ChrisDNT

Amazing! I really love the sharpness of the render engine

Great, you choosed the best solution to keep the whole thing coherent :yes:

You can go there: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/397357/L/ This pic shows just exactly what I would like to see when I look down at my instruments: my legs and only the upper part of the stick. For me, this would give the most realistic and immersive impression. Cheers,

"I dunno about that. Have you seen Kirk's F-16 for FS2004? He modeled the arms and legs in there too, and it look GREAT. very smooth and realistic. but I agree with the above, it would be best to not be able to see the floor!" I don't know Kirk's F-16, but why not try this solution if it looks good and real. My main request is immersion and when I look now at an empty cockpit, after having played Lock-On, it doesn't work anymore, I feel it fake ! I can't really explain why, but, in Lock-On, I enjoy seeing the legs as if they were my legs, but if I imagine seing too the arms, I would say "hey, who is in my cockpit". In fact, I do like how the legs are modeled in the Lock-On cockpits and how only the upper part of the stick is visible, so no problem for me not to see the right arm. As a resume: No legs: a ghost is sitting in my cockpit Legs and arms: who's flying in my cockpit, it's not my arms? Only legs: I'm in my cockpit It's not really rational, I admit it, but I feel it this way ;) Cheers,

I must agree with this remark. I've always enjoyed the cockpits in IL-2 and FB, but after having played with LocK-On, when I get back to Forgotten Battles, I feel as I am the Invisible Man or Casper the Ghost and it's rather disturbing, not natural, to see the floor of the cockpit simply empty! I think Lock-On choosed the best compromise by modeling only the legs and not the arms. Cheers,

"While real pilots may have to this to I think looking at and reaching for a physical switch with with your arm is faster than doing the same with the mouse to a virtual switch." Exactly! "I won't mind as long as I can do all the important stuff with the keyboard." Me too ;) Cheers,

I've never seen a fighter pilot with a mouse in the cockpit, but rarely "on" the cockpit ;) http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/3389...rHunter_025.jpg More seriously, I don't find very realistic, during a dogfight, to unhand my joystick and use a mouse to activate some device. Ok, I know, there's no PC keyboard in a jet fighter cockpit, however I prefer to have to push a key on my keyboard, like a real pilot would have to push a key on his side cockpit panels. For instance, on this pic, you can see one of the "keyboards" in an Hawker Hunter cockpit: http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/3389...RMk.71A_002.jpg In my opinion, the best virtual cockpits are to be currently found in Lock-On and I would simply be very happy to have to same standard in Jet Thunder. Cheers,

In my opinion, it's better to prepare new models to keep a real visual homogeneity with the very good aircrafts already done. Cheers,

"Most MP server for IL2 mix planes from 1939 to 1945 and from russia, germany and even japan. It's up to who runs the server to asure historical correctness." That's exactly the problem. I do hate to see over a Normandy map Italian Ki-84's fighting against Finish Mustangs for instance. It simply ruins my immersion, but I agree, it's a matter of personal taste. The big difficulty is that the servers with historical correctness are extremely rare. For me, playing like that is like having a Ferrari and riding at 50 km/h ;) "An armed Mirage III needs at least 2000 meters of runway space to operate, so in this scenario, we have Mirage players flying from the continent - a 45+ minutes flight - operating at the limit of their ranges - just like in real life. I don't mind this scenario, as I'm a Full Real guy and will enjoy to see the difficulties that these Mirage pilots suffered in the historical setting." That's also the kind of playing I like and I'm dreaming of a game mode for online dogfights which would allow realistic tactical situations. In fact, the game would begin a little bit like a Counter-Strike game: someone lauches a server, the players take their slots, starting with aircrafts already in the air (with the correct fuel quantity of course) , but in a realistic formation (perhaps documented from historical datas), in the combat zone, for instance five minutes far from the target (still enough time to choose among some different target attack options). To succeed in the mission, the attackers would have to destroy the target and land back to their home airbases. This way, historical missions could be played with acuracy, without the long "ferry" flight to the target. I know "air start" is not a realistic feature, but I think it's about the only solution to have aircrafts flying in a constituted formation and coming over a target together in a manner which looks to the real situation. I've played many times on scripted servers with FB and I've for instance never seen a squad of He-111 flying together and attacking a target in a realistic way! Cheers,

Hi Dante, Glad you liked my modest point of view :D You wrote: "This way you describe, is Oleg's/IL-2 way. In my opinion, is what makes that sim so strong in the multiplayer feature. And also, all third-party models developed are great looking and have good, tested FMs." I perfectly agree, I think the Oleg's way is the good way, because it's a coherent way. And that's the first thing I noticed about the Jet Thunder project when I looked at it, it is its coherence. Cheers,

At first, hi all, as this is my first post on this board. Seriously, I think that the Thunder-Works team choosed the best concept for modability with this: " Fully mod-enabled, aircraft paints can be customized, and tools will be available to create new terrains and campaigns" Because if a modder can simply add his own aircraft in the game, you will get the "Strike Fighters" mess: - Irrealistic or non-validated FM's. - Possibility of online cheating. - irregularity in the 3d models, some can be very good, some can have very wrong shapes. In my opinion, a third-party aircraft has to be valided by the dev team for its 3d model accuracy and the making of its FM and DM must stay with the dev team and be locked (the way TW team is searching for accurate docs about aircrafts real FM's is very encouraging) The menu interfaces should also stay under the responsability of the dev team. Simply to keep a own graphical line to the product. I'm not a fan of the "too personal" menu interfaces which can be simply ugly! Also if a new terrain and a campaign are developed by a modder, it would be good that the dev team would check it and propose it, with the new terrains, campaign and aircraft with the correct skins, in a complete downloadable file, also to avoid the SF mess! Because the concept of a game based on a single conflict, with the right aircrafts for this theater, is simply really good: I'm not so interested in flying a Mirage III over Vietnam or a Crusader for instance over the Malvinas! There's already Strike Fighters for that kind of simming and what I'm really looking for in the sim developed by ThunderWorks are seriousness of the FM's and seriousness of the tactical situations. Cheers,