PDA

View Full Version : KI-43 gunsight question



sunflower1
01-23-2005, 07:13 PM
Am I having artifacting or is there a cover on the gunsight that must be toggled off? The readme's didn't shed any light on it.

eddiemac0
01-23-2005, 07:25 PM
"ctrl-D" should fix your problem (it toggles a "sight dimmer" for those shots into the sun on many axis planes), and then Shift-F1 to get a closeup in the sight, if you want it. Shooting from there can be a little difficult. I'm just hoping I can finish the Ki-43 sections of my campaign and get away from that awful sight forever...

sunflower1
01-23-2005, 07:36 PM
S!

Oh good, another hard sight to use. I needed that.

Stiglr
01-23-2005, 07:52 PM
This "annoyance" feature is a sad tradition for Oleg. Not sure, but is it still undocumented???

I wonder, if it were set to default that you could *see* through the d@mned things, if anyone would ever bother to toggle it closed. Knowing combat can occur at any time, I doubt it. I'm willing to bet the covers were used to shield the telescopes from pebbles and debris on the ground, far more likely than anything hitting it in the air.

Since the finer points of weapon systems, such as turning on reflector gunsights, arming switches for individual weapons, etc. is outside the scope of the sim, it seems a rather annoying bit of trivia to have to figure out how to take lens covers off telescopes.

This all started as an "annoy the Germans feature", whereby the right-eye-favoring Revi gunsights had to be toggled to show a useful gunsight picture (which, incidentally, is NOT a factor for a pilot sitting in a 109; the offset does not require a Messer pilot to consciously shift his head to use the sight). Just bad form, and part of the very subtle bias in the sim from the very beginning.

LEBillfish
01-23-2005, 09:26 PM
I love the feature and those of the german sights if correct.

Plus the sight is awesome...is a pain to use but I assume it works just like r/l as you can still shoot without it but don't expect to be accurate.

Why do you think they came up with sights like on the other planes...hmmmmMMMMM?

Stiglr
01-24-2005, 11:10 AM
The point i'm making, Billfish, is that it is already necessry to enter a "telescopic sight" view just to use your weapons, which takes into account the fact that these early sights weren't as advanced as the reflectors.

But, adding an additional "feature" like a lens cap, making "closed cap" the default and requiring players to "figure out how to open it" is just stupid. As I said, the default should be open, as pilots were not usually in the habit of flying around *not* ready for action (and, in the case of reflectors, they are not required to turn those on in game, which in real life, rookies were known to forget; still this is not a factor in IL-2 for those planes, why burden a telescopic plane with having to remove a lens cap?)

It's frivilous detail for its own sake. They should have been this nitpicky about the turn radii, dive/climb rates, acceleration and other physics factors.

p1ngu666
01-24-2005, 12:04 PM
i want a ki43 with a revi sight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Asgeir_Strips
01-24-2005, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The point i'm making, Billfish, is that it is already necessry to enter a "telescopic sight" view just to use your weapons, which takes into account the fact that these early sights weren't as advanced as the reflectors.

But, adding an additional "feature" like a lens cap, making "closed cap" the _default_ and requiring players to "figure out how to open it" is just stupid. As I said, the default should be open, as pilots were not usually in the habit of flying around *not* ready for action (and, in the case of reflectors, they are not required to turn those on in game, which in real life, rookies were known to forget; still this is not a factor in IL-2 for those planes, why burden a telescopic plane with having to remove a lens cap?)

It's frivilous detail for its own sake. They should have been this nitpicky about the turn radii, dive/climb rates, acceleration and other physics factors. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldn't agree ,more :P :P