Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Model'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunità Italiana
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section


  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 3 results

  1. SniperWolf90

    New Ishizuchi model, AA buff?

    Was looking at my Ishizuchi when I discovered that there are guns on top of the main turrets. Is this new? I have not seen them before, there is 10 of them in total, two for every turret. They are not in the equipment list of the ship, they seem to be the same type (they look the same) as the AA guns mounted on the vessel (AA Guns 80 mm / 40 3rd Year Type). I have not tested them them yet, but since they are not in the list of weapons on the ship, I doubt they work. Sooooo, is this an AA buff in the works?
  2. DumbleDerp

    Builders Yard - Model Ship Builds

    So just started a build of the Bismarck and thought I'd post the progress in here. It's a 1/350 Tamiya, so not the official, sponsored WG model, but we'll see how it goes. I'll post more updates as I go along, would like to hear from any other people doing similar stuff. I'll also try and get better pictures too
  3. Hi all, "Armor models are wrong" response." Flaw confirmed. We will fix it. We will look into it more. If there is truly such inconsistency, we will fix it. We are not going to split cruiser belts into such sections. Tapering them for historical accuracy would be gameplay nerf, and this is not something we want for cruisers. It's not that clear, we won't take actions until we have solid proof. Friedman often gives vague wordings, unfortunately. As for belt-backing we mostly treat it as balancing tool. We can add it if we need it. We will review the model. As for aft belt, it is not clear to us yet. We will look into it more. It would be nice to know whether external or internal belt is meant. Will fix the belt, and will look into bulkheads (we will review it additionally). There was no belt there. If magazine protection is meant, then we need some solid proof to act. Will fix that. I commented on backing above. We will review the model. We will review the model, same here. Yamato nerf request, huh? Our sources indicate they are adequate. It is present on the model, probably not viewable yet. That's right, but these are intentional conventions. We won't change this. Not confirmed. Not confirmed. Another Yamato nerf request Yep, it's not a big deal, so no, it won't happen. Game convention. That's right. NC is modelled differently because of balance purposes. On the side note: we don't consider Skulski a reliable source. He is fond of making some missing parts up. This is understandable though - original Yamato blueprints are scarce, we spent much time and effort to gather everuthing we have. We will review the model. Will fix that. We tend not to split magazine armor and decks into segments if there is tapering. Game convention. We will review the model. Same as with Des Moines: we don't split magazine armor and decks into segments if there is tapering. Game convention. We will review the model. Navypedia is not a reliable source for us. It's not like we always have first-class sources. But according to them, it is heavy armor. So..not confirmed. Same here. It is not missing, it is not visible in the viewer. It was indicated upon viewer release in patch notes, that some parts may not be visible (technical reasons, will be improved at some point). We will review the model. Uh. Looks like we're done. As you can see, most part of comment is relevant. Dear author, thanks again for your input. Fair seas! Leo "Apollo11"