F8F Planeside

F8F Planeside (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

TheElf -> F8F Planeside (1/2/2005 11:46:29 AM)
F8F [image]local://upfiles/9170/Ca825184614.jpg[/image]

Platoonist -> RE: F8F Planeside (1/2/2005 12:17:00 PM)
I did try modding the F8F Bearcat once. Results were kinda mixed. [img]http://ruhkarv.homestead.com/files/F8FBearcatAptop.jpg[/img] [img]http://ruhkarv.homestead.com/files/F8FBearcatPlaneSide.jpg[/img]

TheElf -> RE: F8F Planeside (1/2/2005 1:25:04 PM)
Very nice work Platoonist.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: F8F Planeside (1/2/2005 1:59:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Platoonist I did try modding the F8F Bearcat once. Results were kinda mixed. [img]http://ruhkarv.homestead.com/files/F8FBearcatAptop.jpg[/img] [img]http://ruhkarv.homestead.com/files/F8FBearcatPlaneSide.jpg[/img] Yep, it's on file, along with a few others.

Andrew Brown -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 2:32:55 PM)
Count me in as well. Sounds great! I know very little about OOB stuff, but I will do what little I can. For anyone wondering, the mention of my map mod does not mean that you will have to use my map mod to use such a combined scenario. That way it would be developed is: 1) Develop the scenario as "normal". 2) I modify it to use my map mod (I use a script so it is not hard). So it would be available for both the official map and my modded map. Of course the extra bases (and their corresponding LCUs) would only be present in the scenario converted for use with my mod. A chat sounds like a very good idea. Of course you guys are all in other time zones, so no doubt it will be 3am my time... Andrew

michaelm75au -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 2:45:30 PM)
At last count, carrier capable aircraft are in slots 76-102 and 244-249 for Allies and 1-25 for Japanese. Michael

Don Bowen -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 4:52:42 PM)
Here's some thoughts on Allied carrier aircraft. US Designation = British Designation F4F-3 = Martlet I/III Martlets form original French (I) and Greek (III) orders taken over by Britain – none served in Pacific F4F-4 = Martlet II/IV Martlet II served in Eastern Fleet from April, 1942. Martlet IV had a different engine and British Model MGs. Carried the U.S. designation F4F-4B but none served with US forces. FM-1 = Wildcat V Eastern Built F4F-4, MGs reduced to 4 and ammo increased. British standardized name to Wildcat about same time FM-2 = Wildcat VI Lighter version of F4F with better engine – heavily used on US and British escort carriers. F6F-3 = Hellcat I Initial version. F6F-3N = ???? Night Fighter version F6F-5 = Hellcat II Slightly faster, lower wing loading. F6F-5N = ???? Night Fighter version F4U-1 = Corsair I/II Corsair I = F4U-1, Corsair II = F4U-1A (I think??) F4U-1D = Corsair IV Corsair III similar from alternate U.S. manufactures (F3A, FG) Notes: Aircraft in base OOB (Scenario 15) indicated in bold. Corsair IV is in the OOB but with stats that seem to equate to F4U-1, not F4U-1D British Carrier Group usage in the Pacific appears about equal for Wildcat V/VI, Hellcat I/II, Corsair II/IV with many groups listing only base type (i.e. Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair) We should reserve two of the new spots for F8F and F8FN, putting them in the upgrade path behind F6F/F6FN I think we need the Martlet for early 1942 deployment – could be named Martlet II or just Martlet. If the FM-1 variant is not worth including for U.S. the equivalent Wildcat V certainly isn’t for British and we can replace it with the Wildcat VI (both V and VI heavily used on British CVE in 1945). Leaving out the F6F-3/Hellcat I is OK but we might consider renaming Hellcat II to just Hellcat. Not so sure about Corsairs. If F4U-1/F4U-1D are divided for U.S., maybe should be for U.K. If added, should be Corsair II based on Eastern Fleet deployments. No need to consider alternate manufacturer designations. Sea Hurricane: not sure what version we should use: Sea Hurricane I: http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft1/avion1/332.html#2822 Sea Hurricane II: http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft1/avion1/218.html#1557 Main use in Eastern Fleet was by Indomitable, 880 Squadron, in 1942. These are listed as simply “Sea Hurricane” in 4/42 and 5/42 OOB, then “Sea Hurricane IB” in 8/42 (replaced by Seafire IIC as of 5/43). Seafire: Both Seafire IIC: http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft1/avion1/156.html#1721 Seafire III: http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft1/avion1/40.html#1722 Used in Eastern Fleet. The version in the OOB appears to be a IIC, with availability of 6/42 (version III dates from 11/43). Should we switch to Seafire III??? Use both with upgrade?? Does anyone know if the British had a carrier-based night fighter??? Only other aircraft I've found that might be worth inclusion is the Barracuda II - a version of the Barracuda with radar. The TBF/Avenger I and TBM/Avenger II set is fine. The British made little use of U.S. Dive Bombers. Albacore would be a bit of a stretch. On the other side, the Sea Gladiator can be removed and (in needed) the SB2U could be moved to a non-carrier slot.

Blackhorse -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 6:41:31 PM)
I enthusiastically endorse the idea of the finest modders joining forces to revamp the campaign game. A nice present for the New Year. I'm willing to throw in my 2 cents, mostly on land OOBs. Andrew Brown already has my rework of the US at start forces in Alaska. I also have a list of the US forces slated to be transferred from Europe to the Pacific to participate in the two planned invasions of Japan. For the Japanese, I have a brigade-level OOB (four units) for the India National Army (INA), complete with historical leaders. Let me know who, if anyone [:)], wants them. Should I just post them here? Finally, if anyone is willing/able to play with the weather, I have a fairly good list of the actual monsoon / heavy rain seasons for different countries and island groups. Also, the NE weather zone should be overcast or worse 2/3rds of the time . . .

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 6:47:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blackhorse I enthusiastically endorse the idea of the finest modders joining forces to revamp the campaign game. A nice present for the New Year. I'm willing to throw in my 2 cents, mostly on land OOBs. Andrew Brown already has my rework of the US at start forces in Alaska. I also have a list of the US forces slated to be transferred from Europe to the Pacific to participate in the two planned invasions of Japan. For the Japanese, I have a brigade-level OOB (four units) for the India National Army (INA), complete with historical leaders. Let me know who, if anyone [:)], wants them. Should I just post them here? Finally, if anyone is willing/able to play with the weather, I have a fairly good list of the actual monsoon / heavy rain seasons for different countries and island groups. Also, the NE weather zone should be overcast or worse 2/3rds of the time . . . Posting here is good but sending well labeled files to Don Bowen for the archive is also good practice. Thank You![:)]

TheElf -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 7:15:44 PM)
Don, I'm not smart on the current limitations of the A/C slots in the WitP Database. Strictly speaking of artfiles here, there some things we need to know before prioritizing which aircraft we add: For both the Jap and allies: 1. How many slots in the database are open? 2. Of those open slots how many are carrier capable? 3. Do the number of slots in the DB match the number of available planetop and planeside slots? 3a. Are there more DB openings than are possible to represent with Planetops or planesides? 4. When we know the above, Which A/C can use the same Artfile(ie. FM-2, F4F-4, F4F-3, Martlet etc.) 5. Where possible or deemed necessary which A/C do we really want to have their own unique art file. 6. Can we delete current Planetops that NEVER appear in the Game so as to make room for new aircraft(ex. delete the Catalina or Mavis Planetop in favor of the F8F, or Kikka) 7. If we do step #6, how does that affect the planeSIDE correlation to the original A/C that occupied that slot 8. All the above being said, can we expand the planetop/side files so that we don't HAVE to delete ANY A/C and thus avoid the problem altogether. Any info/input would be appreciated.

Don Bowen -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 8:26:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf For both the Jap and allies: 1. How many slots in the database are open? 2. Of those open slots how many are carrier capable? All this is from the standard scenario 15. Some of these slots have been used in the modified scenarios. Japanese have eight: 8, 14, 24, 30, 34, 37, 46, 76 (8, 14, 24, 76 are carrier capable) Allies have 27: 171, 187, 190, 192, 200, 202, 203, 206, 209, 210, 211, 215, 217, 221, 225, 228, 231, 235, 237, 241, 242, 244-249 (244-249 are carrier capable) quote: 3. Do the number of slots in the DB match the number of available planetop and planeside slots? I have read on the forum that there are MORE database slots than icon slots. Apparently there are no icon slots for database positions 244 (or so) and up. I have not played with this and am not sure. quote: 3a. Are there more DB openings than are possible to represent with Planetops or planesides? Yes and No. There appear to be more database entries than icons but more than one database entry can point to a single icon quote: 4. When we know the above, Which A/C can use the same Artfile(ie. FM-2, F4F-4, F4F-3, Martlet etc.) 5. Where possible or deemed necessary which A/C do we really want to have their own unique art file. Matter of choice. Similar aircraft of the same nationality could easily be combined. No one likes to do this but it will probably be necessary. quote: 6. Can we delete current Planetops that NEVER appear in the Game so as to make room for new aircraft(ex. delete the Catalina or Mavis Planetop in favor of the F8F, or Kikka) 7. If we do step #6, how does that affect the planeSIDE correlation to the original A/C that occupied that slot No, the SINGLE icon bitmap reference points into BOTH the top and side files, so the top and side views are linked. quote: 8. All the above being said, can we expand the planetop/side files so that we don't HAVE to delete ANY A/C and thus avoid the problem altogether. That's a question for Matrix, but I would guess they would be reluctant. I'd like to see at least enough to match the 249 air positions. But then, if you asked me, I'd also like to see more aircraft positions.

Lemurs! -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 8:36:01 PM)
I am a bit less concerned about late 45 and 46 then i am with earlier years. The Sea Hurricane should just be left with one model. The Seafire can be split into versions used in late '42 and then the versions used in late 44-45. Albacore was in the war. It is in my mod. F6f3/5 could be a good split, i have been thinking about it. The F6f3 was not that good of a plane and i feel both sides carrier planes are rather over rated. If we split the hellcats we could have a one point mnvr shift. I am tempted by the f2a2 as used by the US navy at war start or the f2a3 as used by the Marines from Dec8th 41 till Midway. Do we want to include the Hurri IId/IV? 2 40mm cannon were considered quite useful and it was in service till the end of the war. We should probably fix the Li-2 so it is not carrier capable as well. Maybe the Ki60, maybe add Advanced Kawasaki engines if you are interested in my advanced engine concept. On land units i would like to get a discussion going with someone who knows something about Jap land OOB's. I did what i could but the games Japanese OOB is screwed. Do mechanized squads move faster than regular squads? Is a mechanized unit feasible for the game? India should probably have imobile defense units in every hex in India; The British kept 108 battalions or so scattered throughout India as counter insurgency troops throughout the war. Mike

Tanaka -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 9:31:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown Count me in as well. Sounds great! I know very little about OOB stuff, but I will do what little I can. For anyone wondering, the mention of my map mod does not mean that you will have to use my map mod to use such a combined scenario. That way it would be developed is: 1) Develop the scenario as "normal". 2) I modify it to use my map mod (I use a script so it is not hard). So it would be available for both the official map and my modded map. Of course the extra bases (and their corresponding LCUs) would only be present in the scenario converted for use with my mod. A chat sounds like a very good idea. Of course you guys are all in other time zones, so no doubt it will be 3am my time... Andrew good news! i was wondering about this!

Tankerace -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 10:25:35 PM)
Oh yeah, since I guess SPook didn't gt it I'll resend it, but I'll contribute my P-47C Razorback, which can double for the P-47B, C, and D-1 through D-22 variants. I propose we have the P-47C, P-47D-10, P-47D-22, P-47D-25 (bubble), P-47N, and possible P-47M.

Don Bowen -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 10:26:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lemurs! I am a bit less concerned about late 45 and 46 then i am with earlier years. The Sea Hurricane should just be left with one model. The Seafire can be split into versions used in late '42 and then the versions used in late 44-45. Albacore was in the war. It is in my mod. F6f3/5 could be a good split, i have been thinking about it. The F6f3 was not that good of a plane and i feel both sides carrier planes are rather over rated. If we split the hellcats we could have a one point mnvr shift. I am tempted by the f2a2 as used by the US navy at war start or the f2a3 as used by the Marines from Dec8th 41 till Midway. Do we want to include the Hurri IId/IV? 2 40mm cannon were considered quite useful and it was in service till the end of the war. We should probably fix the Li-2 so it is not carrier capable as well. (snipped) Mike Ok, a tentative list starts to form for the carrier slots: Martlet II F6F-3 F6F-3N Hellcat I F8F-1 F8F-1N Seafire III Albacore plus Sea Hurricane (replaces Sea Gladiator) and Wildcat V converted to Wildcat VI We will have to more the Li-2 if slot 243 ended up being carrier capable. Not sure on this. We could also consider moving the Vindicator out of a carrier slot. We have either 6 (244-249), seven (maybe 243 OR move Vindicator), or eight slots (243 AND move Vindicator). Ideas??

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 10:29:20 PM)
Don't forget the piston/jet Ryan Fireball's of VF-66 which completed carrier qualifications and was ready for combat deployment on Boxer fall of 1945.

Don Bowen -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 10:36:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Don't forget the piston/jet Ryan Fireball's of VF-66 which completed carrier qualifications and was ready for combat deployment on Boxer fall of 1945. So many planes, so few slots!

Andrew Brown -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 11:13:37 PM)
No chance of adding the F7F??? I thought that they were just entering service at the end of the war and would have been there for sure if it had lasted any longer.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 11:16:02 PM)
Why not eliminate all the aircraft between what we start with and what is the best of each type? With this 1.41 upgrade/downgrade concession to the RTS fans the lesser planes will never be produced.[:(][:@]

Tankerace -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 11:23:14 PM)
I dunno about that really.... I mean some people will produce more of there favorite. In PBEM games in 45 you'll see my guys running with SBDs, P-40s, and P-47s. No Mustangs or Helldivers for me.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 11:40:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace I dunno about that really.... I mean some people will produce more of there favorite. In PBEM games in 45 you'll see my guys running with SBDs, P-40s, and P-47s. No Mustangs or Helldivers for me. The whole point of this game was to refight the Pacific war in a wargame format. This ticks me off. There had better be some huge PP cost penalties paid for tampering with the upgrades. And the penalty should be no gurantee, it would merely allow a roll to see if player can change upgrade and production, and then the type is not selected by player but by random among improved aircraft types. Whatare we, CEO's of manufacturing plants as well? Why not let us design our own ship classes. Damn it, just leave it alone, for once. All the good ideas are turfed but this fantasy crap passes. Geezus![:@]

TheElf -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 11:43:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: Lemurs! I am a bit less concerned about late 45 and 46 then i am with earlier years. The Sea Hurricane should just be left with one model. The Seafire can be split into versions used in late '42 and then the versions used in late 44-45. Albacore was in the war. It is in my mod. F6f3/5 could be a good split, i have been thinking about it. The F6f3 was not that good of a plane and i feel both sides carrier planes are rather over rated. If we split the hellcats we could have a one point mnvr shift. I am tempted by the f2a2 as used by the US navy at war start or the f2a3 as used by the Marines from Dec8th 41 till Midway. Do we want to include the Hurri IId/IV? 2 40mm cannon were considered quite useful and it was in service till the end of the war. We should probably fix the Li-2 so it is not carrier capable as well. (snipped) Mike Ok, a tentative list starts to form for the carrier slots: Martlet II F6F-3 F6F-3N Hellcat I F8F-1 F8F-1N Seafire III Albacore plus Sea Hurricane (replaces Sea Gladiator) and Wildcat V converted to Wildcat VI We will have to more the Li-2 if slot 243 ended up being carrier capable. Not sure on this. We could also consider moving the Vindicator out of a carrier slot. We have either 6 (244-249), seven (maybe 243 OR move Vindicator), or eight slots (243 AND move Vindicator). Ideas?? We need to be careful here. Before we start adding every iteration of a given A/C we need to make sure the base line A/C are represented. For example lets just get one F8F, one F7F, one Fireball, one of any new aircraft before we go hog wild with 10 different P-47D or Wildcat models and sub-variants. Just my opinion. I want ALL these aircraft too, but imagine how complicated things will get for production and upgrading etc. Then throw in the night fighters and you need to think about Night combat ratings and researching all these units that were the only units to operate a limited run of some A/C. Given that we are already limited on art files, I think we should also be making an effort to conserve the soon to be dwindling database slots. Especially given the pace that we are on now! One way to do this might be to combine A/C that are Identical, yet operated by two different countries under different names. For example the FM-1/Wildcat V and FM-2/Wildcat VI. When we create/mod them in the DB they are technically identical, except for the paint job and the Name. So in the name category put "FM-1/Wildcat V", Unfortunately the Art will be a generic US scheme more than likely unless we can get more BMP slots. I think Mike (Lemurs) Has the right idea to start with. Lets decide on one main model and then debate the merits of adding an important sub variant or two. Once we get the foundation built we can add more specific sub-variants. One F6F3/5, One F6F-3/5N, One F8F-1, One F8F-1N(but there were only 15 of these produced!). There were actually MORE F7F NFs built than F8FNs, nearly one hundred. To what extent is the F4U modelled in the late war? That aircraft would play a bigger late war role than the F6F or F8F, particularly as a NightFighter. Thoughts?

Andrew Brown -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/2/2005 11:54:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf We need to be careful here. Before we start adding every iteration of a given A/C we need to make sure the base line A/C are represented. For example lets just get one F8F, one F7F, one Fireball, one of any new aircraft before we go hog wild with 10 different P-47D or Wildcat models and sub-variants. [SNIP] Thoughts? That is my view as well. I would rather have a broader representation of different aircraft before having a great veriety of a single type. Within reason of course. Andrew

Marc -> IJN Heavy Cruiser OOB (1/3/2005 12:08:42 AM)
There are still many errors in the OOB concerning IJN CAs as I already posted in July. If you would make use of the data I could contribute it. Please let my know before I start the work because my time is limited. quote: There are a few errors regarding the armament of the CAs of the Myoko and Takao class. The Myoko class had a Torpedo armament of 2x4 tubes left and right with a total ammunition of 24 torpedos (16 in the tubes and 8 in reserve). This refit took place in 1939-1941 (the Myoko the last to finish it). The Takao class looked different too: The refit of Takao and Atago couldn't be finished before the war started They also had only 24 torpedos just like the Myoko-class. Their secondary armament was still the four single 12-cm HA guns. The ships were equipped with the four twin 12.7 cm mounts in May 1942. Chokai and Maya couldn't be refitted before the war started. Armament: secondary guns: four single 12-cm HA guns (Chokai till sunk in 1944!!, Maya till conversion to AA-cruiser) Torpedo: they kept their 4 twin mounts with 24 torpedos. (Chokai till sunk in 1944, Maya till conversion to AA-cruiser. She then got the 4 quad mounts but without reserve torpedos). Source: Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War, Eric Lacroix and Linton Wells II http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0870213113/qid=1088882968/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/103-2073616-7935040?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

TheElf -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/3/2005 12:12:01 AM)
I think if we take the game hypothetically into 1946 the F7F needs to play a major role a CAS aircraft for the Marines and a NF for the Navy and the Marines. The F8F "Bearcat" and the F7F “Tigercat” were the final family members in Grumman’s fabulous series of prop driven USN fighter aircraft. The F7F Tigercat evolved from the work of a three-man design team at Grumman, which included Bob Hall, Dick Hutton, and Gordon Israel. The Navy gave an OK to the development of a prototype in mid-1941, however it would not be until April 1944 that the first production Tigercat was delivered. The Navy planned to use the first two hundred F7Fs as night fighters, but due to unsatisfactory carrier suitability trials; the decision was made to scale back the order and equip only shore-based Marine squadrons with this aircraft. Performance tests of the first production F7Fs were impressive. The F7F was almost 80-MPH faster than an F4U Corsair in level flight at sea level. As WW II wound down, the USN changed its plans for the F7F. Newer variants were developed with the most common being the F7F-3N. The 3N was the first F7F to pass carrier qualification on the USS Shangri La in February of 1946. The final variant was the F7F-4N that included a taller rudder, a stronger wing and fuselage, and improved landing gear and tailhook

Tankerace -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/3/2005 12:27:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf We need to be careful here. Before we start adding every iteration of a given A/C we need to make sure the base line A/C are represented. For example lets just get one F8F, one F7F, one Fireball, one of any new aircraft before we go hog wild with 10 different P-47D or Wildcat models and sub-variants. [SNIP] Thoughts? That is my view as well. I would rather have a broader representation of different aircraft before having a great veriety of a single type. Within reason of course. Andrew I agree to an extent. When having a variety of different types, some can be omitted. i.e., the F4F-3 and -4. They are basically the same plane. For the P-47s (for exanple), the P-47C, D-10 and 22, D-25, and N were all very different aircraft. Besides, I thought the plan was to concentrate more on the 1941-1945 years, and then slots permitting extend the stuff into 1946. It makes more sense to me anyway to work on aircraft that served several years in game, than to add one which will serve 6 months at most. Now, on some planes we can consolidate, but we shouldn't shortchange one plane to add in a postwar plane, espececially if our aim is to be historically correct. With that, our goal should be 1941-45, and then slots permitting, add in 1946 stuff.

TheElf -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/3/2005 12:30:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf We need to be careful here. Before we start adding every iteration of a given A/C we need to make sure the base line A/C are represented. For example lets just get one F8F, one F7F, one Fireball, one of any new aircraft before we go hog wild with 10 different P-47D or Wildcat models and sub-variants. [SNIP] Thoughts? That is my view as well. I would rather have a broader representation of different aircraft before having a great veriety of a single type. Within reason of course. Andrew I agree to an extent. When having a variety of different types, some can be omitted. i.e., the F4F-3 and -4. They are basically the same plane. For the P-47s (for exanple), the P-47C, D-10 and 22, D-25, and N were all very different aircraft. Besides, I thought the plan was to concentrate more on the 1941-1945 years, and then slots permitting extend the stuff into 1946. It makes more sense to me anyway to work on aircraft that served several years in game, than to add one which will serve 6 months at most. Now, on some planes we can consolidate, but we shouldn't shortchange one plane to add in a postwar plane, espececially if our aim is to be historically correct. With that, our goal should be 1941-45, and then slots permitting, add in 1946 stuff. This is an excellent point. However there are some models that were in production as early as 44-45 that never saw service. But in a game that goes into 46 you may get as much as a year of use out of it.

TheElf -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/3/2005 1:10:40 AM)
Latest efforts [image]local://upfiles/9170/He969572431.jpg[/image]

Iron Duke -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/3/2005 1:18:01 AM)
Hi, Elf have you done a top down of your sig. the Ki-94-I

CobraAus -> RE: F8F Planeside (1/3/2005 1:25:45 AM)
As I said yesterday I am working on Andrews Map and up to stage 3 moving into stage 4 steep learning curve on converting 2d map to Game map here is a couple of before after shots at end of stage 3 let me know if heading in right direction or your own views As Andrew has indicated version 2 is on the way I am creating auto functions so I can convert a new map panel in about 15 mins Cobra Aus 1 before shot map panel 10 [image]local://upfiles/13770/Qo388011151.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9375