Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: SmokinLoon on February 28, 2013, 02:44:09 PM
-
Another way to go moment for HTC! :aok These will be nice to have, I think this will certainly breath new life in to these aircraft! :aok
-
They look absolutely awesome!!
-
Where's Karnak?
-
Belle macchine! :aok
-
Looks great, so this upcoming update will have 3 updated aircraft and a new a/c, unless they put up some screenies of somethng else. Way to go HTC
-
Just started spending some time in the 205.... had a great fight with PotnPans that ended with me clipping a tree. Look forward to flying another Greebo skinned plane. Man is he getting good at those or what!
WTG HTC !
-
the Macchi's have always flown a little odd to me, so will be interesting to see any FM changes.
beautiful work as always guys :aok
-
Very cool
-
This stuff is getting so good HTC can put out a deck of trading cards for the company staff and players who contribute for the new releases.
I want a Greebo No. 1 card in mint condition in the original wrapper.
Great detail on the San Giorgio Gunsight Type C.... :aok
-
Looks excellent! Can't wait to fly it.
Wiley.
-
One odd thing I discovered while researching Macchi C.200/202/205 series of fighter aircraft is that the left wing was built 9 inches longer span than the right. This was an attempt to overcome the uneven lift at the stall caused by propeller airflow over the wing roots. A different solution to this problem was the leading edge spoiler used on the RH wing of the Corsair. Might be why it flies a little oddly. IIRC the LW pilots who flew it rated it as having poor departure characteristics.
-
can't wait to fly the 205 in 2 weeks
-
After all these years, my favorite fighter is getting updated!! Happy day! Happy day! :x :cheers:
-
After all these years, my favorite fighter is getting updated!! Happy day! Happy day! :x :cheers:
Join the club and the queue!
-
Awesome!!
Great job Greebo and Superfly!
Several times I've really wanted to fly Macchis but the dated artwork kept me out of it. Hopefully Gatt and Gianlupo see this ASAP, it's been a long wait. :)
This would have been great opportunity to research and add the C.200 as well. Probably won't happen, though.
(http://tigroukam.free.fr/Hotel/Avions/Mc200/mc200.jpg)
http://tigroukam.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html (http://tigroukam.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html)
Would love this flying bathtub for bits! :)
Greebo, do you have any extra skins for Macchis coming as well? Just asking because you usually make more than one for these new models. ;)
-
Magnifico! Biavo!
-
Another fine creation HTC, modeling is most impressive along with the profile. The new cockpit will be interesting to see the layout. The hard work really show off your talent.
-
Thanks for the update on the 202! She is my guilty pleasure in this game. :aok
-
Wow! Very nicely done. :aok
-
:banana: :aok
-
Finally after years of uber rides being released or updated one of the COOL planes finally gets long overdue update. :aok
Next the Yak Please. :D
<S>...-Gixer
-
Greebo, do you have any extra skins for Macchis coming as well? Just asking because you usually make more than one for these new models. ;)
I haven't had time to do any skins for the new rides yet. I will do some for the C.202/205 as the Italians had some interesting camouflage schemes. There are also three different Italian air forces that can be skinned, plus LW and Croatian markings too. I may wait and see if other skinners want to claim some first.
-
Where's Karnak?
I am here. They look great and were definitely in need of the update.
Not sure why you called me out on this though?
-
Looks fantastic! A great update for the arenas. I wonder how much different it's going to handle compared to the current/really-outdated model?... The guys who cried like infants in the He-111 thread should be content, they get soemthing cool to shoot down new Lancs and He111s in (but probabley and most likely not, because are they ever? :ahand ).
-
I am here. They look great and were definitely in need of the update.
Not sure why you called me out on this though?
It was one of your suggestions in that "other" thread. ;)
-
I haven't had time to do any skins for the new rides yet. I will do some for the C.202/205 as the Italians had some interesting camouflage schemes. There are also three different Italian air forces that can be skinned, plus LW and Croatian markings too. I may wait and see if other skinners want to claim some first.
Good to hear! Thanks!
-
Man...beautiful work HTC.
Loving the fact all older models are being updated, That is something this product has needed from day one. Level eye candy through the game,nothing lacking....nothing old.
At this point i don't even care about and new AC being added so long as 4+ older models get updated (3 so far woowoo!). It is after all reason enough to assume every plane updated will be flown more if not just as much as any new ac added all together.
Keep that eye candy coming HTC, this product needs it full steam ahead. :rock :aok :salute
-
:aok
-
I have 3 skins I'm going to immediately get started on as soon as the model is released. :rock
-
And a fine day it is. Thanks HTC crowd.
- oldman
-
This one I like.
Thanks HTC, they look good.
Any chance for the C.200?
:rock
-
Woo hoo!
-
Very nice. These will get some air time.
-
WTG HTC! keep on keepin' on. :cheers:
-
Very very nice! :aok
-
Great detail on the San Giorgio Gunsight Type C.... :aok
:headscratch:
awesome! looks great..
but, dat 6 view hurts already..
-
Nice! Two planes I will no doubt be flying more often. :aok
-
Just looking at the new cockpit gives me a chubby! :banana:
-
:aok
-
Closing the gap :aok
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/stories/news/c205/c205-5.jpg)
WoP
(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/577805776720509897/890DAED9FB2C7FC3BFB1C8FE1257A15DFA693DF1/)
-
Can anyone find a real life pic from that position?
-
Almost Ranger, C202
(http://www.150gct.it/users/150GCT_Pag/C202int008.jpg)
-
Phatzo, I thought that was going to be a You Tube video on the 205 :airplane:
Closing the gap, yes doing a great job on the planes etc, but as far as closing the gap to WoP on Terrain,Clouds,Lighting,Effects etc long way to go, but then WoP doesn't have multiplayer horde vs horde gameplay. :lol
<S>...-Gixer
-
AWESOME! :aok
-
Sweet :salute
-
One thing I noticed looking at the cockpit is that the windscreen/armored glass looks quite narrow. It is partly due to the fact that there's no refraction in AH so you can see where the side of the armored glass meets the sides of the cockpit framing. But it still seems to be narrower than in the pics that I've seen of the real cockpit. The San Giorgio gun sight in the new AH version seems to be of the later type witch has the narrower crash pad than the earlier type. In the first photo below you can see that the width of the gun sight occupies less than half of the windscreen while in the AH screen shot the gun sight occupies more than half of it.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/stories/news/c205/c205-5.jpg)
Some pics for comparison:
(http://actis.dk/retro/Italien/Macchi/Billeder/FolgoreCockpit.jpg)
(http://www.ottocubano.com/images/MUSEO%20VIGNA%20DI%20VALLE/DSC05871.JPG)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/C20Xcockpit_zps0566689a.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/C205cockpit2_zpsaad3e7b6.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/C205cockpit3_zps8cd4cd2d.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/C205cockpit_zpsac684c5b.jpg)
(http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/8632/macchi202bbv8.jpg)
-
So what are you gong to do, argue Type-B and Type-C knowing every country retrofited gunsights as time went on??
Type-B
(http://www.hyperscale.com/images/sangiorgiogunsightprteview_1.jpg)
Type - B Early C.202
(http://gunsight.jp/b/image2/I-gunsight-01.jpg)
Type-B Later C.202 and C.205
(http://gunsight.jp/b/image2/I-gunsight-07-1.jpg)
Type-C Late Flat Top C.205V and G55
(http://gunsight.jp/b/image2/I-gunsight-05.jpg)
-
So what are you gong to do, argue Type-B and Type-C knowing every country retrofited gunsights as time went on??
Try reading my post again. I'm not asking to change the gun sight. I'm questioning the width of the windscreen/armored glass:
One thing I noticed looking at the cockpit is that the windscreen/armored glass looks quite narrow. It is partly due to the fact that there's no refraction in AH so you can see where the side of the armored glass meets the sides of the cockpit framing. But it still seems to be narrower than in the pics that I've seen of the real cockpit.
-
Man...beautiful work HTC.
Loving the fact all older models are being updated, That is something this product has needed from day one. Level eye candy through the game,nothing lacking....nothing old.
At this point i don't even care about and new AC being added so long as 4+ older models get updated (3 so far woowoo!). It is after all reason enough to assume every plane updated will be flown more if not just as much as any new ac added all together.
Keep that eye candy coming HTC, this product needs it full steam ahead. :rock :aok :salute
"3 models so far"???
From memory: IL-2, F6F, Me262, C47, Typhoon, A6M (x2+1), Hurricane (x2+2), P40 (x2+2), Tiger, Panzer IV (+2), M8, M3, and I'm sure there are more. That does not include those aircraft that have had their cockpits "upgraded" to the new graphics. With the next version we get a new Lancaster Mk III and new a new C202 and C205. I think HTC is moving right along, remember we're not dealing with a huge company. HTC has but a handful (that we know of) of staff and volunteers slaving away on AH. :aok
-
still cant see the stick :D
Great Job HTC
-
still cant see the stick :D
Great Job HTC
Time to get rid of that belly :D
Gotta feel it, not see it :devil
-
Time to get rid of that belly :D
Gotta feel it, not see it :devil
:lol
-
Closing the gap :aok
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/stories/news/c205/c205-5.jpg)
WoP
(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/577805776720509897/890DAED9FB2C7FC3BFB1C8FE1257A15DFA693DF1/)
Honestly, I like Superfly's cockpit better.
-
Fantastic job!
Big :salute to HTC and Greebo!
-
anyone know if this 202/205 will come with drop tanks or not?
-
Try reading my post again. I'm not asking to change the gun sight. I'm questioning the width of the windscreen/armored glass:
HTC's glass is two frame widths too narrow. In perspective terms to your screen shot. The glass should be widened 4mm on each side while the leading edge frame for the side screen window should be shortened by 4mm. Something like the windscreen frame perspective error they made with the updated FW cockpits a few years back.
The gunsight glass should not be half the width of the windscreen glass. The proportion should be more like:
50 to 20. Not 50 to 25.
Thus the 4mm relative to your posted screen shot expansion of the windscreen on each side with a subsiquent 4mm contractions of the width of the side screens leading edge frame.
WMaker do you really think at this late stage HTC will remake the cockpit to account for an 8mm realtive prespective in the forward 3D proportions? The windscreen will have to be widened and the gunsight moved to the right just covering the left side of the clock. But, you are right looking at your BW WW2 pics. The forward side screen frame is sized too wide and the windscreen is too narrow placing the gunsight too close to the center line.
Pictures are worth a thousand words........................ ......It's obvious when you put them together like this.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img20/5448/c2055.gif)
-
They did modify the Ki-84's front cockpit view after it was live, so it would not be unprecedented.
-
And this is why HiTech should of told Superfly to start on the 190s, first. Ingrates! :devil :bolt:
-
OMG, I am so going to fly the 205 after the patch. Beautiful beautiful looking plane and model.
-
They did modify the Ki-84's front cockpit view after it was live, so it would not be unprecedented.
As they did the 190. This is what the original upgraded cockpit looked like
(http://john-sanderson.com/files/Aces%20High/190Cockpit2.jpg)
-
Betcha we ain't gettin the Type-B in our C.202.
Type-B Early, Middle, and Late were all used in the C.202. Middle and Late were also used in the C.205. The gunsight modeled by HTC is the Type-C Late. There was a Type-C Early and Late.
Type-C Early looks like a PBP1 and the Type-C Late looks like a ReviC12 and a PBP1 had a love child. Neither Type-C Early or Late was used in the C.202.
Just like our spit1 never flew in combat with a MkIIs square glass gunsight but, the same MKII round glass as in the remodeled Hurii1. I just keep telling myself that the spit1 would have been upgraded to a square glass if it had stayed in front line combat long enough other than as a low level PR plane or weapons and electronics test bed. I've got my rubie fuzzy slippers on clicking the heels together going if HTC models it, it's true, it's true , it's true Oh lauwsy, Oh lauwsy............
Type-B Middle
You can see the etched graticle which was one of several backups if the light bulb failed. You used the elevation knob to raise the reflector plate up high enough to center the etched graticle.
(http://www.hyperscale.com/images/sangiorgiogunsightprteview_1.jpg)
Good view of the etched backup graticle if you look close, bottom of the reflector glass.
(http://gunsight.jp/b/image2/I-gunsight-06-1.jpg)
The fighter in this picture is a C.202 with a Type-B Middle. You can sorta see the etched backup graticle.
(http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/8632/macchi202bbv8.jpg)
-
I knew I had these somewhere.
C.202 Cockpit and a Type-B Middle.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img132/1171/macchiscoop.gif)
Some Details...Gotta love that 100Mil reticle detail.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img842/9624/sangiogiotipo.gif)
Here is page for a 1:1 exact replica of the Type-B Middle at Hyperscale. The best pictures are on page2 of the previews. I think there is enough here now for Waffel and company to put a Type-B in the C.202.
http://www.hyperscale.com/2010/reviews/kits/tailboompreviewbg_1.htm
-
Forgot to mention that I'm really digging the new Italian style gauges! :aok
-
I will look suave as I strafe down ord bunkers with my C202.
-
Nice job. I used to fly the C.205 a lot, and will again when the update is released.
Got my first Me-262 kill in one - they dive like the devil!
-
Comments on 3 things: Gunsights, drop tanks, and machine guns. In that order...
Gunsights:
While not standard, the Type C was used as early as May 1942 on the Series V when a production batch of 50 were built at SAI-Ambrosini with that gunsight installed. It showed up in later Series marks as well, but wasn't "standard" so much as it was what one factory installed. The Type C only become "standard" on the last production runs of the C.202.
Drop Tanks:
The C.202 was primarily a fighter but it could carry bombs and drop tanks from a very early date. They simply weren't used much. Once the tide of war had turned to the point they were all withdrawing to defend Italy itself from invaders, many of the 202s flew ground attack missions, bombing and strafing troops on the ground. Now, granted, these bombs were more anti-personnel than anything else. They were very low-power bombs. For AH's purposes they would be useless. At this time they still didn't use drop tanks, either. However, after the C.205 came into being (still with the exact same drop tank and bomb capacity) the armistace took place. I'm speeding the timeline up to get past the armistace. Italy was divided; about half the 205s and pilots went North to fly with Germany, and half stayed South to be hastily recognized by the Allies as co-belligerent forces.
Unfortunately, this meant that brother could be fighting brother (so to speak) and so the co-belligerent forces were tasked to attack the German army positions in the Balkans to keep them from having to fight their own kinsmen in the North.
To this end, a general order was made to use drop tanks due to the long range nature of flying to the Balkans and back. These C.205s didn't rack up many kills, though they flew an astounding amount of sorties and wreaked havoc on german positions and equipment, especially during the German withdrawal. They raised a lot of hell. I ran across this and some other interesting info the last time I dug into C.2 droptanks, from the last time it was discussed. I can't, however, find the references cited or the webpages that had this info NOW, now that I could use it.
You'll most likely find Co-Belligerent markings on photos of C.205s with DTs on them. Here's one:
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/mc205_with_drop-tanksb.jpg)
But the hectic time of the invasion of Italy means there are only so many photos of these planes. Co-Belligerent photos are pretty rare overall. The DT was important enough to warrant a historical place on the airframe in that museum in Italy. They put one under one of the wings. They must have felt it was important. Because of these points above I'd love to see the 2x 100 Liter droptanks as an option for our new C.205s.
The Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm machine gunes:
The Breda SAFAT 12.7mm machine gun was heavily adapted from the Browning .50cal machine gune. It also suffered from the same problem the Browning had: When synchronized through a propeller, the rate of fire dropped significantly compared to that of an unsynchronized gun. While the Breda might do 700+ rpm normally, when fired through the prop this dropped to about 500-550 rpm. Some references put it as low as 400 rpm, which is quite believable since this is the RPM the Ho103 had and it used the same Italian ammo as the Breda and was also built off the Browning design. In-game now our C2 12.7mm fires at ~630 rpm, which is too fast. It needs to come down a bit. The same goes for all synchronized .50cal guns, as well. They seem to fire too fast as well.
Overall there is an average where you can estimate a gun will lose X percent of its rate of fire by synchronizing it, but there are a handful that defy this general statement and lose a lot more. Ho-103s, Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm, and Browning .50cal (the first 2 basically building from the Browning .50cal) all lose more rounds per minute than the average gun. A LOT more.
So now that we're getting the new Macchis, can we get the proper nose guns for them? Now would be the time to do it!
-
Per Tony Williams on another discussion of Ho103 and Browning .50cal synchronization:
This is from my next book:
"A practical example of the effect of synchronisation is graphically provided by comparative tests held by the USN in 1926/7 of the .30" M1921 and .50" M1921, both on a test stand and in synchronised mountings. These also shed some light on the differences between claimed and actual rates of fire, and between different installations of the same gun. The .30" had a claimed RoF of 1,200 rpm, but proved capable of between 800 and 900 rpm on the test stand. When synchronised, the RoF went down to an average of 730 rpm (a fall of about 15%), with a range of between 667 and 818 rpm for different installations and propeller speeds. The .50" had a claimed RoF of 600 rpm, and did rather well to achieve between 500 and 700 rpm, depending on the recoil buffer adjustment (although a contemporary British report put this at 400-650 rpm, the difference possibly caused by belt drag when installed), but this fell to an average of 438 rpm when synchronised, varying between 383 and 487 rpm. As the synchronised guns were adjusted for maximum RoF, this represented a reduction of around 37%. There is no inherent reason why a larger calibre weapon would suffer a bigger reduction in RoF, so the synchronisation conditions must have been better suited to the .30" gun's natural RoF."
This situation still existed in 1940, as the British tested a US plane (I forget which - a Curtiss I think) with synchronised .50s and grumbled about the 400-450 rpm RoF.
So our SBD, P-40C, Brewster, P-39s, C2s, Ki-84, should all drop to between 400 and 500 rpm firing rates for their nose mounted 12.7mm or .50cal guns.
-
I really do hope they take another look at the view out of the cockpit. In all these years, I've never posted a "realism" whine, but I gotta say, this one looks pretty off. The front two support beams need spread out & lose some weight. Since it's my favorite fighter, I just felt the need to say something this time. :angel:
(http://imageshack.us/a/img20/5448/c2055.gif)
-
Well one thing is clear, Hitech likes em thick
-
I really do hope they take another look at the view out of the cockpit. In all these years, I've never posted a "realism" whine, but I gotta say, this one looks pretty off. The front two support beams need spread out & lose some weight. Since it's my favorite fighter, I just felt the need to say something this time. :angel:
(http://imageshack.us/a/img20/5448/c2055.gif)
The screenshot is of a C205, the photo is a C202. That doesn't match up.
-
WOW, 205 my favorite fighter.. Oh man, now I need to relearn the instruments..
Italiano, a Metrica.. Gonna be missing those generic gauge faces for awhile..
Looks SWEET, it was needed..
-
The screenshot is of a C205, the photo is a C202. That doesn't match up.
That particular C.202 doesn't have the armored glass. I guess I should have left that one out. The rest of the pics posted have the armored glass in place. That's really the only difference between C.202 and C.205 that matters in this issue.
-
I really do hope they take another look at the view out of the cockpit. In all these years, I've never posted a "realism" whine, but I gotta say, this one looks pretty off. The front two support beams need spread out & lose some weight. Since it's my favorite fighter, I just felt the need to say something this time. :angel:
(http://imageshack.us/a/img20/5448/c2055.gif)
Not really on my favorites list, but I do agree that the cockpit framing looks too thick compared to the photos.
-
Bringing the rate of fire of the P51s guns real life levels will be met with much gnashing of teeth.
-
Bringing the rate of fire of the P51s guns real life levels will be met with much gnashing of teeth.
What is the correct rate of fire and what is it now? As I understand it, the .50 BMG should do 10-12 rounds per second.
And why would that only affect the P-51 and not other .50 BMG armed units?
-
LOL....that was a reference to "mustang mafia" lobbying that has been going on since the early 1990s.
-
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.
-
Krusty,
The Ki-61's cannons would also be affected as the Ho-5 20mm cannon is also based on the Browning .50.
-
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.
-
I seem to recall Tony Williams mentioning it with the others.
-
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 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.
-
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? :confused:
-
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
-
:headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :old: :old: :old: :old: :old: :old: :old: :old: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch:
-
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: :confused: :( :uhoh :pray )
-
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.
-
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
:cheers:
-
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...
-
Welcome back Bro! :salute
-
Hitech, any comment on the unhelpful layout of instruments, the poor visibility on ammo counter? I'm seeing a lot of real estate being left unused, just to place the instruments elsewhere in the cockpit. The only reason for this is to try to make it look like the real thing, only in the past you've specifically NOT put historic layout ahead of actual in-game usefulness...
Comments? Are you changing your policy? Are we to expect this with every plane that is updated?
-
I agree something is off with the wind shield supports we are looking at the issue.
Good to hear! Thanks HT!
I'm seeing a lot of real estate being left unused, just to place the instruments elsewhere in the cockpit.
I for one am really happy that the instruments are placed to the places where they were in real life and that the "empty places" which didn't have gauges in them will only receive default HTC-stuff like the ammo counters. When Brewster was updated you asked for the same thing to happen, ie. adding gauges to the main instrument panel that it never had. I'm glad they didn't listen you then and hopefully they won't listen to you know. I like the cockpit layouts to be more authentic.
-
Hmm... the historical accuracy vData Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????¡ ~ ¡ ~ 276701345MltCpy2.10 FILL FILLed Sector; ST500DM002-9YN14 (CC4H) S1D5GMZY Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????Data Recovery Labs??????????????r move something around so it may be seen from the basic view in the cockpit (AH's "basic" view is by default looking though the gunsight). If I could pan the view a bit quicker and have more hot button views (in specifically a "normal" pilot view, gun sight view, gauge/panel view), that would be even better.
FWIW, I think the more historically accurate HTC can be the more justice they will do the plane they are modelling. I hope that by catering to the "game play" side of things they do not correct a handi-cap that plane otherwise had to deal with in the real deal.
-
HTC took the position that usefulness was more important back when they started. The minutae wasn't what made this game. We don't sit there for 30 minutes warming engines up before each sortie. We don't push 15 buttons when 1 will do. We have standard US instruments because we are all switching planes and the uniformity is more important than historical accuracy.
You can't have historically accurate placement of instruments while keeping this practical "1 button instead of 15" method.
Either you're doing it to present the info in the best way possible, or you're not. Doing it half-and-half doesn't do anything. It's not helpful, and it's not accurate. So we need to stick to 1. I don't think accurate instrument layout is going to help this game. It's going to hurt folks that partake of as many planes as the game has to offer.
This game isn't simulating all the tiny tiny details that real WW2 pilots had to deal with, including the secreting of instrument dials in obscure corners of the cockpit (P-40 fuel dial was on the floor by your foot, for example) that are hard or impossible to see in this game without track-IR.
Frankly HTC set the tone long ago, and now they're not sticking to it. I don't mind a graphical feel and a visual style being used. In fact I love it. However, leaving 60% of the forward dashboard unused just to hide engine RPM dials or fuel meters or any number of other things that are rather important to basic flight is just unhelpful in every way.
-
Frankly HTC set the tone long ago, and now they're not sticking to it. I don't mind a graphical feel and a visual style being used. In fact I love it. However, leaving 60% of the forward dashboard unused just to hide engine RPM dials or fuel meters or any number of other things that are rather important to basic flight is just unhelpful in every way.
As far as I know they abandoned that when they added the B-24J and Ki-84-Ia, barring extreme things like the fuel gauge being by the foot and almost impossible for non-trackIR users to see.
-
I don't think accurate instrument layout is going to help this game. It's going to hurt folks that partake of as many planes as the game has to offer.
Really, it doesn't pose much of a problem.
- oldman (unless you fly solely by instruments, I suppose)
-
You can't have historically accurate placement of instruments while keeping this practical "1 button instead of 15" method.
Why not? That's actually something that has been largely done in the new AHII models already. Seems to work fine to me.
----------------------
Personally I'd like to have the cockpits even more authentic than they are.
-
ONly, it doesn't work. The layouts aren't nearly historic. The instruments aren't either. Hiding the RPM on the brewster to be below the cockpit "forward" view is nothing more than annoying.
It's a slippery slope. If HTC wants to go "authentic" with cockpits, it will alienate a lot of people. Most instruments weren't accurate and many are taken for granted. Many of the early war designs, such as the Macchi's 1930s design, lacked most of the dials you see in aces high. Most they did have weren't accurate. Engine RPM needles could vibrate back and forth and not give accurate readouts. Fuel dials were often only calibrated to show empty (or, barring that had a red light that lit up when you were out of gas because you sometimes couldn't trust the needle on the dial).
If you want to go authentic, you must stick to what the plane had, and limit the accuracy of that. Forget about chat buffers and in-game vox. Forget about having fun. You'll spend your entire flight wondering if your guns will fire or if your engine will still be running when you meet the enemy.
HTC has not gone down this route, and has staunchly been against these kind of gameplay considerations from the start. We also don't have random component failure or engine failure or gun jams.
All of these elements are better suited to a WW2 flight simulator, and not to a "combat simulator" like aces high.
Since we have NONE of these aspects incorporated into our game, simply mixing unauthentic instruments with 1 or 2 that are hidden off the "forward" view makes no sense. Just because you hide the RPM dial on the Brewster doesn't mean it's an accurate cockpit.
Just because you hide 3-4 of the dials on the C2 doesn't make it accurate. It makes it annoying. It makes it a hinderance. This is something HTC has been against for some time, even after the B-24s and newer models as mentioned.
-
On my throttle controller, I have two buttons. One to look up, other to look down. And the hat on stick dictates which way I'm looking horizontally. Pushing horizontal view hat incombatination with up or down button, gives us the 45degrees up, or 45degrees down down views in any horizontal direction? :rolleyes:
Sooo, to look at lower dash, I push forward hat and down-button to see 'forward-down.' I also have the forward-down view F10'ed so its customized to see whole lower dash.
For 109s, foward-down is F10'ed a bit to the right, so that I can see all the auto-pilot lights which hide behind the yoke in game... red for autoclimb, green for hold verticle angle, and yellow for level flight. Knowing which auto-pilot set up im in is important! So i have this button set, helps for all plane dashboards. For trim, saitek x52 has all the wheels and slider for trim control right on the throttle also. I have game programed for two modes, and a button on throttle to choose each. First way is so that when combat-trim is off:All the trims are set to where my sliders are (usually centered) so no probs when trying to slow down for carrier landing. Second way is for when combat-trim is off, but game leaves airlerons and rudder trim alone where it was, so I only control elevator trim for extra turning powerz when flying 109s - example: pulling out of that compression dive that 109s do in game.
Also, throttle's extra front hat, I use this to scoot head view left/right and up/down when looking in any direction. Works great for spotting that enemy plane that is chasing me and trying to hide behind my tail - front throttle had left and right and i see him, more importantly his range icon to know if he's getting closer or further...
Furthermore, I have a scroll wheel on front of throttle also, which I use to zoom in and out when in zoom mode (zoom toggle button - pinky on stick)...
Controller I use is Saitek X52 (not pro), price check it on amazon.com and bring the print out or show them on your smartphone's amazon app. It's currently $105 dollars, when I got mine waaay back it was amazon listed for $80, woot! Saved me $30 about from the local large electronics store. This one has lasted over a year - no breaking buttons or anything (like saitek's junk $50 cyborgX breaks any button you push.) Stores verify prices by finding the listings on their own computers.
I am absolutely comfortable with my view set ups. And I don't have track I.R. because I assume it's too prone to FAIL me when I'm in a pinch and I need the info immediately without any technically difficulites - like turned head a tiny bit too much or too little so got wrong view and coulnt see enemy plane. Saitek x52 using buttons to scoot head etc is more 'crisp' for the the whole viewing department. Keeping ones head locked in position to avoid changing window views might give a person neck probs anyways! I look more like this when flying :rock or :O or :rofl or :furious haha or :x or :headscratch:, looking at keyboard and games dashboard instrutments. With track IR you're only supposed to move your eyes to look at each corner of our computer monitor etc :uhoh, if you move head you to help eyes see, our view scoots all over left right etc. I think Track IR is a major fail heh.
For that matter, get you a Microsoft Lifechat LX 3000, from amazon for only $25 dollars... headphones covers whole ear, so you hear every sound game makes. Most stores don't sell it anymore because if they price-match internet/amazon, they lose money.
Ok, imma go get me some breakfast, i outa here :P
Sorry if hijacked.. back to topic! C202's and C205s!
-
I think the layout in the cockpit should be as realistic as possible.....even to the point of being in the language it was originally.....I do not like the idea of random engine and gun failure and other such stuff that a real pilot had to deal with...IE the checklist for starting up....
this is a combat sim and when I am in combat I don't look at the instruments at all....no need to....everything that is needed to know while in combat has a sound association with it.....
so as far as I am concerned we can have realistic gauges and still have a combat sim without it being a full blown flight sim.
my .02$
-
ONly, it doesn't work. The layouts aren't nearly historic. The instruments aren't either. Hiding the RPM on the brewster to be below the cockpit "forward" view is nothing more than annoying.
*shrug* Works fine to me. AH views are excellent and it is easy to map well working solutions. Having authentic look of the cockpit has nothing to do with instrument errors nor not having a text buffer/vox. :rolleyes:
Having authentic instrument layout gives a more authentic feel to me than random arbitrary layout, simple as that. I'm well aware that HTC wants the cockpits to be very readable and to me, that's exactly what they are nd the cockpit of the Macchi looks like one aswell. You can protest all you like for all I care.
-
Historic as possible yes. Exception: I like the speed and alt in Standard measurement system, NOT metric!
Everything is mph is just fine by me... others might like metric... sounds like an option chosen at start games login or choose arena screen.
Same here tho, no probs with views. F10 what YOU like.
-
Anyone know if there will be any armament changes to the C202/c205?
-
And I don't have track I.R. because I assume it's too prone to FAIL me when I'm in a pinch
An incorrect assumption :) you should consider giving it a try! I doubt you'll want to go back to using hat switches
-
Historic as possible yes. Exception: I like the speed and alt in Standard measurement system, NOT metric!
Everything is mph is just fine by me... others might like metric... sounds like an option chosen at start games login or choose arena screen.
Same here tho, no probs with views. F10 what YOU like.
HiTech's stated reason for not doing metric and imperial as a choice is that it hinders player cooperation when different people are referring to things in kilometers, meters, miles and feet. Asked how high the bombers overhead are the responses 10,000/10k and 30,000/30k are substantially different and could cause differing tactical choice such as a scramble to 10,000ft to intercept the incoming low bombers only to find that they are at 30,000ft.
-
And here I thought I was a Dork Whopper with my Type-B picture show rant............... :cool:
At least I provided pictures to fight over............... :rofl
-
Anyone know if there will be any armament changes to the C202/c205?
If experience shows anything, it'll be that the flaps will pitch you forward and drastically slower turn rate the more you throw down. ( As per the stuka and hurri)
-
The only difference that matters which I can see between the earlier AHII models and couple of the released later ones is that the newer models don't have the slip indicator on the gun sight. None of these planes had one there in real life AFAIK. It does give an advantage and IMO to be consistent it would be best to either delete it from all the fighters gun sights or include it for all.
-
How is that an advantage? I never looked at that thing for any reason. Most of the time I'm not even looking forward but checking SA.
-
How is that an advantage? I never looked at that thing for any reason. Most of the time I'm not even looking forward but checking SA.
Less energy is lost in an coordinated turn versus an uncoordinated turn and aircraft departs easier from uncoordinated flight. With a lot of experience the rudder inputs of course becomes second nature for many but that doesn't change the point I'm making.
-
"With a lot of experience the rudder inputs of course becomes second nature for many but that doesn't change the point I'm making."
Sounds complicated when im using just a twisty stick for rudder, its either full, half or nothing. :lol
<S>...-Gixer
-
Anyone know if there will be any armament changes to the C202/c205?
The armament will be the same as the old version, either 2 or 4 mgs in the C.202 and either 4 mgs or 2 mgs and 2 cannons in the C.205.
-
The armament will be the same as the old version, either 2 or 4 mgs in the C.202 and either 4 mgs or 2 mgs and 2 cannons in the C.205.
Unless I am mistaken, the C.205 in the live version of AH doesn't have a choice in armament, just two MGs and two cannon.
-
Unless I am mistaken, the C.205 in the live version of AH doesn't have a choice in armament, just two MGs and two cannon.
It does. 2 12.7MG's/2 CAN or 2 12.7/2 7.7MG's.
-
It does. 2 12.7MG's/2 CAN or 2 12.7/2 7.7MG's.
Interesting. Thanks for the correction.
-
Well when I was skinning the new C.205 it originally only had the cannon option as well. I wasn't sure what the current version had so I had a look at AH Wiki. This showed both options for the C.205, so I assumed that was already the case in-game.
I mentioned to HTC that the four mg version might be useful for Sicily and early Italian campaign scenarios and they later added it to the new C.205. I guess the lower weight should marginally improve performance but I can't see it being a popular choice in the MA somehow.....
-
Well when I was skinning the new C.205 it originally only had the cannon option as well. I wasn't sure what the current version had so I had a look at AH Wiki. This showed both options for the C.205, so I assumed that was already the case in-game.
I mentioned to HTC that the four mg version might be useful for Sicily and early Italian campaign scenarios and they later added it to the new C.205. I guess the lower weight should marginally improve performance but I can't see it being a popular choice in the MA somehow.....
For a challenge. Has been a few times where I took the MG/MG option just for kicks. :aok
-
Well when I was skinning the new C.205 it originally only had the cannon option as well. I wasn't sure what the current version had so I had a look at AH Wiki. This showed both options for the C.205, so I assumed that was already the case in-game.
I mentioned to HTC that the four mg version might be useful for Sicily and early Italian campaign scenarios and they later added it to the new C.205. I guess the lower weight should marginally improve performance but I can't see it being a popular choice in the MA somehow.....
So, what? They were going to leave out the MGs on the 205 this time around? Heh... That would be rather odd.
I'd like to see DTs on the 205s. 202s could take them but really didn't operationally. 205s actually did flying to the Balkans and back after the Italian split.
-
The mgs may have just been an oversight or just "not done yet", some bits and pieces always get added after I start skinning a plane. The initial file often lacks things like small scale cockpit interior parts and weapons pylons, its just the minimum needed for me to start skinning it.
-
htc has stated many times before screen shots are not final and subject to change, W.I.P. so too speak
-
htc has stated many times before screen shots are not final and subject to change, W.I.P. so too speak
And?
We know this.
-
And?
We know this.
If you know this stop crying like a baby enjoy the work in progress and simply point out errors
-
You are the only one that could be accused of doing any of that.
-
You are the only one that could be accused of doing any of that.
LOL!! You are always pissing on every thread not I sir.....
-
I think the layout in the cockpit should be as realistic as possible.....even to the point of being in the language it was originally.....I do not like the idea of random engine and gun failure and other such stuff that a real pilot had to deal with...IE the checklist for starting up....
this is a combat sim and when I am in combat I don't look at the instruments at all....no need to....everything that is needed to know while in combat has a sound association with it.....
so as far as I am concerned we can have realistic gauges and still have a combat sim without it being a full blown flight sim.
my .02$
absolutely.
I'm often embarrased that. as an instrument trained private pilot, very very rarely do I ever look down at the panel while fighting.... but I guess in reality, when your life was on the line, you looked up at what was trying to kill you, and not down at your rpm.
I agree... I'm all for 100% accurate panel layout, even if it means I'm at a slight disadvantage in my ride of choice.
-
Hmm...
So who will guess on the next update? As a few of you have noticed, it's currently in a pattern.
Providing that it continues this pattern, what would you think is to be updated now? Going off of the other pattern that it seems to be following, I am going to guess a GV update with a new GV added. It's not outrageous to think that is a possibility if you look at the pattern. While I am not holding my breath, GV update/gv added appears to be the next step. If what I have gathered is correct about gv age, I would guess the T-34/76 gets updated, since it's the oldest GV now. But if we base it off of usage, then the Wirbelwind will be on the top of the list. Afterwards, we'll have a new GV added which will probably fall in the MW/LW era.
That's my guess based off the pattern. And personally, hope that a gv update/gv addition is next. :aok
Either way, I'm not going to complain. :D
-
The T-34/76 was the first vehicle modeled to AH 2.00 standards. At this time all GVs are up to date. The remaining 19 aircraft ought to be done before any other unit is updated.
New additions are, of course, another matter. My gut feeling is that we've now seen what we're getting. I'd love to be surprised by a C.200 or Ki-43-I, but I think this is it for the next version.
-
The T-34/76 was the first vehicle modeled to AH 2.00 standards. At this time all GVs are up to date. The remaining 19 aircraft ought to be done before any other unit is updated.
New additions are, of course, another matter. My gut feeling is that we've now seen what we're getting. I'd love to be surprised by a C.200 or Ki-43-I, but I think this is it for the next version.
That is the trick, isn't it? Seeing if there is a pattern of how HTC is adding new aircraft or remodeling outdated models, always fun to see new things. IMO, the two of the biggest gaps have been filled in adding the He111 and Oscar. The next biggest gap in the AH plane set is a Soviet level bomber (IL-4 or Tu-2), imo. Then take your pick between the Wellington, Beaufighter, Ki-100, D520, Macchi MC.200. Otherwise, the Germans dont really have an obvious hole and neither does the US. The RAF is missing a legit medium bomber (enter the Wellington), and the EW Beaufighter. The Japanese have a few aircraft that could be added that make sense (Ki-100 and Ki-45), Italians have their C202/C205, so the MC200 makes sense. The French and their D520 would be great to have for EW scenarios. Oh, I guess HTC could add a "real" Brewster Buffalo for the south Asian campaigns, that would be nice too. :)
It is anyone's guess, really. But I too agree updating some of the models currently in AH is almost as important to adding new aircraft in general because in a sense that is what HTC is really doing. :aok
-
Germans lack a mid-war bomber, candidates being Do217, He177 and Ju188.
Italians lack an entry fighter, C.200 or CR.42 and lack a bomber, SM.79-II or CANT Z.1007.
Russians lack fighter coverage for 1942 and most of 1943, LaGG-3, La-5, MiG-3, Yak-1 and/or Yak-7 and they lack a bomber, Il-4, Pe-2 or Tu-2.
British lack an early war bomber and a medium bomber, Wellington being by far the obvious choice.
Japanese lack later war carrier strike planes.
USA is light on early war carrier strike planes and late war carrier strike planes.
French lack everything. :p
Then there is the whole bunch of stuff that isn't needed, but would be fun and/or useful.
-
Germans lack a mid-war bomber, candidates being Do217, He177 and Ju188.
Italians lack an entry fighter, C.200 or CR.42 and lack a bomber, SM.79-II or CANT Z.1007.
Russians lack fighter coverage for 1942 and most of 1943, LaGG-3, La-5, MiG-3, Yak-1 and/or Yak-7 and they lack a bomber, Il-4, Pe-2 or Tu-2.
British lack an early war bomber and a medium bomber, Wellington being by far the obvious choice.
Japanese lack later war carrier strike planes.
USA is light on early war carrier strike planes and late war carrier strike planes.
French lack everything. :p
Then there is the whole bunch of stuff that isn't needed, but would be fun and/or useful.
Completely agree, but I'd like a FIAT G.50bis as the Italian entry fighter, simply because it was the second kitset I built by myself, without Dad's help.
Remember, these updates have been going my way lately, so I just increased the odds of getting the G.50 tremendously.
-
Italians lack an entry fighter, C.200 or CR.42 and lack a bomber, SM.79-II or CANT Z.1007.
And here we become closer to fielding a Spanish Civil War plane set.
Hey, we already have the I-16.
- oldman (dialing Arlo) (and wishing we could have a CR-32)
-
And here we become closer to fielding a Spanish Civil War plane set.
Hey, we already have the I-16.
- oldman (dialing Arlo) (and wishing we could have a CR-32)
You can even throw in the Bf 109B for the Luftwhiners though it would be perked.
ack-ack
-
LOL!! You are always pissing on every thread not I sir.....
Secretary/Maid Twinboom has been feeling upset lately. Too much dust and papers to file. Check back with him in a few days. :old: :noid
-
Secretary/Maid Twinboom has been feeling upset lately. Too much dust and papers to file. Check back with him in a few days. :old: :noid
Go to your room you don't talk to me this way!!!!! Im canceling your subscription to The Blue Man group porn site
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/GoodLuckBear3/I%20got%20some%20Gifs/THEOFFICEmichaelnooooo.gif)
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs4/1817470_o.gif)
-
I'm with Oldman on CR-32...what a beauty.
-
Cr.32 does have a certain style to it, but outside of very limited use in the BOB and minor use in the BoF, it was relegated to second-tier duties. It essentially became a ground strafer in the deserts of Italy. Using 2x 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT guns and maybe (not always) 100kg-ish bombs it would attack soft targets. These planes, while made in quantity, were obsolete before the war started, and replaced almost instantly.
It's like the RAF use of Gladiators.... The plane has style, but very little impact on WW2 as a whole. I wouldn't mind seeing it once all the major players are there, but there are so many others needed well before it's even on the long list.
-
The next Italian aircraft, in my opinion, should clearly be the SM.79-II.
-
The next Italian aircraft, in my opinion, should clearly be the SM.79-II.
+1
-
The next Italian aircraft, in my opinion, should clearly be the SM.79-II.
I fully agree. Italians need a bomber. :D
-
The next Italian aircraft, in my opinion, should clearly be the SM.79-II.
I concur.
-
I'm torn... While I agree the Sm79 is #1 on the Italian list... I think it shares a tied slot with the C.200.
No arguments from me if they fast-track it, though!
-
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I have to! ;)
Finally! Thank you, HTC and Greebo, it was about time the Macchi fighters got a model update! They are really gorgeous now! Great job! :cheers:
Now, if I may be my usual picky self, a few things I'd like to point out:
From the announcement page
This is the C.202 of Captain Prince Carlo Ruspoli, C.O. of the 91 Squadriglia while based at Fuka in Egypt in 1942. Ruspoli scored 10 kills for the Regia Aeronautica before joining the pro-Allied Co-Belligerant Air Force after the Armistice. 91 Squadrilgia was part of 4 Gruppo who were named after the famous Italian WW1 ace Francesco Baracca. They carried both his name and his prancing horse symbol on their aircraft, the same symbol later used by Enzo Ferrari on his racing cars.
There's a typo, "Squadriglia" is misspelled and the 4th Stormo (Wing) is called Gruppo (Group). The Stormo carried Francesco Baracca's name (it did so till 1967, when the 10th Gruppo was detached to create the 9th Stormo, named after Baracca, while the 4th was rechristened Amedeo D'Aosta, after one of its commanding officers), AFAIK the 91st never bear that name; both shared the insignia (more precisely, the Cavallino Rampante was the insignia of the 91st Squadriglia; when the 4th Stormo was created in 1931, the insignia was a winged man, but since both the Gruppi that composed the Stormo adopted Baracca's horse as symbol, it quickly became the Stormo insignia, in 1933; you can find more here (http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/Organizzazione/Reparti/Repartivolo/Pagine/4%C2%B0Stormo_eng.aspx).
One odd thing I discovered while researching Macchi C.200/202/205 series of fighter aircraft is that the left wing was built 9 inches longer span than the right. This was an attempt to overcome the uneven lift at the stall caused by propeller airflow over the wing roots. A different solution to this problem was the leading edge spoiler used on the RH wing of the Corsair. Might be why it flies a little oddly. IIRC the LW pilots who flew it rated it as having poor departure characteristics.
Can you quote your source for that? I've always known that the longer span was to counter torque, much like other aircrafts have different aerodynamic solutions for the same problem; as for stall, in the early development stage of the C.200 (whose wing is the same of the Folgore and Veltro), there was an issue with stall characteristic, but it was solved with a redesign of the wing profile (originally, it had a constant profile, that was changed into a varying profile).
Drop Tanks:
The DT was important enough to warrant a historical place on the airframe in that museum in Italy. They put one under one of the wings. They must have felt it was important.
Krusty, what museum are you referring to? I've been at Vigna di Valle and there are no drop tanks under the Folgore or Veltro wings.
I haven't had time to do any skins for the new rides yet. I will do some for the C.202/205 as the Italians had some interesting camouflage schemes. There are also three different Italian air forces that can be skinned, plus LW and Croatian markings too. I may wait and see if other skinners want to claim some first.
I have 3 skins I'm going to immediately get started on as soon as the model is released. :rock
I do hope to see a skin of "Dai Banana" (Go Banana!) the Folgore of Ennio Tarantola, one of the Italian aces of WWII
http://digilander.iol.it/enniotarantola/TarantolaVelC202Profili.htm (http://digilander.iol.it/enniotarantola/TarantolaVelC202Profili.htm)
http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Familiar/Ennio_Tarantola/index.html (http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Familiar/Ennio_Tarantola/index.html)
-
Gianlupo,
Do you have access to the manual for the San Giorgio Gunsight Type C showing the reticle pattern or a picture? HTC put the Type C in the C.202 when it should have been the Type B. I have pictures of that reticle.
-
I read about the longer wing LH wing in a couple of books including the Warpaint No 78 book on the 202/205. However some three view drawings didn't show the difference and some did. So just to be sure I found a photo of a 202 taken directly from the rear, measured the length of each wing and the left wing scaled to almost exactly 9 inches longer than the right.
There is a similar photo here (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=c.202+rear&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=R6o_LbrwFwzUeM&tbnid=4V9Wc0FJAkr1LM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AMacchi_C.202_rear_view.png&ei=pXdwUd_QN8fOOM3ZgfgK&psig=AFQjCNHmf_1vyhqEumGEQFQOgo_cMisTGg&ust=1366411475339973) if you want to check it out.
-
Hey guys!
Buster, sorry, I have nothing on the San Giorgio.
Greebo, I know that the left wing was longer, but I've always known it was designed this way to counter engine torque, not to improve stall characteristics, that's what sounded odd to me.
-
I do hope to see a skin of "Dai Banana" (Go Banana!) the Folgore of Ennio Tarantola, one of the Italian aces of WWII
http://digilander.iol.it/enniotarantola/TarantolaVelC202Profili.htm (http://digilander.iol.it/enniotarantola/TarantolaVelC202Profili.htm)
http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Familiar/Ennio_Tarantola/index.html (http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Familiar/Ennio_Tarantola/index.html)
I cannot get the pictures to load on that page. :cry
Perhaps, you could send them to me? I might give it a shot.
*** Never mind, internet fart on my end. Now I can see them !
-
Looking on the web for images (search "Dai banana" on Google image research) I found this modellers' thread:
http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=12278&page=5 (http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=12278&page=5)
It has nice pictures of Tarantola and his plane and, in the final pages, of the built model. Could be a good source for a skin.
-
Looking on the web for images (search "Dai banana" on Google image research) I found this modellers' thread:
http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=12278&page=5 (http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=12278&page=5)
It has nice pictures of Tarantola and his plane and, in the final pages, of the built model. Could be a good source for a skin.
Awesome!