New C202 and C205 Models. NICE!

[icepac]

LOL....that was a reference to "mustang mafia" lobbying that has been going on since the early 1990s.

[Krusty]

icepac, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The .50cal rate of fire (for guns NOT firing through the prop) seems about right to me. Unless you're referring to the Browning M3 version which fired at a higher rate of fire, but tended to break because of this, but also saw little to no use during WW2? We have Browning M2s, not M3s.


P.S. I agree the bars are a little too close and somewhat thick. I think HTC should take refraction into account and make the inside panels of armored windscreens a little thinner. Or cheat and make those walls "angle outward" on the 3D model, or something.

[Karnak]

Krusty,

The Ki-61's cannons would also be affected as the Ho-5 20mm cannon is also based on the Browning .50.

[Krusty]

While that may be, I don't have any actual data to back that up. I have heard very specific commentary on the Ho103, Browning M2, and Breda-SAFAT, so I listed them.

I've not even really looked into the Ho-5 much lately, so I'll reserve judgement on that.

[Karnak]

I seem to recall Tony Williams mentioning it with the others.

[Krusty]

I just noticed the cockpit shot shows climb/sink in... what is that? meters per second?

Can we get that changed to reflect fpm? It's one thing to make it look in a certain style, but let's at least keep them all calibrated to the same system!

Link to pic:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/stories/news/c205/c205-5.jpg


EDIT:

P.S. I'm all for making things "look" a certain style, but frankly I think instrument functionality should NOT be limited to what WW2 had. This is a combat sim. We're not spending 100 hours of ground school memorizing where instruments are on a single plane. Know what else I see? Actually it's what I don't see. I don't see a fuel gauge. I don't see my trim indicators. I don't see gear lights.

I BARELY see the ammo counters. They're way too dark-grey to be useful in a fight.

The cockpits of all the planes in AH have been useful rather than historic for the most part. Get you what you need when you're in a fight. Some planes in WW2 didn't have functioning fuel indicators. Most didn't have radios. Are we to remove the chat buffer and vox? Are we to remove everything but a compass? Because many planes barely had a functioning compass!

We need to match a visual style, but NOT replicate the exact layout from WW2. In WW2 you dart your eyes down to see something and back up. In here "down" is the one key I can't map. I can map up, around, any angle I need, but down is a PITA. Further, most folks don't have TrackIR. So, please listen up HTC: Less "realism" and more functionality! For the same reason we don't have 30-minute engine start procedures and we don't have to press 15 buttons when you code 1 to do the same task!

[SmokinLoon]

I just noticed the cockpit shot shows climb/sink in... what is that? meters per second?

Can we get that changed to reflect fpm? It's one thing to make it look in a certain style, but let's at least keep them all calibrated to the same system!

Link to pic:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/stories/news/c205/c205-5.jpg


EDIT:

P.S. I'm all for making things "look" a certain style, but frankly I think instrument functionality should NOT be limited to what WW2 had. This is a combat sim. We're not spending 100 hours of ground school memorizing where instruments are on a single plane. Know what else I see? Actually it's what I don't see. I don't see a fuel gauge. I don't see my trim indicators. I don't see gear lights.

I BARELY see the ammo counters. They're way too dark-grey to be useful in a fight.

The cockpits of all the planes in AH have been useful rather than historic for the most part. Get you what you need when you're in a fight. Some planes in WW2 didn't have functioning fuel indicators. Most didn't have radios. Are we to remove the chat buffer and vox? Are we to remove everything but a compass? Because many planes barely had a functioning compass!

We need to match a visual style, but NOT replicate the exact layout from WW2. In WW2 you dart your eyes down to see something and back up. In here "down" is the one key I can't map. I can map up, around, any angle I need, but down is a PITA. Further, most folks don't have TrackIR. So, please listen up HTC: Less "realism" and more functionality! For the same reason we don't have 30-minute engine start procedures and we don't have to press 15 buttons when you code 1 to do the same task!

I see your point, but I'm torn as to whether or not to agree with you.  I think if the gauges should use the same metric or SAE numerical values that they had in the real deal.  The only exception would be, at least for me, is if there was a fighter than originated in Japan or other such Far Eastern country that didn't use Western numerals.  Part of that stems from me wanting immersion and having to "learn" the plane be it Japanese, German, Italian, Finnish, French, Russian, or Limey language on the instrument panel.  Stop and think how the playing field is leveled a bit when someone versed in what and where the gauges are in a plane otherwise foreign to a AH "ace" player when they square off in a duel.   

[The Fugitive]

If flaps drop at 175 MPH, or 281 KPH it doesn't matter, its just a number.

As for looking down, give me a break. Really? This is an issue for you? 

[hitech]

Well one thing is clear, Hitech likes em thick

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzz, wrong again.

I prefer to be accurate, but if we can not find the correct size, I would prefer to error on the side of thin because screens do not have binocular vision.


I agree something is off with the wind shield supports we are looking at the issue.

HiTech

[Daddkev]

 

[Babalonian]

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzz, wrong again.

I prefer to be accurate, but if we can not find the correct size, I would prefer to error on the side of thin because screens do not have binocular vision.


I agree something is off with the wind shield supports we are looking at the issue.

HiTech

....so... then...190s.... (translated to Daddkevish:          )

[bustr]

Hey guys if you zoom into the C.202 picture where the windscreen is facing you. You just make out what looks like a metal band across the top of the Type-B reflector plate. I could be wrong and the glare from that resolution is indistigusable between glass and metal. But, it looks more like a metal band than thick glass.

My apologies ahead of time if this is an accurate abservation to HTC and crew who created the C.202 for my earlier over blown picture show.

[USRanger]

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzz, wrong again.

I prefer to be accurate, but if we can not find the correct size, I would prefer to error on the side of thin because screens do not have binocular vision.


I agree something is off with the wind shield supports we are looking at the issue.

HiTech

 

[killnu]

a new C202?  I just happened to get back from a 7 month deployment in time for this?  wooot   It may be time to resubscribe...

[The Fugitive]

Welcome back Bro!