, and the rudders are not at the stabilizer tips, but towards the middle, I think (leftmost aircraft).

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...0&d=1290177753

http://en.valka.cz/files/fiat_br_20_m.gif

The resemblance is too close...

Rodolphe 11-21-2010 09:10 AM
...

Quote:
Originally Posted by major_setback (Post 199664)
If the Gunner concludes to exit his flying Defiant through the bottom hatch, the Pilot need to lower the landing gear as this configuration automatically retracts the rear VHF aerial mast into the aero plane belly.
That done the mast won't spear the Gunner as he, after moving the aerial wire aside, escapes through the bottom hatch, . ;)
.


...

Rodolphe 11-21-2010 09:43 AM
...


Quote:
Originally Posted by zodiac (Post 199467)
One question about that moveable part on his back. Isn't that meant to be totally retracted in order to turn the turret?
That is how I remember it from the days I made a scale model of a defiant... From the pictures I've seen it was always retracted if the turret was moving.

A similar system on the Blackburn Roc.

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/Roc1.JPG



Anecdotal Roc ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Pay in Britain at War magazine Nov 2010 edition
The Roc was so obsolete that it was quickly ruled out of the fighting.
One naval unit commander ordered that his Rocs should be used in an anti-aircraft role, parked around the 'drome turret manned during air-raids.

...


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:21 PM.
Page 24 of 33 « First 142223 24 2526 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.