Leaderboard

Skin: http://www.virtual-jabog32.de/index....at=11&file=706 Template: http://www.virtual-jabog32.de/index....at=13&file=707

Download: http://www.virtual-jabog32.de/index.php?section=downloads&subcat=11&file=722&PHPSESSID=9c9dea155805d19930d39f3125d725f3

Окончательный вариант. Спасибо Scart, за оранжировку. Лежит тут: http://www.virtual-jabog32.de/index.php?section=downloads&subcat=11&file=722

"Ничего сложного" ты сможешь говорить когда сам что-нибудь сделаешь. Найти фотки и посмотреть на них, да хоть двое суток, вот это действительно несложно. Твой некогда здоровый критицизм перерос в придирки и бесконечные поиски чужих ошибок.

Андрей, претензия не к модели, а к качеству работы! Где-то вы ковыряетесь с педантичной дотошностью, а где-то пропускаете явные косяки! Минут 30 потребовалось, чтобы вытащить из инета фотки и сравнить с моделью. Ну и сутки на более тщательное исследование!:book: Ни чего сложного. Моя волна поднята на не переделку Ка-27, а пожелание на будущее! Быть внимательными и моделлерам и дизайнерам, вот и все! Удачи и успехов всем! :thumbup:

There may not be a "need" for 20 thousand polys in a tank . . . . but considering the nature of the sim, we did need better ground unit 3D models :) Given the choice between making a model "good enough" or making it to the limit of your abilities and the abilities of current computers . . . I think most modellers would go the whole hog. I certainly wouldn't want to create a model and know I hadn't done my best. To re-state the obvious just for the record - third-party modellers obviously can't spend their time doing coding work. They are donating worthwhile features to the sim for our enjoyment, and deserve the credit for it. They're doing a fantastic job. And trust me . . . . first time you pop over a rise to see an unexpected group of enemy units right in front of you, and watch that beautifully crafted turret slowly swinging to bear . . . . . their work will REALLY be appreciated ;)

The same engine doesn't automatically mean you'll get the same performance from the engine. The intake system can make a BIG difference - especially comparing the fixed geometry intake on the F-16 to the variable geometry intake on the F-15. The intakes on Concorde and the Blackbird were absolute works of art - they were the single biggest thing allowing the performance of those two aircraft. There'll be differences in static thrust and at low Mach numbers due to differences in the ducting systems as well . . . . those aren't so big, but you can pretty much guarantee they'll be there. Just as an example - observe pressure recovery curve comparing the intake efficiencies:

What do you do when you see your missus staggering around the room? Reload and finish her off.:music_whistling: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/mcm3-1-a1.htm

Well, there doesn't seem to be much of a contradiction in that particular part of the envelope, does there? Where the crux of the problem (and there does seem to be one) with the thrust numbers and at high altitudes lies is another issue entirely - as Rhen points out there is any number of possibilities in this regard. That the Dash-1 is so grossly inaccurate would be the least likely of them IMHO, unless said inaccuracy is deliberate, as pointed out above.