Question about airplanes in GWX

[Einsman]

Hello.

I have read Gwx's manual (1.03) and with the exception of a detail, everything was nice. :up:

The detail is the following one: The AR-196, OS2U-3 "Kingfisher" they are the same plane.

http://static1.filefront.com/images/personal/e/Einsmman/69741/wtfoibqvmg.thumb500.jpg

http://static1.filefront.com/images/personal/e/Einsmman/69741/lrkziunaeg.thumb500.jpg


The OS2U-3 "Kingsfisher" had a only float. It's a oblivion, simply clone units, laziness to modeling a new plane :p?

http://static1.filefront.com/images/personal/e/Einsmman/69741/zfngycutrx.thumb500.jpg

Regards.

[joea]

Clever jab...NOT. It's a subsim, not a flight sim. :shifty:

[Dowly]

:roll:.........................:damn:

[melnibonian]

The OS2U-3 "Kingsfisher" had a only float. It's a oblivion, simply clone units, laziness to modeling a new plane :p?

You're correct in what you're pointing out and the GWX Team thanks you for it. If it is possible to be fixed ti will.

Why you have to spoil everything by this kind of "silly" and "childish" comments? :down:

The GWX Team has NOTHING to prove with respect to its determination and eagerness for work to ANYONE

CASE CLOSED

[Einsman]

The OS2U-3 "Kingsfisher" had a only float. It's a oblivion, simply clone units, laziness to modeling a new plane :p?
You're correct in what you're pointing out and the GWX Team thanks you for it. If it is possible to be fixed ti will.

Why you have to spoil everything by this kind of "silly" and "childish" comments? :down:

The GWX Team has NOTHING to prove with respect to its determination and eagerness for work to ANYONE

CASE CLOSED
Hello again.

1. Yes, It's a subsim, not a flight sim. But, the OS2U-3 "Kingsfisher" had a only float and it's not a Ar-196 but all we want the maximun of realism in this simulator.

2. It was not a silly commentary, only it was a sarcastic(*) commentary with humor without despising the work of anybody in the GWX team.

(*) ... because it is vocally oriented, sarcasm can be difficult to grasp in written form and is easily misinterpreted. To prevent this some people emphasize words with italics, bold, capitalization, and/or underlining (e.g. that’s just great); sarcastic comments on the Internet (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Internet) with an emoticon (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Emoticon).

I would like to write something more, but I don't dominate this language and I don't want to be misinterpreted.

Sorry for my english

Regards.

[Jimbuna]

I would like to write something more, but I don't dominate this language and I don't want to be misinterpreted.

Sorry for my english

No need to apologise Kaleun Einsman, IMO your English is very good. :yep:
We all have an opinion on this forum and a choice as to what version of the game we play.
If your disappointed with the content and or quality of GWX you always have the option to revert back to stock/vanilla :arrgh!:

[melnibonian]

The OS2U-3 "Kingsfisher" had a only float. It's a oblivion, simply clone units, laziness to modeling a new plane :p?
You're correct in what you're pointing out and the GWX Team thanks you for it. If it is possible to be fixed ti will.

Why you have to spoil everything by this kind of "silly" and "childish" comments? :down:

The GWX Team has NOTHING to prove with respect to its determination and eagerness for work to ANYONE

CASE CLOSED
Hello again.

1. Yes, It's a subsim, not a flight sim. But, the OS2U-3 "Kingsfisher" had a only float and it's not a Ar-196 but all we want the maximun of realism in this simulator.

2. It was not a silly commentary, only it was a sarcastic(*) commentary with humor without despising the work of anybody in the GWX team.

(*) ... because it is vocally oriented, sarcasm can be difficult to grasp in written form and is easily misinterpreted. To prevent this some people emphasize words with italics, bold, capitalization, and/or underlining (e.g. that’s just great); sarcastic comments on the Internet (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Internet) with an emoticon (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Emoticon).

I would like to write something more, but I don't dominate this language and I don't want to be misinterpreted.

Sorry for my english

Regards.
No worries mate. I did not realised this and I appologise :oops:

We're good and cool so go forth and enjoy GWX ;) :up: As far as the planes are concerned as I said before if something can be done it will (it's a matter of time and practicality with the upcomming update)

[denis_469]

Hello.

I have read Gwx's manual (1.03) and with the exception of a detail, everything was nice. :up:

The detail is the following one: The AR-196, OS2U-3 "Kingfisher" they are the same plane.

http://static1.filefront.com/images/personal/e/Einsmman/69741/wtfoibqvmg.thumb500.jpg

http://static1.filefront.com/images/personal/e/Einsmman/69741/lrkziunaeg.thumb500.jpg


The OS2U-3 "Kingsfisher" had a only float. It's a oblivion, simply clone units, laziness to modeling a new plane :p?

http://static1.filefront.com/images/personal/e/Einsmman/69741/zfngycutrx.thumb500.jpg

Regards.

New version Kingfisher - like foro - made now.
Find unit LBSKingFisher=гидросамолёт "Кингфишер"
Plane like in foto.

[joea]

No problem man, don't worry about it, if anything you have a nice eye for detail.

[bigboywooly]

:zzz:

You must have an old version of GWX

Mine dont look anything like that

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h22/bigboywooly/Kingfisher.jpg

:rotfl:

[Dowly]

Ssssh :rotfl:

[Kpt. Lehmann]

:zzz:

You must have an old version of GWX

Mine dont look anything like that

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h22/bigboywooly/Kingfisher.jpg

:rotfl:

Yeah, lazy my A$$. Einsman, what have you contributed to the community chest lately? I can't seem to find your mods.

<chews another handful of nails >

While I am at it... How much did you pay for GWX???

:stare:

Nevermind me. I'm just being sarcastic.

[Kaleu. Jochen Mohr]

:zzz:

You must have an old version of GWX

Mine dont look anything like that



:rotfl:
Yeah, lazy my A$$. Einsman, what have you contributed to the community chest lately? I can't seem to find your mods.

<chews another handful of nails >

While I am at it... How much did you pay for GWX???

:stare:

Nevermind me. I'm just being sarcastic.

do's helping on a mod counts to ? :hmm:

[Einsman]

:zzz:

You must have an old version of GWX

Mine dont look anything like that

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h22/bigboywooly/Kingfisher.jpg

:rotfl:
My Silent Hunter III configuration is:

- Clean copy Silent Hunter III (NO MODS)
- Patch 1.4 Ubisoft
- GWX 1.03

This plane is showed in Musseum with GWX 1.03.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7657/kingfisherhz7.jpg

Is showed too in Figure 327 (pag. 270) Manual GWX 1.03

My commentaries have been done after seeing these images. I see totally disproportionate all the commentaries of the team GWX.

[bigboywooly]

Not all things can be done at once
The " new " Kingfisher is from GWX 1.04

[Kaleu. Jochen Mohr]

Not all things can be done at once
The " new " Kingfisher is from GWX 1.04

OOOOOOOH! do i notice a sneak peak here :hmm:

[bigboywooly]

Ummm

Yes that was sneak peak 6
Enjoy

:rotfl:

[Kaleu. Jochen Mohr]

Ummm

Yes that was sneak peak 6
Enjoy

:rotfl:

thank you. was waiting for that
:rotfl::rotfl:

[lutzow]

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h22/bigboywooly/Kingfisher.jpg
:o ...i'm crushed again...what a beauty...

[Einsman]

Not all things can be done at once
The " new " Kingfisher is from GWX 1.04

I know it. And your work does not have price. If you have GWX 1.04. Then I give the reason you. I have old versíon of GWX.

My first post was not anything depth charge to the team GWX. Another thing was that was misinterpreted my words by sarcastic tone.

Anyhow some commentaries have been very arrogant.

Yes, I am not a modder, but it doesn't disqualify me from being able to think about the result of a work.

Good night.

[bigboywooly]

@ Lutzow

You aint seen nothing yet :up:

[denis_469]

@ Lutzow

You aint seen nothing yet :up:

Yes, I think so.

To team GWX 1.04 - you excellent rework plane:up:

[lutzow]

@ Lutzow

You aint seen nothing yet :up:

Yes...i feel old and broken...i never saw anything...and your sneak peeks are like a ''torpedotreffers''...
Incoming of the NEW GAME is killing me slowly before releasing.

:oops: :-? ;)

[Jimbuna]

@ Lutzow

You aint seen nothing yet :up:

Yes...i feel old and broken...i never saw anything...and your sneak peeks are like a ''torpedotreffers''...
Incoming of the NEW GAME is killing me slowly before releasing.

:oops: :-? ;)

Do yourself a favour (that includes some others)..............and try and hang on long enough for the release :arrgh!:

[JU_88]

@Einsman -

Im sorry if you felt some of the Teams replies to be arrogant, I genuinly belive that was NOT their intention. They are not arrogant people and they have worked liked mad on GWX for almost 2 years solid - and to imply that they are lazy (even jokingly) will not go down too well Im afraid :oops: I know you weren't nasty or anything.....
I'm not blaming you or anyone I think it was just a misunderstanding .

You are quite right that the Kingfisher model was innacturate.
in GWX 1.01 to 1.03 the Ar196, kingfisher and Jake are all the same model with different skins.... back when 1.01 was made - there just wasnt time to cover every small thing with a fine tooth comb

The model was orginally the Arado from the deck of the Bismark in SH3 - Sergbuto made it into a functional unit many moons ago.
it was ok for the Arado and Jake - but did not represent the Kingfisher very well, as you pointed out ....Hence the need for 1.04. ;)

[Einsman]

Good morning from Spain.

My words could be the drop that fulfilled the glass, but always I have respected the work of the team GWX and everything what they do with this game looks like to me a magic

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=121558

For my part, closed case.