UTair Ukraine Boeing 737-400 UR-UTG,Base files package for FS2004 (aia734v2.zip) available at avsim.com. This is an AI only
→ Size:
507 KB
→ Date:
16 years ago (04.07.2010 18:57)
→ Author:
Zafer El-Khatib,globusworldTeam
→ Approved by moderator:
omega
→ License:
License file included in archive
→ Downloaded:
812 time(s)
+3
Judging by the VU Logically, the author was day and night to sit on the site and watch avsim.ru not laid anyone repainted before him ... and then, seeing the files from VV21, put a bullet in the head.
− alpet,
16 years ago,
#
5
Thank you
− santamaria,
16 years ago,
#
5
IMHO this is better.
− Exelletor,
16 years ago,
#
5
...
− www,
16 years ago,
#
5
Thank you
− serg09,
16 years ago,
#
-1
5
A few stragglers that aircraft already killed one another to buy steel)) do not have time to repaint)
− Владимир Пахомов,
16 years ago,
#
-5
1
All three paint UTair were at one time posted immediately after the respective boards. The deadline to extreme page is not difficult to notice. What's the point of duplication?
− VV21,
16 years ago,
#
+2
Please read before you assign a rating. Grade for the file, not the author. Evaluate the quality of work or, in some cases, the interest, which represents its content. Assessment should be as objective as possible.
− serg09,
16 years ago,
#
+1
Dear serg09, I carefully read before you write your message. To quote you "... or, in some cases, the interest, which is its content" Now the question is: What interest are painting, duplicate those already available? If the correction of errors, then what exactly? When they were posted, not a single comment was not. Therefore, I regarded this as the inattention of the authors to the existing content database, which laid out the files. Especially because one of the shared files is only eight positions below understudy. And two others also did not require "digging" the entire database for five years.
− VV21,
16 years ago,
#
Vs. VV21, next time when you write about the repeat, do not forget to immediately indicate a link to the original, right? Thanks!
− RAID74,
16 years ago,
#
No problem: 737-400 (10.06.2010): http://www.avsim.su/f/fs2004-ai-samoleti-dlya-trafika-48/para-ptichek-v-ukrainskiy-trafik-30296.html 757 -200 (22.06.2010): http://www.avsim.su/f/fs2004-ai-samoleti-dlya-trafika-48/boeing-757-200-utair-vq-bey-30583.html 42-300 (10.11.2009): http://www.avsim.su/f/fs2004-ai-samoleti-dlya-trafika-48/atr-42-300-utair-ukraine-novaya-ptichka-v-nebe--25010 . html
− VV21,
16 years ago,
#
That would immediately ... And then pasted on the Dwarf and Fig justify.
− serg09,
16 years ago,
#
+1
VV21, as you say you can judge if someone dyed this board, then no one else has the right to paint and spread on avsim? And who gave you the right to specify to whom and what to do? What makes you think that you have the right to specify how many and what should be on avsime? Do not count deserved punched each nozzle can, but themselves do something ...
− Partizan-cs,
16 years ago,
#
Dear Partizan-cs. Firstly, I am nobody and nothing is pointing out, and his point of view expressed above. I appreciate the desirability of reasonable duplication already shared paint layers. If this were to avsim.com, I would not be surprised, but here I consider it unnecessary. Secondly, with regard to himself to do. If you decide to spend a fraction of his time and see what works are made and sent me, and how much I think you may have the courage to apologize for a possible insult to me in the last sentence of your post.
− VV21,
16 years ago,
#
+4
First, the name indicates, put not reasonable evaluation. For this file can not be called duplicate because is the work of another author. What you have posted the texture of the AK before - no reason to sculpt one. Moreover, this work on quality is much better made your, IMHO of course. A person should have a choice, what quality and whose work swing. As for apologies - and not think about it. Sorry - do you have for the author of the texture, which does not deserve this assessment.
− Partizan-cs,
16 years ago,
#
I think his assessment of merit, and the reason I stated in my first comment. The quality of my work here was appreciated, I hope, objectively. As it is easy to see without even opening komenntarii. If you have specific concerns, you can make them my email address listed in each of the archives.
− VV21,
16 years ago,
#