Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted

I think the pit would look a lot better if those side panels were set at a more vertical angle compared to the bottom MFD. You can clearly see how it gets this very blurred out part underneath the panel which kind of kills it IMO.

Posted

If Dels wants to change it, it will be up to him. He has really gone above and beyond for me and I do not want to impose upon him anymore.

Posted (edited)

cockpit_04.jpg

index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=28135

As you can see the whole bottom of the pit is angled way to sharp. If you can't see it I'm referring to the U/C, bottom MFD and Arming panel.

 

If Dels has the time for it he could easily add the prominent stick, throttle and ejection handle with simple planes that use alpha, especially if hands and feet are added to further mask areas one doesn't have proper refs for. The easiest way to do this would be to simply rip things from photos and assemble in PS. If you set the view angles so none of the pit is actually visible when looking sideways there is no reason to have that stuff modelled in 3D.

Edited by Julhelm
Posted

I understand Julhelm but read my previous posts. I am not going to bother Dels with something as minor as this. He wants to get to work in the B-52 pit.

Posted
I could do that stuff if it's OK with him.

 

I will get the final model today and I am releasing it tonight. (barring a natural disaster) But thank you anyway. :good:

Posted

Just thinking out loud here but what would people prefer? Very dedicated A2A version, or A2G version? Little of both. How are you more inclinded to use it? Me I will use for an A2A platform and use the F-35 as my A2G platform. Thoughts?

Posted
Maybe both personally, save on HD space.

 

Oh I wasnt alluding to 2 sep planes like I did with the other one. Just curious on how most people will use it. Sorry I should of been more specific.

Posted
Just thinking out loud here but what would people prefer? Very dedicated A2A version, or A2G version? Little of both. How are you more inclinded to use it? Me I will use for an A2A platform and use the F-35 as my A2G platform. Thoughts?

 

I'll use the 22 as an A/A platform and use the 35 as a A/G platform with limited A/A capability.

 

Falcon

Posted
Just thinking out loud here but what would people prefer? Very dedicated A2A version, or A2G version?

 

Not a pound for air-to-ground. :biggrin:

Posted
^ LOL,WTF?!? (2)

 

 

ok , you guys are starting to scary me :blink:

 

You didn't know about the Fighter Mafia and the creation of the F-15?

Posted

OK, first of, yes indeed, the F/A-22 needs mud-moving potential. JDAMs, SBD's, the lot. Heck, that is why the latter was made.

 

As to the name-change chicanery, mEESTER bEEG pANTS, aka Column5, is having too much fun.

 

Lastly, the F-15 advocates were fairly vociferous during development on adding absolutely no accommodations for the deployment

of any air dropped iron, thus the above quote.

 

I hope I have clarified for all interested parties.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..