|
|
|
|
#2
02-27-2009, 10:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I'm waiting this too: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Brita...732640&sr=1-19
__________________
 A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. |
|
#4
02-27-2009, 04:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I had a thought about the new improved "damage Model"...while I think that we can all agree that this feature should add to the immersion of combat. I predict a whole new category of forum arguments where people bitch about the robustness of individual mechanical components under damage...and people looking for credible facts on the issue.
[Example] "The P-51's radiator might have been that delicate, but the oil system would never have broken like that when over heated"... or The pilot armor (strong) is too big on the FW190... Obviously I know these planes will not be in the first "SOW"...but you get my meaning. The increased damage model will bread "half baked" ideas and paranoid theory's... |
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
