|
Post by number47 on Jan 30, 2013 9:04:55 GMT -6
I suggest changing the picnum for following units:
UnitID 682 -> picnum 243 UnitID 2249 -> picnum 53 UnuiID 2402 -> picnum 155
UnitID 2309 should be renamed to "T-84-120 Yatagan".
|
|
|
Post by number47 on Jan 31, 2013 1:22:49 GMT -6
Do you need reference pics (or links) for the suggestions above or will you just take my word for it ? ;D P.S. also asking for future reference...
|
|
|
Post by number47 on Feb 1, 2013 2:07:19 GMT -6
UnitID 2285 should be renamed to "PT-91 Twardy" the rest of the name refers to another tank...
|
|
|
Post by Fistalis on Feb 1, 2013 6:39:42 GMT -6
Do you need reference pics (or links) for the suggestions above or will you just take my word for it ? ;D P.S. also asking for future reference... If you want to save me time A link to a pic of the real unit (or you can post one) and a pic of the desired model would help. That way alls i have to do is look at the current model used and say yea or nay.
|
|
|
Post by number47 on Feb 1, 2013 15:11:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by number47 on Feb 8, 2013 8:47:11 GMT -6
Few suggestions:
1. UnitID 4710, "AS90P Braveheart 155mm", tech lvl 102 should be renamed to "AHS Krab 155mm"
2. UnitID 4725, "AS90P-2 Braveheart 155mm", tech lvl 104 should be renamed to "AHS Krab 2 155mm"
3. UnitID 11123 "Mig-29K Fulcrum Naval" should be "Mig-29K Fulcrum-D"
4. UnitID 11126 "Mig-29M Fulcrum-M" should be "Mig-29M Fulcrum-E"
5. UnitID 11145 "Mig-35 OVT Fulcrum" should be "Mig-35 Fulcrum-F"
|
|
dax1
Supreme Newbie
Posts: 11
|
Post by dax1 on Feb 13, 2013 8:51:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by number47 on Feb 13, 2013 10:44:50 GMT -6
Well, unless someone makes new mesh there is nothing Fistalis can do about that...
|
|
dax1
Supreme Newbie
Posts: 11
|
Post by dax1 on Feb 14, 2013 9:48:39 GMT -6
Well, unless someone makes new mesh there is nothing Fistalis can do about that... maybe ausing the SAMP/T-15 ASTER 15 mesh is more realistic.
|
|
|
Post by number47 on May 30, 2013 4:56:37 GMT -6
Still wrong in 0.83 version
|
|
|
Post by number47 on Jun 3, 2013 16:21:43 GMT -6
Fistalis, are you reading this?
|
|
|
Post by number47 on Jun 17, 2013 7:50:57 GMT -6
There are quite a few units in AA department that are incorrectly named. The game sometimes use NATO designation and sometimes use GRAU designation for unit name and I was wondering what standard would you prefer?
Would you use the the NATO designation for all, local designation for all or mixed designation as I'm about to show you in the example below. For example, unit 5601 "SA-2 Guideline", which standard do you thing would be best of the following: "SA-2 Guideline", "S-75 Dvina" or "SA-2 Guideline (Dvina)" or another example on unit 5329 "2S6M Tunguska" (on of the incorrect ones) "SA-19 Grison", "2K22 Tunguska" or "SA-19 Grison (Tunguska)"?
If you decide which standard would you use, I could then "fix" the current ones and properly correct the incorrect ones.
|
|
|
Post by Fistalis on Jun 17, 2013 8:51:31 GMT -6
There are quite a few units in AA department that are incorrectly named. The game sometimes use NATO designation and sometimes use GRAU designation for unit name and I was wondering what standard would you prefer? Would you use the the NATO designation for all, local designation for all or mixed designation as I'm about to show you in the example below. For example, unit 5601 "SA-2 Guideline", which standard do you thing would be best of the following: "SA-2 Guideline", "S-75 Dvina" or "SA-2 Guideline (Dvina)" or another example on unit 5329 "2S6M Tunguska" (on of the incorrect ones) "SA-19 Grison", "2K22 Tunguska" or "SA-19 Grison (Tunguska)"? If you decide which standard would you use, I could then "fix" the current ones and properly correct the incorrect ones. Local/manufacturer name would be preferred(easier to keep track of variants, and only former soviet and chinese aircraft have NATO call signs anyway) I just have enough to do without redoing all the unit names.
|
|
|
Post by number47 on Jun 18, 2013 5:19:21 GMT -6
I was primarily refering to Russian anti-air units and the fact that some are named by Nato designation and some by local designation...
This poses a problem when one wants to correct the existing errors.
For example, (as I already mentioned) unit 5329 "2S6M Tunguska" is incorrect. The actual AA system is correctly named either "2K22 Tunguska" (GRAU) or "SA-19 Grison" (NATO).
Or another example, unit 5437 "S-1 Pantsyr (SA-19)" is also incorrect. The actual system is named either "Pantsir-S1" (GRAU)or SA-22 "Greyhound" (NATO).
Do you see why I asked which standard would you like to use(GRAU, NATO or something mixed)? Or would you prefer that we simply state "unit xxxx in named wrong" and not to offer correct name?
|
|
|
Post by Fistalis on Jun 18, 2013 6:13:39 GMT -6
Local/manufacturer name would be preferred. So if you're referring to strictly Former soviet AA then go with the russian(GRAU) designation. (or an english translation there of such as Tunguska) I answered the question.. just wasn't the specific answer you were looking for I guess Just FYI I wouldn't worry about any of the really old units (like pre 1960) since one of the things I may do to increase overall performance is cut those out of the unit file prior to 1.0
|
|