Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Koty]

Yes... it seems more and more people are forgetting the time it takes to do this... for example it took me severall weeks just to fix the landing gear animation, add counter rotating props and get one turret working... Modding is not an easy task but I love doing it and if more people realized the difficulties then I think every one would get along just alittle bit better

Yeah, agreed... and the 3D work - it's not like taking the windows painting tool and drawing a stickman - it's hours and hours of constant work - tomorrow, I was struggling two hours to redo the vertical stabs on my MiG-25. Result? I did nothing in the end, I ended where I begun realising, that I would need to do further edits... (yeah, I wanna fly those ones (104/23/25, yeah, selfadvertisment LOL) really soon so... as I have time, I'm on it...) ...so, now I realise how harsh it was from me when I said that some Ranwers's works looked ugly... I apologise again - now I see that it takes loads of time and nerves to get at least reasonably close thing...

[western0221]

Yes.
rockdoon worked important parts of v2 improvements.

Developing Tu-95 v2 was by some stages.
Its 1st was rockdoon's animation Java codes (with old too too light weight FM).
My new realistic FM was after his finishing animations.
So, today's gear visual problems doesn't come from his work.


We have to consider most straight answer to solve gear sinking problem.
We don't have the confidence it's able to do it with only Tu-95's classfile tuning, or need IL-2 core classes changing.
(About AI workings, IL-2 core classes changing is needed. It's known.)

[Koty]

Well, Western, don't you think it really might be that visual suspension and coded suspension (via hook) don't have same values?

[western0221]

Well, Western, don't you think it really might be that visual suspension and coded suspension (via hook) don't have same values?

I have completely no idea about it now.

Again, I don't know we can fix it only with tuning Tu-95's class or not -- need IL-2 1946's core classes changing.

[wolfiz]

I'm not a fan of the old and strange Tu-95 FM, it just takes off, drops its bombs and lands. Has anyone ever tried slightly lower idle RPMs for these errant planes with startup ground handling issues, even if they aren't exact historical ratings?

[Fresco23]

I'm not a fan of the old and strange Tu-95 FM, it just takes off, drops its bombs and lands.

Aren't you complaining because the new FM DOESNT do these things??? So whats the problem with using the OLD one for now and giving the authors time to work??

[Zachary_Braun]

It's possible that he meant it in a literal way, in that, the plane would just take off, drop bombs, and then land (without following any waypoints). If that is the case.

[Draken]

I tried this plane in CUP .
It is not possible to take off : full pulling the stick gives no climb effect...

[Koty]

I tried this plane in CUP .
It is not possible to take off : full pulling the stick gives no climb effect...

Use flaps and reach 300 km/h, it should work.

[Draken]

So , it means that the landing speed is also at least 300 km/h ?

[Koty]

Pretty much - yes. Just so you know - everytime I play with Tu-95, I make the RWY a lot longer, so that I can take off. However - somehow, I think that AI's aren't able to land.

But they taxi perfectly and takeoff perfectly - with realistic FM.

[teisco]

Here is a little video I put together featuring this great model. It is in HD 1020p if you view it full screen in YouTube.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>