PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire mkVIII ammo loadout is wrong



biggs222
10-29-2004, 10:47 AM
the mkVIII in PF doesnt have enough cannon ammo.

It should have the same ammount as the mkIXc/e 12 seconds of fire time...the mkVII in PF only has 6 seconds worth (a la mkV)...this is clearly wrong... the mkVIII used the same "universal wing" that held 125 rounds of 20mm in each cannon, the same amount of rounds that the mkIX held.

Please fix this, thank you.

also the mkVIII came out AFTER the mkIX despite the mark #...it should not be in teh 1942 plane list, if anything it should be a '44 plane.

the plane was underdevelopment back in 42 but they werent able to produce it in time, so they made the "stop gap" version or "mkIX"...the mkIX came out in 42 and progressed to the later mkIX versions we have in AEP in '43 and '44...the mkVII then came into mass production at that time...NOT before the mkIX.

faustnik
10-29-2004, 11:05 AM
I thought Mk VIIIs reached Italy in late '43?

biggs222
10-29-2004, 11:14 AM
ok it proabably made it to italy before it made it to Burma in the Pacific...it says it didnt fly in Bruma until 44. but anyway...i wonder why they mixed up the ammo loadout? it so horribly wrong. also you shuld be able to select Slipper tanks for the mkVIII...they used Slipper tanks ALOT in Burma to add to the spits range...

WUAF_Badsight
10-29-2004, 02:17 PM
you sent in a bug report ?

add your reference too as only having half the ammo it should have is a biggie dude

biggs222
10-29-2004, 07:07 PM
where do i write a report?

JG53Frankyboy
10-29-2004, 07:12 PM
just read the first post there !!

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=8621000332

Nubarus
10-29-2004, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Dear folks, please read it with attention:

1. The address for bug reports:
In readme is shown new one instead of closed old il2beta@1c.ru. So use please only new one PF@1c.ru

2. We can't search at the web for your bug reports. It take too much time. So we will accept the reports that only will be sent to the address shown above.

3. The bug report should contains

a) in case of graphics glitches, sound problems (if its only problems), and other hardware related problems send us please DXDIAG file report witht in attachemnt and with your comments and screenshots (converted in JPG!) that will explain the nature of problem very preciselly and steps to reproduce the case.

b) In case of aircraft data or 3D model "problems", if you think this is incorrect you need to put the source text/photos or blueprints (if it is not the simple drawings) with the exact data and the screen shots (if you think something is wrong ) that are in comparison with the real one. Please take in account that in the only word explanation we usually do not accept such reports. Also, we don'rt model many switches, etc working. So we do not accept it as bugs. We do more working switches only when we have a time and then ussually do not rework that was not done due to limit of time, except real bugs.

c) Bugs that may have a case with Dynamic campaign generator: You need to sent us the generated mission (created witht he proper name in Missions>Campaign>[Airforce side] folder) where was a problem and the Dgen.log, Dgen2.log, Dgen3.log files from the game root directory.

d) Possible bugs that impossible to show us with the screenshots should be repeated by user and recorded in a track (preferable in both formats if possible and exclude COOP mode, becasue currently that option there switched off before official add-on due to too many functions that was implemented during development).

e) If you think that you got something wrong working in a mission - we need this mission with text, shots, tracks explanation that to identify nature or problem. However if it is own user design missions - before to sent us that mission please read manual and readme at first that to compare with the terms that pointed there for the right design.
And we don't accept the "bugs" for user made online missions, where is too large amount of any objects... (In the past once we received the "bad" online COOP mission, that was too slow in online gameplay and had great lags, etc... that was created on Berlin map, and if we will not to count just over 600,000 buildings there, had there thousands tanks, static planes, guns, etc... - it is equal many thousands players on one server!!!.... and we pointed such things in manual, why not to read? Each object on the map has own conditions and data transfers to each player! And if there are thousands such obejcts then all of the data transfers to each player!)

wrong ammoload both Seafires and both Spitfire Mk.VIII: it have to be 120rpg for their Hispanos NOT 60rpg !

OM: Will check. Agree at the moment to correct for MK VIII.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Already reported and noted Biggs22. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

biggs222
10-29-2004, 08:29 PM
what about the slipper tanks for the mkVIII...has that been noted yet?....they should be in the mkVIII ordenance.

biggs222
10-29-2004, 08:42 PM
correction... the seafires used the slipper tanks as well. the mkIII also carried a 500lb bomb under senter line and carried x4 60lb wing launched rockets. And it is true the mkIII used mkV hispano cannons which means that they DID have 120 rpg....the seafire cannon ammo needs to be bumped up to 120 as well as the mkVIII's.

Nubarus
10-29-2004, 08:54 PM
Then I guess you should gather info on it Biggs and send it to PF@1c.ru, only then will it be looked at.

They are not going to search the forums looking for bugs anymore.

VW-IceFire
10-29-2004, 09:47 PM
I asked about the Hispano Mark V. Nyme (modeled it after all) says he looked at that issue and found that the majority of Seafire III's were armed with Mark II cannons and therefore he modeled it with Mark II cannons as well.

But I think the Seafire III's all came in C type armament so they SHOULD have 120rpg. If you have documents and reports on it...send that in. Oleg knows about the VIII being incorrect...he wasn't sure about the Seafire III. We'll need to work on that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oh and does anyone know if they are going to fix the cowling not showing through the cockpit screen? You can see the top bit of the engine on the Mark V and IX but on the VIII shots it can't be seen.

biggs222
10-30-2004, 12:39 AM
i sent an email ...i listed my sourses about the Seafire cannon and about the bomb/slipper tank loadouts...as well as the slipper tanks for the mkVIII...well see what they say.

Itto_Okami
10-30-2004, 02:33 AM
I've sent a report about this bug some days ago... I've pointed out about it in the general bug listing but seems that nobody noticed about... anyway I had a reply from Oleg stating that this will be corrected in the patch...

S!

Itto

Kurfurst__
10-31-2004, 09:39 AM
Also there`s another bug with the Spitfire Mk VIII.

It`s by far, far the fastest aircraft ever, without an engine!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I mean the bug that from the cocpit-on view, the cowling`s 3d model is entirely missing! I felt kinda strange about it when I first flew it... what, no more fill-half-the-windscreen-engine-cowling anymore?

Yup, it just doesn`t show up. It should, basically it`s the same engine as in the Mk IXs, blocking the front view the same way. Was this reported, too? I would be surprised if it wasn`t, though.

Nubarus
10-31-2004, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Also there`s another bug with the Spitfire Mk VIII.

It`s by far, far the fastest aircraft ever, without an engine!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I mean the bug that from the cocpit-on view, the cowling`s 3d model is entirely missing! I felt kinda strange about it when I first flew it... what, no more fill-half-the-windscreen-engine-cowling anymore?

Yup, it just doesn`t show up. It should, basically it`s the same engine as in the Mk IXs, blocking the front view the same way. Was this reported, too? I would be surprised if it wasn`t, though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has been reported already, I don't think there is anyone who didn't notice that right away.

When I took the VIII for a spin I noticed something was strange within one second, then a few seconds later it stung me in the eye.

biggs222
10-31-2004, 02:22 PM
yeah i see what ahppened..the whole "cowling" got placed too low...youll notice that teh prop is too low as well they just need to re-place the cowling. the cowling is there its just too low to see it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif