MA_Goblin

Right, I said to myself let it go but I'll try to explain one more time why the refraction is important. The glass pane is 58mm thick, it's slanted towards the pilot and that means that the light (image) coming from over the cowling will bend downwards making the bar disappear. See images attached. Notice the first image the extreme result of refraction making the "bar" disappear and the cowling jump down to the bottom inside the glass. Also note that the side window are 30mm thick on the real thing! Also note that the side frame also looks significantly smaller.

@Esac: Don't read the thread. Put the people you don't want to listen to in the ignore list and you'll never see any more posts. Not meaning this as an offence but merely a suggestion for you. regards

Unfortunately I don't think it'l work :( Cast AR acts as a display unit and that means you have to edit the output lua file to make it appear as a monitor. Thus you can have the complete render on this but I don't think you can render a MFD for instance as every time you move your head the MFD would disappear. Of course I could be wrong and I'd like to be wrong :D

I do believe it's legal and atleast in my book even fair (i backed a lot of dollars) because it's not the same company. RRG went bust and the "contract" was with them not ED.

Problem solved, Snacko mailed me the missing file and now it works again :D I will not use BitDefender Free again! Gone back to AVAST instead.

I have the same problem, Bitdefender corrupted mu updater and repair files and thus I can't update or repair anymore. Bitdefender is uninstalled but the files are destroyed. Any ideas how to fix this. I don't have any versions to revert to apparently.

Any-one tried this?

Great work Luthier :) Keep it going but take care of you and the team.

I've read everything I can find to get an answer but I'm not quite sure that I have anyway :) I know, I know. RTFM but here goes nothing. My Q is this: If I choose two of the same as flyables will I be able to give one away to a friend?

Greetings, I've waited for this moment :-D. I have a Q, if I don't want to use all rewards can I leave them blank then?

@rootango: Sorry mate but I haven't made any demands in my post, have I? Since I have had the unfortunate privilege to be project manager in IT projects I do believe that the lack of communication and the in-ability to make the games own web site with info and consolidating the data from the KS and PP are simply bad customer relationship. I also have every ED module except the Mi-8 already so I don't need the P51 key for any other purpose than giving it away. I really don't think that it's on my part to make them do good on their statements and promises. I fully accept delays and that it will take this entire year for them to produce anything viable but only, and i repeat only if they tell me that that's how everything is. That is customer relationship. If they are stretched thin then say so. I don't mind. But don't tell me nothing!

I've also put in some cash, it might not be that much in $ but it's definitely a lot in my currency! I would really like to have some info about the backers rewards and perhaps a key to the P51 also. To not be able to create the website for the title or to be able to consolidate the database from KS and the PP backers after six months speaks volumes to me and I've set my mind to the fact that my cash's gone and thus since I'm burned twice now by the same people I'll never jump on the bandwagon of pre-financing anything again. //

Merry X-mas from Sweden :-)

Watch this long video made from a developers viewpoint and the difference Mantle will bring over DX. The number of objects in the demo halfway in is astounding and the data presented at about 40 minutes in are great.

Thank you :) For some reason when I tried that the link persisted.

Sorry if it's been seen before but I find it intresting :) and as usual I can't get the embedded video to work ?

@MM It is quite obvious that late in the war the German effort was hampered and thus the engineering and development wasn't on par with the allies. Statements from Günther Rall amongst others make it clear that the only planes that were equal to or better (depending on tactics and pilot) were the 190D model, Ta190 and the Me262. So as a axis flyer you'd have to adopt the tactics against the P51 or the Jug.

And it's still not a bar that "block" the view through the Revi but the Reticle Dimmer that is "darkening" the bottom part. The small joint of the armoured windshield and frame is nothing like the old "bar" that was high enough to block the Revi!

Congratulations, have a blast mate :)

I didn't mean it in that fashion, English is not my native language so sometimes it's perceived in the wrong way when I write something. I'm just an engineer and am interested in WWII flying technology and collect things about it and was simply interested to know if the marking was a know forgery. I know from my own work as a navy engineer that different revisions of drawings sometimes comes out and are stamped with the same date and time even though there are revisional differences. What strikes me is that my drawing shows the glare shield and padding but yours only show the Revi mounting bracket.

Regarding the picture from the video and what's shown there it has never been up for debate. What has been up for debate was the "bar" that the lower fram/mounting of the armoured glass has. In all earlier models in the "other" games that "bar" was so high it was an obstacle in the Revi which clearly is not the case. That the sunscreen and the mounting of the revi glass itself is somewhat blocking the line of sight is perfectly fine by me so I'm happy. Regarding my drawings: Could be, I don't know. So very hard to know such things. The only way is to verify by flugwerk in Germany that has all originals and the rights to them but I have got no answer from them as of today. I've even asked to buy a copy of that part but has no answer yet. However this is the marking of them and if it's a forgery it's good enough to foll me any ways. If it it a forgery I'd be very happy to be told so since that is kind of important to know for me to avoid using it as reference. And to not use my sources for drawings any more. Best regards.

The footage from the video doesn't show a bar in the lower part of the Revi! It shows the transparent dark glas that are designed to block out the sun in special conditions. It's just misaligned and not in the bottom stored position. Thus giving the illusion of a bar present. Look at my original 1943 drawing posted above. The pilots eye are in fact situated in level with the combing/padding and don't see the lens projecting the image on to the glass. Also very clear in the drawings.

The original drawing clearly shows that no bar is in the view. The quality of the image is low on purpose but you can see that the hinges and mounting of armoured windshield is on level with the cowling. This is the Ta152 but there is no difference in the construction drawings of the 190, 190D and Ta152. And this is the only image of the drawings I will post. And to me the drawings are conclusive that every model that has a bar in the view from the pilot are wrong! The drawing is a copy from 1943.

@Namenlos Ein: Bloody h**l, I tried everything but that :)

Very nice footage :) Sorry but I can't add a video for some reason.