|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
10-24-2010, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
error at the oil temp gauge (Fl20343)
Oleg, we think that we've found an error at the oil temp gauge (Fl20343). The Emil did have a switchable gauge wich can indicate both incoming and outgoing oil temp. For this one have to press the knob in upper right. Those switchable gauges have a description on it "drücken: Eintr.-Temp." (press: incoming temp) I know that the drawing is from 1942, anyway the description on the gauge is missing.
Beside that the scale has to be from 0 to 160°C imho. Please see the attached picture for further informations. Last edited by Foo'bar; 10-24-2010 at 05:01 PM. 
|
|
#2
10-24-2010, 03:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Hello Foo'bar! You sure about that? Your drawing is from 1942 and you are mentioning what presumably is the most recent instrument (1043A). Apparently the variant completely on the left 1042S is indeed 120°C. It would not struck me as impossible that the 109E DB601A or N which was comparatively less powerful and running less hot than a 1942 109G2, with its quite more powerful DB605? Just wondering... JV PS Did you see my little K5 work?
|
|
#3
10-24-2010, 04:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hello Jean-Valéry,
the gauge has a knob to switch and imho therefore there's a description missing, no matter if a 1942 or 1940 built gauge. About 120°C or 160°C indeed I'm not shore though. About the kmz file I first have to install Google Earth first because I've assambled a new rig recently. As soon I got GE I will comment it at Foo'rum. Thanks so long, mate! 
|
|
#4
10-24-2010, 04:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nice Details
|
|
#6
10-24-2010, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Compared to Oleg's technique - yes it is dramatically weaker. However, back in the old days - when few objects could be rendered and textures were low detail - it was a good and even superior technique. I remember Jane's IAF - you could actually recognise individual valleys by their erosion patterns! Each pixel was unique - that has got to count for something)
|
|
#7
10-24-2010, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why is it dramatically weaker?
Ok cockpit sucks For me Terrain textures look much better then what we have seen in SOW For example look at the Switzerland x addon its impossible to outperform that.
|
|
#9
10-24-2010, 11:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And he's right: satellite textures often look terrible, specially at low height. However, I'm one of those who'd like the SoW team to improve this aspect of the game -if it's similar to what's been depicted up until now. On the other hand, I'd like to point again to that small bug present on the pre-rendered reflections: some of them don't seem to present the reflection flipped horizontally as a mirror.
__________________
|
|
#10
10-24-2010, 11:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
However, photographic textures can add a degree of clutter and randomness that you don't get otherwise, and houses placed on that texture in the correct places look naturally spaced, giving towns an authentic appearance. Roads have varied textures, rather than being uniform ribbons of grey. Gardens can be seen. Personally I find this imperfect screenshot pleasing to look at. From WoP: 
__________________
All CoD screenshots here: http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/ __________  Flying online as Setback. Last edited by major_setback; 10-24-2010 at 11:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
