BF-109 wrong side supercharger in cockpit view

FCELPI
30 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
edited March 7
i dont know if this figure is the supercharger that you actually see when you are in the cockpit view, but if it is, is in the wrong side, it should be on the left and not the right

https://imgur.com/a/lvmhFjZ



[mod edit - title edited to remove ALL CAPS]

Post edited by LOLGotYerTags on

Comments

  • Violent_Rumble
    327 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    lol nice find. Attention to detail is everything! :P
  • zenn_nme
    797 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Details matter!
  • The-Monz
    28 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited January 15
    They spelt centre wrong in the spitfire too 😀
    Post edited by The-Monz on
  • FCELPI
    30 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    cant understand how the guys designing the cockpit did that
  • FCELPI
    30 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    still on the wrong side
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    When you jump into a Tiger to be the hull gunner, you get in the driver's hatch, it might be like that on the PzKpfw IV too. Does it affect gameplay? No. Is it a small example of DICE sloppiness? Yes. Drip, drip, drip--the little things add up.
  • Anti-Messiah
    274 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Oh nozzzzz, Dice ruined your immersion!!!!!
  • Psychloan
    74 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Is that why we can drive tanks backwards before the round starts?
  • FCELPI
    30 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    the same goes to the airborne mode, when as a german paratrooper you are in a Dakota DC-3 with british soldiers, thats lazy, would take nothing to change skins and change that dakota into a junkers ju52
  • DevilsBathtub
    832 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Shocking
  • Meloku
    9 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    This is pretty funny. Nice find.
  • ghos7bear
    145 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    #REFUND
  • Kauzer_RF
    220 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 6
    Here is picture from Nvidia driver install menu :)
    https://imgur.com/9wxkNrt
  • Ploodovic
    1642 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    FCELPI wrote: »
    the same goes to the airborne mode, when as a german paratrooper you are in a Dakota DC-3 with british soldiers, thats lazy, would take nothing to change skins and change that dakota into a junkers ju52

    According to Niklas Åstrand, who worked as a designer on BFV, it wouldn’t “take nothing” to change the German airdrop plane to a JU-52. In a couple of tweets he wrote the following:
    Now and then people comment on Germans attacking in Airborne and the players jumping out of C-47 airplanes intead of JU 52.

    For launch I decided to accept both factions using C-47 to give players more drivable vehicles such as tanks, transports, fighters, bombers instead.

    The C-47 was as expensive to make as any vehicle plus it has a high detailed interior and animated crew. The only thing it lacks is a driver’s view but the sum still make it as (or maybe even more) expensive than any drivable vehicle in the game. And only used in Airborne.

    Do you think the work on new drivable vehicles should be paused and instead build that JU 52 or continue giving players more drivable vehicles (tanks, transports, fighters, bombers, ...) and add a German version when/if there is time for it?

    Then there was a poll, where you could leave your vote. When the poll was closed, 4,313 votes had been cast, and 42 % was for “more tanks, fighters, etc”, while 58 % voted “Add the JU 52 now”.

    Of course, this was his personal poll, not an official decider, how the dev team will proceed, but he promised to forward the information.

    “Why not both?”, is perhaps the obvious follow up question, but I assume resources and time is limiting factors, when producing new content, leading to priorities being necessary.

  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    FCELPI wrote: »
    the same goes to the airborne mode, when as a german paratrooper you are in a Dakota DC-3 with british soldiers, thats lazy, would take nothing to change skins and change that dakota into a junkers ju52

    Actually it would take quite a bit, modelling a whole new vehicle from scratch isn't a matter of a few mouse-clicks. That's why there is a Stug IV in the game rather than the much more numerous Stug III, or a fictional Valentine AA tank instead of the real Crusader AA tank--using an existing chassis saved them time and money compared with creating a whole new vehicle. EA clearly has DICE on a tight budget in this game due to the lack of revenue provided by paid DLC/Premium in previous titles. Don't look for this to change, unless they offer skins for sale and we all melt our credit cards buying them.
  • TropicPoison
    2388 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    They should have looked at warthunder first, the fools.
  • FCELPI
    30 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    FCELPI wrote: »
    the same goes to the airborne mode, when as a german paratrooper you are in a Dakota DC-3 with british soldiers, thats lazy, would take nothing to change skins and change that dakota into a junkers ju52

    Actually it would take quite a bit, modelling a whole new vehicle from scratch isn't a matter of a few mouse-clicks. That's why there is a Stug IV in the game rather than the much more numerous Stug III, or a fictional Valentine AA tank instead of the real Crusader AA tank--using an existing chassis saved them time and money compared with creating a whole new vehicle. EA clearly has DICE on a tight budget in this game due to the lack of revenue provided by paid DLC/Premium in previous titles. Don't look for this to change, unless they offer skins for sale and we all melt our credit cards buying them.

    Dont you think a triple A game, with years o development couldnt do that? Specially when the are saying that its the more inmerse bf to date, still thinking its lazy from DICE, and that the game was rushed out uncooked by EA.
  • FCELPI
    30 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Ploodovic wrote: »
    FCELPI wrote: »
    the same goes to the airborne mode, when as a german paratrooper you are in a Dakota DC-3 with british soldiers, thats lazy, would take nothing to change skins and change that dakota into a junkers ju52

    According to Niklas Åstrand, who worked as a designer on BFV, it wouldn’t “take nothing” to change the German airdrop plane to a JU-52. In a couple of tweets he wrote the following:
    Now and then people comment on Germans attacking in Airborne and the players jumping out of C-47 airplanes intead of JU 52.

    For launch I decided to accept both factions using C-47 to give players more drivable vehicles such as tanks, transports, fighters, bombers instead.

    The C-47 was as expensive to make as any vehicle plus it has a high detailed interior and animated crew. The only thing it lacks is a driver’s view but the sum still make it as (or maybe even more) expensive than any drivable vehicle in the game. And only used in Airborne.

    Do you think the work on new drivable vehicles should be paused and instead build that JU 52 or continue giving players more drivable vehicles (tanks, transports, fighters, bombers, ...) and add a German version when/if there is time for it?

    Then there was a poll, where you could leave your vote. When the poll was closed, 4,313 votes had been cast, and 42 % was for “more tanks, fighters, etc”, while 58 % voted “Add the JU 52 now”.

    Of course, this was his personal poll, not an official decider, how the dev team will proceed, but he promised to forward the information.

    “Why not both?”, is perhaps the obvious follow up question, but I assume resources and time is limiting factors, when producing new content, leading to priorities being necessary.


    Thin is priceless
  • Viper-SVN
    15 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited March 8
    There is also JU-88A skin bug which I already reported to EA. When you equip 3rd JU-88A WUSTENPINSEL skin cockpit view shows 2nd JU-88A SPLITTERMUSTER NACHT skin. Chase camera view shows correct skin.
  • FCELPI
    30 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Viper-SVN wrote: »
    There is also JU-88A skin bug which I already reported to EA. When you equip 3rd JU-88A WUSTENPINSEL skin cockpit view shows 2nd JU-88A SPLITTERMUSTER NACHT skin. Chase camera view shows correct skin.

    thanks for sharing that too, but we are nobody, they are not goning to change those things sadly..
Sign In or Register to comment.