PDA

View Full Version : Will the Spitfire MkVc be fixed in 4.03?



ICDP
02-03-2006, 07:24 AM
Currently the Spitfire MkVc do not show the aircrafts nose from the internal view. It looks very silly and should look similar to the internal view on the MkVb. Has this been fixed in 4.03 and if not will it be fixed in a future patch?.

As you can see from the following screenshots the MkVc has no nose. This makes it harder to sniff out the enemy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MkVb
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/MkVb.jpg



MkVc
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/MkVc.jpg

SlickStick
02-03-2006, 08:16 AM
I never say never, but Oleg himself stated that the nose would not be fixed, due to the need for further 3D modeling, IIRC.

I'll try and find the post. I think it was in the current patch bugs thread in ORR.

SlickStick
02-03-2006, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
well, again (like in 4.01)

1. - Spitfire Mk.Vc (both versions) in cockpit view there is no engine cowling visible. the cockpit seems programmed to high in the fuselage

2. - Seafire LOD are "loosing" their wings at around 2000m distance ( in my perfect settings), they are flying pencils than

3. -ammo loadout for Ki-100 fuselage cannons are with 250rpg to high. Ki-84-Ib has 150rpg to compare with.

Oleg's response:


1. We already told it on forums that this we will keep as it is. Its becasue of a bit wrong third party models. We can't rework it due to lack of time, becasue it is global rework of cockpit or the plane model. So it will be as it is.

2. We don't get this problem we checked many times. Probably it may happens with very specific driver and settings for this driver.

3. Never received this report on PF address. We will check with the sources.

From this thread:

V4.02 Bugs Thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4171093863)

1st page, last post.

ICDP
02-03-2006, 08:51 AM
Thanks for the response Slickstick

SlickStick
02-03-2006, 08:51 AM
I'm more worried about how so many folks see LOD issues with Seafires and Mk. VIIIs across sooooo many drivers and vid cards, it seems strange that this is a local issue on our PCs.

The issue has been there since the release of Pacific Fighters.

Capt.LoneRanger
02-03-2006, 09:25 AM
It's called cloaking device. The Brits tested it on the Mark Vc (c for cloak), but it never really worked for the complete a/c. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

stathem
02-03-2006, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
It's called cloaking device. The Brits tested it on the Mark Vc (c for cloak), but it never really worked for the complete a/c. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

And as usual, the Japanese took it and made it work properly for the Ki-61.

johnbn
02-03-2006, 01:41 PM
I'm sorry ICDP but with the great game/sim we have here the nit picking gets a wee bit too silly.

You try making a game like this, then try to cater for everybodies likes/dislikes, whims etc and see where it gets you.

A one way ticket to the insane asylumn is my bet.

I never even noticed the missing nose until you mentioned it here.

Now I'll never get it outa my head.
Thanks alot.
Looney bin here I come!

SlickStick
02-03-2006, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by johnbn:
I'm sorry ICDP but with the great game/sim we have here the nit picking gets a wee bit too silly.

You try making a game like this, then try to cater for everybodies likes/dislikes, whims etc and see where it gets you.

A one way ticket to the insane asylumn is my bet.

I never even noticed the missing nose until you mentioned it here.

Now I'll never get it outa my head.
Thanks alot.
Looney bin here I come!

Actually, as view ability is a major functional requirement of the sim, this one is higher on my list than say, the fact that all 109s have Emil shadows. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

That little bit of missing nose gives just enough to get off an awesome overhead deflection shot with those four hispanos. Be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

johnbn
02-03-2006, 01:59 PM
Well surely thats a good thing if you fly a spit.!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
02-03-2006, 02:05 PM
Well, let's take it this way: The Spit has a nose less, the FW190 a bar too much. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Maybe they should add the 190-bar to the Spit - that would certainly eliminate the view on the nose.

SlickStick
02-03-2006, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Well, let's take it this way: The Spit has a nose less, the FW190 a bar too much. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Maybe they should add the 190-bar to the Spit - that would certainly eliminate the view on the nose.

LOL! Good one and shows you've been paying attention around here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

johnbn
02-03-2006, 02:16 PM
______________________________________________

LOL! Good one and shows you've been paying attention around here.

_______________________________________________

Apologies for not noticing this before and not letting it send me to the looney bin before now.

You're right, I really should pay much, much, much, more attention to these forums after all real life is such a drag!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

mortoma
02-04-2006, 09:46 AM
You think that is bad?? How about this knit-pick?? I heard from some beta testers that the AI land the new Do-335 on it's rear ( downward pointing ) vertical tail section. As though it were a tail dragger and the tail is a rear tailwheel. Once they slow down, then they fall onto the nosewheel like they should have to begin with. Also if you belly land the new DO-335, the same downward vertical tail section remains intact and the aircraft then comes to a rest on that tail section and one wing tip. While the nose remains magically suspended in mid-air!!!!!!!