puxflacet
-
Content Сount
1,694 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Battles
3784
Everything posted by puxflacet
-
how did i miss this? sign me in... i noticed you already included latest british addition weymouth - shes a beauty. but shouldnt be caledon also in the list? interestingly she didnt receive her ww2 refit... EDIT: and i am one of the who would not include colorado into the list - she could be considered as new generation of post-war ships like nagato...some even consider queen elisabeth class or bayern class as super-dreadnoughts (also you would have to include new mexico as well...) EDIT2: oh...and amagi is there also...i dunno
- 332 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- dreadnought
- jutland
- (and 4 more)
-
yet she's beauty
-
"tiling" means pattern repetition. i'm asking because it seemed to me that with your latest campbeltown camo set there is no pattern repetition but after close look i think there are just 2 repeats, right? i was pointing out in other thread that wg regular camouflages are wrongly executed because they are tiled but real naval camouflages were not. you can take a look if you are interested: link ...so i was just wondering if it is possible to make proper-looking naval camo (without tiling) with current game code.
-
one of the well-know examples of extreme dazzle pattern in ww2 french cruiser Gloire (La Galissonniére class) in 1944: completely irregular - no tiling ...in case your eyes were really dazzled
-
Hi Wawan, may i ask you a question? It seems that the last camos on the Campbeltown are not tiled, right? How did you achieve that? EDIT: oh, now i see that there are only 2 tiles across the whole hull...so is it possible to apply just one tile over the whole ship's hull?
-
i wrote that my objections are towards regular camos and not premium camos, which are in fact mainly historical. and im not against fantasy - but prefer believable and good-looking fantasy. my main point is that in-game regular camos have flawd design because they are tiled and as i demonstrate, there was not such thing as tiled naval camo aboomination, on 16 October 2016 - 03:18 PM, said: Those could actually work in game to some extent that's interesting point actually - so far i valued the camos only from aesthetical point of view, but could these camo also work in game as intended in real life - confuse the enemy? question for you guys: have you ever been confused by in-game camo like wondering for few seconds in which direction is target ship heading? i agree that camos like this could actually work in the game: smokestacks will reveal the true course and orientation of the ship but still player could be confused for few seconds...
-
In fact WG just did that, but they tiled it again so not really looking good or authentic And in response to the early razzle-dazzle: this early stuff is maybe a bit more extravagant but still beautiful (invented by an artist Norman Wilkinson) and i would not hesitate to take example from these for promo camos instead of the current ones ...and one exception to show that indeed some other than wg tried to tile...but still exception
-
i am not saying that every ship should have unique camo. one way is to remove regulars completelly - which would be somewhat ok for me (at least to get rid of the current ones) and wait for premium camo for every ship. but i like the concept of national camos - in fact these existed (german baltic stripes, american measures) so the concept for regular camos is not bad but wrongly executed. and i belive it can be done just like i showed in the example. i am not completely sure about it since i didnt play with camouflages.xml file enough but i believe the premium camos are done just like that - without tiling with just one pattern put over their hulls - and not skins
-
- 69 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- camo
- camouflages
- (and 2 more)
-
like ship designs, stats, behavior...ships floating the water and not flying in the air...or space...that sort of things ;)
-
i know but still thick two minutes would be ok if we would be able to control the "secondaries" (152mm) and just 5 of them on every side wouldnt make this ship op... then after 2 min you would have the extra 343mm punch...could work...i mean - this is how it worked. but wouldnt exactly fit into wg concept of battleships. but thats the problem with battleships before dreadnought
-
why should the games be interconnected? i dont want that because there is no way to do that and maintain some degree of realism and fun at the same time
-
and is she really so much op? i dont have that impression...
-
Old Mikasa/Pre-dreadnought Appreciation Society thread - Please see page 27
puxflacet replied to HMS_Worcester's topic in Other
a bit older sister but wouldnt you love to try 550mm of belt armor in action? or 450mm 910kg shells able to penetrate 530mm of armor at 2 km? or deploy your own torpedo boat? -
oh god... (isnt possible to purchase ship as a gift from NA to EU?...i suppose not!!!)
-
not so much same as mikasa - with 457mm of belt armour would be the heaviest armored ship in the game (imagine that at low tiers)...but also the slowest 17,5 kn...also her "secondaries" are not as impressive as mikasa. but main armament 4x343mm would be rather strong on tier 2 (or wherever...) but also short ranged (10km) and inaccurate these ships have a potential. if there will be more pre-dreadnoughts and if they would be placed in proper enviroment (pre-dreadnoughts facing other pre-dreadnouts + early dreadnoughts and other contemporary stuff) + figer out the problem with multicaliber primary armament - these ships would be fun for sure: more close range brawls between bbs, more ramming with big rams... the major problem with mikasa is that she is alone. every other bb outclass her. but if there will be more ships like her...that's different story (just remember some encounters between two enemy mikasas) ...wg just have to figure out...time will show
-
HMS Hood (1891)
-
real deal is always protection vs mobility. problem with armor is weight. the more armor ship has the bigger/stronger engines and enough space for them is needed thus bigger hull. longer hull also provides more speed these monitors resigned to mobility so didnt need big engine rooms to achieve great speeds see for yourself: as i wrote. admiral popov had 406mm armor belt
-
just look at the picture. arent these turrets big? and there is stated that this monitor should carry the turrets from borodino battlecruisers - 3x356mm. and there is simply no problem to armored it to the top. actually its small size is ideal for it. so the only downside is indeed speed. 10 knots at best as you said. hope we will never see these things in WoWs because that would be pain actually there is other famous russian rarity. coast-defence ship admiral popov, named after her designer (he designed other monitor and yacht - both circular in shape). this thing had 406mm of armour but can hardly get more than 8 knots. also to maintain course was rather difficult for her
- 89 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Guns
- Trajectory
- (and 1 more)
-
peter the great was the one and only https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Great and indeed bolsheviks would never named a ship after him
-
(courtesy of Rurik-2) CLICK FOR HI-RES info: http://www.gwpda.org/naval/irn16bb.htm interesting armor design for one of the projects: + really nice completely made-up design of a battlecruiser from the same shipbucket contributor
- 89 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Guns
- Trajectory
- (and 1 more)
-
no třeba alasky taky nikdy nebyly oficiálně označovány jako bitevní křižníky, ale jen křižníky...je zajímavé, že nikdo neříká deutschlandům bitevní křižníky, i když by splňovaly kritéria líp než scharnhorsty ale hlavně s příchodem rychlých bitevních lodí (bismarcky, north caroliny, iowy, littoria...) se celý koncept bitevního křižníku stal úplně zbytečným
-
není to bitevní křižník a určitě ne "historicky". oficiálně označení bitevní křižník nikdy nenesl - to mu dalo až dodatečně pár historiků a nadšenců. striktně vzato byly scharnhorsty opak bitevního křižníku ale hlavně se bitevní křižníky po roce 1922 už nestavěly. poslední bitevní křižník by byla amagi (případně lexington)
-
Slezman, on 18 August 2016 - 12:00 PM, said: Křižník s velkýma dělama. proč furt mluvíte o scharnhorstech jako o křížnících sakra? však gneisenau s 380kama už nemá s křižníkem prakticky vůbec nic společného. však mají nejtlustší pancéřový pás na tieru, jsou větší než colorado i nagato a že jsou rychlé? a co iowa? po roce 1930 byly všechny bitevní lodě rychlé