This thread will require the reader to do a fair ammount of reading to understand my proposal. All my statistical info can be backed up links to verify my data provided if anyone decides to dispute my claims. This will be a four part post that covers the following areas.
I - PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
II - ARMAMENT
III - INTANGIBLES
IV - AIRFRAME AND WEAPON UPGRADES

With the disclaimer out of the way, the groundwork for a fine WW2 flight game has been set in place. All that is needed is for developers to take this game to the next level. We also need to consider that all planes are NOT created equal.

PART I : PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

I will be defining the parameters on how to correctly rate the airplanes involved. For my examples, I will be highlighting the premier fighter aircraft from the 4 major powers involved in WW2. These aircraft could be considered the best of the best, arguably.
USA - P-51D NA-109 Mustang.
UK - Spitfire MKk Vb
Germany - FW-190A A-8
Japan - A6M Zero Model 21
Each airplane above was the most common version and is defined by physical characteristics and performances which should be virtually represented in an accurate fashion. What I will be showing is what is important in defining airplanes all the while keeping things simple. There should be no "video game balancing" being how each aircraft had advantages and disadvantages when compared to each other.

Things to consider -
Wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing.[1] It is broadly reflective of the aircraft's lift-to-mass ratio, which affects its rate of climb, load-carrying ability, and turn performance.
Power to Mass ratio is a measurement of the acceleration capability (potential) of any land vehicle or climb performance of any aircraft or space vehicle. Items such as weight, speed, and climb are self explanatory. The number at the end of each category with [ ] behind it indicates where the rank is when comparing it to the other planes.

Japan - A6M Zero Model 21
Maximum speed: 533 km/h (331 mph) [ 4 ]
Rate of climb: 15.7 m/s (3,100 ft/min) [ 2 ]
Wing loading: 107.4 kg/m (22.0 lb/ft) [ 1 ]
Power/mass: 294 W/kg (0.18 hp/lb) [ 4 ]

Germany - FW-190A A-8
Maximum speed: 685 km/h (408 mph) [ 2 ]
Rate of climb: 13 m/s (2560 feet/min) [ 4 ]
Wing loading: 241 kg/m (49.4 lb/ft) [ 4 ]
Power/mass: 0.33 kW/kg (0.21 hp/lb) [ 2 ]

UK - Spitfire MKk Vb
Maximum speed: 605 km/h (378 mph) [ 3 ]
Rate of climb: 13.5 m/s (2,665 ft/min) [ 3 ]
Wing loading: 119.91 kg/m (24.56 lb/ft) [ 2 ]
Power/mass: 360 W/kg (0.22 hp/lb) [ 1 ]

USA - P-51D NA-109 Mustang
Maximum speed: 437 mph (703 km/h) [ 1 ]
Rate of climb: 3,200 ft/min (16.3 m/s) [ 1 ]
Wing loading: 39 lb/ft² (192 kg/m²) [ 3 ]
Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (300 W/kg) [ 3 ]

As you can see, each plane has strong points, as well as a weak areas. Real world physics took care of any issues that would normally arise while attempting to address balancing issues.

Based on the figures above, it's safe to say that any player could find an aircraft that represents the style that they would like to play. It's also equally safe to say that not one aircraft would have a serious disadvantage versus the other. Of course the "pilot" would determine the outcome, but each plane could become a serious threat if you used it accordingly.

All I ask from my fellow members is to hold off on any comments or questions until I am finished.

Thanks!!

EDIT - I do not claim to author any of the material. I am simply bringing it all together in an easy to decipher form. I will be providing links at the end of my proposal.

END OF PART 1

This message has been edited. Last edited by: maxpontiac,

PART II - ARMAMENT

This area of the Blazing Angels game is alot different then the previous part. BA2 made excellent strides in improving the armament of the airplanes. However, there is on issue I need to bring to your attention with the exception of one issue.

The Secret Weapons of WWII.

This addition felt completely wrong. I am aware that some players might disagree with what I am saying, but in all reality, it did nothing but cheapen the experience. WW2 fighters and their pilots were all about BFM's and guns. With that said, I know why they were included in BA2, but I have to ask this. Did the inclusion of these secret weapons help sales any? Or did they hurt sales? Any info regarding this would be greatly appreciated.

If these types of weapons are to be included in the next Blazing Angels game, please do not make a game around them. Chuck Yeager didn't build his legacy on self guided missiles and smoke screens, and it's safe to say that most of the players don't want to either.

I will once again using the same four planes as I used in part one.
USA - P-51D NA-109 Mustang.
UK - Spitfire Mk Vb
Germany - FW-190A A-8
Japan - A6M Zero Model 21

Things to consider -
Fired weight per second is at best a rough approximation of destructive power. It is a reasonable approximation if the destruction is to be caused by the high-explosive or incendiary chemicals contained in the ammunition. The amount of explosive or incendiary material is of course related to the weight of the projectile, but it is not a linear relationship: Rounds of smaller calibre have proportionally thicker walls, and a smaller fraction of their weight is available for chemical loads. Therefore the fired weight per second is usually more relevant for larger calibre guns.
As a second measure of the destructive power, the muzzle power is given, in kilowatt. This is the rate of production of kinetic energy. AP or "ball" rounds that contain no chemical load only have this kinetic energy to cause damage to the target. More is not always better; a round with a too high kinetic energy might pass clean through the target without doing more damage than two neat, round holes. The optimal velocity to do maximal damage a metal plate is just below that required to penetrate it. Of course projectiles lose a lot of the muzzle energy before they hit the target, because of drag. In general larger calibre projectiles retain their kinetic energy longer.
A third number given is the number of projectiles fired. If the target is not armoured, the same weight of non-explosive projectiles does more damage when distributed over numerous small projectiles than in a single large one, and the number of projectiles is the most important. But if the target carries armour the smaller projectiles are more likely to be stopped, and that reduces the effectiveness, especially of the rifle-calibre weapons. On the other hand, a larger number of projectiles means that the probability of a single hit increases.
To summarize: Fired weight per second is given as an approximation of the chemical energy that can be transferred to the target, muzzle power as a measure of the kinetic energy, and the number of rounds fired indicates the spreading of this transfer over a number of hits. All three are factors that must be considered in a consideration of the firepower installed in an aircraft. A "firepower formula" that would allow us to actually calculate a single number as a measure of the firepower, would be a nice thing to have. However, too many factors are involved, and the effectiveness of ammunition depends very much on the nature of the target.
The number at the end of each category with [ ] behind it indicates where the rank is when comparing it to the other planes.


Japan A6M Zero Model 21
2× 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Type 97 machine guns in the engine cowling, 500 rounds per gun
2× 20 mm (0.787 in) Type 99 cannons in the wings, 60 shells per gun
Weight of fire - 2.62 [ 4 ]
Muzzle Power - 414 [ 4 ]
Type 97 - Rate of fire 500 rounds per minute
Type 97 - Muzzle velocity 2,375 fps
Type 99 - Rate of fire 490 rounds per minute
Type 99 - Muzzle velocity 760 fps

Germany Fw-190A A-8
2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns with 475 rounds/gun
4× 20 mm MG 151/20 E cannons with 250 rounds/gun in the wing root and 140 rounds/gun outboard.
Weight of fire - 5.20 [ 1 ]
Muzzle Power - 1210 [ 3 ]
MG 131 - Rate of fire 900 round/min
MG 131 - Muzzle velocity 2250 fps
MG 151/20E - Rate of fire 750 rpm
MG 151/20E - Muzzle velocity 2400 fps


UK Spitfire Mk Vb
2× 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano Mk II cannon, 60 shells per gun
4× 0.303 inch (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns, 350 rounds per gun
Weight of fire - 2.24 [ 3 ]
Muzzle Power - 1250 [ 2 ]
Hispano - Rate of fire 750 rounds/min
Hispano - Muzzle velocity 2520 fps
.303 - Rate of fire 600 round/min
.303 - Muzzle velocity 2570 fps


USA P-51D NA-109 Mustang
6 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) Browning machine guns with 1,880 total rounds (400 rounds for each on the inner pair, and 270 rounds for each of the outer two pair)
Weight of fire - 3.64 [ 2 ]
Muzzle Power - 1374 [ 1 ]
Rate of fire 850 rounds/min
Muzzle velocity 2,910 fps

Based on the facts provided, the only plane that appears to be out classed is the Zero (which BTW, the Zero is the most manueverable of the four), and the aircraft with the most punch is the 190 Butcher Bird. The Spit falls in middle of the two, with the Stang bringing a nice balanced armament.

Plus, when you factor in the data provided in PART I, the aircraft are beginning to form a personality, which is a contrast compared to the general generic feel of the BA1 and BA2. Diversity is a good thing, is it not?

EDIT - I do not claim to author any of the material. I am simply bringing it all together in an easy to decipher form. I will be providing links at the end of my proposal.

END OF PART II

PART III - INTANGIBLES

This is where things get tricky. There are no raw numbers that I am aware of, (although I do presume that the engineers involved in the airplanes individual projects would have the exact figures) so I will be bringing up facts and design elements for each airplane.

Once again, I will be using the same four planes as I used in parts one and two.
USA - P-51D NA-109 Mustang
UK - Spitfire Mk Vb
Germany - FW-190A A-8
Japan - A6M Zero Model 21

Things to consider -
The facts stated below will feature any possible known weakness that would hamper the aircraft in combat or flight.

Japan - A6M Zero Model 21
No armor was carried for the pilot, engine or other critical points of the aircraft.
The self-sealing fuel tanks that were becoming common at the time were also left off.
It was prone to catching fire and exploding when struck by enemy rounds.
Because of wing flexibility, roll effectiveness dropped to near zero at about 300 mph indicated airspeed.

Germany - FW-190A A-8
The airplane had a larger turning radius then its adversaries.
It had a slower climb speed then it's contemporaries.
Above 20,000 ft, the airplanes performance dropped rapidly.

UK - Spitfire Mk Vb
If the stick was pulled back too far in a tight turn, the aircraft could stall rather violently, flick over on to its back, and spin.
One flaw in the thin-wing design of the Spitfire manifested itself when the aircraft was brought up to very high speeds. When the pilot attempted to roll the aircraft at these speeds, the aerodynamic forces on the ailerons were enough to twist the entire wingtip in the direction opposite of the aileron deflection.

USA - P-51D NA-109 Mustang
The Mustang's coolant system could be punctured by a hit from a single bullet.

As you can see, each plane has atleast one glaring weakness to add to it's strengths. When you factor in the previous discussions with what is before you, each plane has seperated itself from one another.

We have a low armoured but very maneuverable airplane in the A6M Zero.
The Focke Wolf brings heavy firepower and lower maneuverablity to the fight.
The Spitfire is an unstable but very balanced platform.
With the Mustang, we have a fast and powerful aircraft with a potential killer weakness.

Each plane brings a problem to each other and any virtual pilot that may choose to fly one.

EDIT - I do not claim to author any of the material. I am simply bringing it all together in an easy to decipher form. I will be providing links at the end of my proposal.


END PART III

PART IV - AIRFRAME AND WEAPON UPGRADES

I was actually looking foward to this part of my proposal. Along with the weapons system upgrades featured in BA2, the customizable skins were a great feature. I would not change a thing on this with exception of adding more layers to paint, some additional squadron badges, and perhaps some new camo patterns.

Nothing is better then flying your creation into a virtual battle.

I would also like to commend the weapons upgrading feature offered in BA2. Of course, my personal preference is to have a WW2 flight game without futuristic weapons systems that did not see combat for years to come, or in some cases, never left the drawing board.

However, what I recommend is that a "Aircraft Builder" feature be implemented. I am not talking about adding the ability to build a plane from scratch. What I am suggesting is that you select a virtual plane model based on a real world counterpart, at it's earliest stage, which would be right after prototype and into initial production. (I brought this up on this website some time ago, but I am afraid it was lost among the other posts.)

For an example of this feature, I will be using the P-51 Mustang.

The player would begin by selecting the P-51A Mustang.

You would then head to your first mission, which in BA, it's a type of training mission to get you familiar with the plane and the controls. I feel the system works quite well. It's a breeze for veterans, and easy enough for Nuggets.
I would also reccomend that BA3 stick to scoring equals spendable points scenerio as well that was featured in BA2.
As you progress through the campaign, you are awarded the ability to upgrade the airplane to the following variants.

P-51B
P-51C
P-51D
P-51F
P-51G
P-51J
P-51H
P-51L
P-51M
F-82

Of course, each model upgrade would feature all the airframe, weapons systems, avionics, engines, armour improvements, etc., that could be found as the aircraft evolved over time. Plus, each variant has something to offer, but may compromise the ratings of the airplane. Every plane that was developed in WW2 features an expansive history that would bring a tremendous ammount of replay value as the user progressed as he/she built each individual plane as he/she see's fit. Yes, I suggest that you bypass the one size fits all approach and allow the player to build each plane one at a time. I believe this would bring some attachment to the aircraft and avoid a generic upgrade that could potentially make a player not care about certain planes.

As a developer, instead of having multiple aircraft such as the Spitfire I, V, IX, you would have just the Spitfire I. Hopefully this would free up space to include all of the planes that defined WW2 from both sides.

One of the most important things to address is the exclusion of US planes as a whole from BA2. I am not sure of the reasonings, but it is hard to take a game serious when significant aircraft such as the P-38 Lightning are missing from the game. If a certain plane is not included, please explain the reason. With all that said, I would take whatever steps neccessary to ensure that the aircraft roster is 100% complete.

In closing, I would like to add that I believe my model for creating the next Blazing Angels would be a step in the right direction. Not only would a game like this appeal to SIM crowd, it would still cater to the arcade shooter fans as the formula would not change from a gameplay standpoint. Sure, there would be some SIM elements involved, but the general flight mechanics would not be altered. As OPTIONS, you could have G-Force play a part in the game, as well as black outs and red outs.

The most important aspect to this model is the RPG style "Aircraft Builder" that could rival a traditional RPG game, and at least put it on par with systems currently used in certain race games. The aircraft would become an extension of the player as he/she choose not only which plane to use, but which upgrades to add on.

Of course, the audio and visuals would be upgraded as well, but that's par for the course.

Thanks for taking the time to read my War and Peace: Blazing Angels addition, and I look foward to fellow member feedback and hopefully UBISOFT comments as well.

END PART IV

EDIT - Here are links to where I obtained my aircraft data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FW-190A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51D_Mustang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A6M_Zero
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-fi.html

So what your saying is... hell I can't read all that useless info at one time.. but I did get somethings.. like how you would like to see a more realistic flying game that adds things like weight of planes, rate of climb and dive, how a plane functions at an altitude etc. etc. etc. I would love to see all that make it into a BA game.

But as for your aircraft building.. I strongly disagree...I think we players should be able to create our own planes from scratch.. This way you adapt a plane to your fighting style instead of adapting your style to a plane. I say have a custom plane for each era (Early, middle, late) this way you don't have a huge advantage like flying a jet in early era fights...

Another thing would be that a dogfight doesn't have 7+ people with the same plane. You see creating a plane from scratch gives the game a more challenging aspect that 90% of players would enjoy. But make it have limits because no plane is perfect.

And have them realistic limits like the more armor a plane has the slower its going to go.. and if your flying a very fast prop or jet powered plane, it doesn't turn or roll as quick as a slower plane.. I could go on and on but as your increase something on a plane, something else will decrease and that should be taken into consideration..

For example I will now make the stats of a plane I would love to play.
Speed 3.5 of 10
Manuverability 9.0 of 10
Armor 7.5 of 10
TOTAL 20.0 OF 30


See how my speed is very low while my manuverability is great and armor is pretty good. I got rid of speed in my plane to make it turn sharply and able to take a beating. That is just a sample and adding all that stuff you mentioned about planes "maxpontiac" to something similar will create something that BA players will probably love if they put the effort into it.

Now you take those 3 things and get 3 numbers from 1 to 10 that add up to 20.. You can have 10 different people do this and have 10 different resaults.. That is why creating your own plane can be a huge step forward in the BA series.

Mobius48
PS3

Another thing

Why do you people cry about no US planes in BA2?

The US had no advanced airforce plans. They were the farthest behind in plane development during that time period.. And also WW2 really wasn't US's war.. The US just came into it because the japs bombed pearl harbor and the japs were allied with the germans. Now if a fictional game came out about the germans or japanese getting territory in the americas, then you would see more american planes.

Mobius48
PS3

Pretty much. All my "useless info" (as you call it) is there to show you or anyone where my conclusions came from. I believe in stating a case and providing evidence that proves my point.

No thanks. Keep the user created designs with the science fiction weapons. I would like this game to remain grounded in reality, and not visit the land of Ace Combat anymore. What's next, anime designs on P-51 Mustang? No thanks. Your design is completely unrealistic. In WW2, an aircraft with that much maneuverablity would NOT have that much armour. It would be considerably to heavy. Why take the time to introduce realistic physics, only to ruin it with unrealistic plane designs? I don't know, maybe I am to much of a purist.

I guess it's why I like my design concept better. Allow the user to create a plane with the boundaries of reality. I guess we'll just disagree.

LOL - Come on man. Be real. You show me one airplane from what the rest of the world had to offer, and I'll show you an American plane that would equally be it's match. Not only from a data end of things, but from a proven combat record.

Of course WW2 was America's war. Hitler had a US invasion in place. Japan jumped the gun. You remove the US out of the War, a good chunk of the world be saluting the Nazi flag. Yeah, remove the US from the equation in the invasion on D-Day, or perhaps the US out of the Pacific theatre..

Gotta ask this, you an American?

Yes I am an American, my grandfather fought on D-Day. On the damn beaches of Normandy.

Ok I got a plane for ya.. How about the Me 262.. The US didn't have a jet until after the war. And they couldn't build a plane fast enough to kill one.

As for you wanting BA to be more realistic.. Why don't we have a realistic limmit on all gun, rocket, and bomb ammo and can't get more in missions. How about and a fuel gauge to limit your time flying, why don't we have a human limit meter to know when our pilot is going to black out, loose control and die....

You need fictional things in a game to make it enjoyable. You are just confused. I am saying have a create a plane feature that players can create planes that could of been realistic..

(Hence "Create." ) Put yourself in a position to design a plane for WW2 based on the knowledge and resources availible at the time. You wouldn't make exactly what was made. Different people have different ideas on what is a good plane, and that is what I would love to see and you don't. I am for the people, you are for history.

Another thing, armor and weight are 2 different things.. Armor is somethings ability to withstand something.

Ya know what im probably wasting my time with you. I'm sorry you can only deal in exacts and not in what ifs.. And if you have a PS3 send a message to "Mobius48" I would love to kick your P51's ***... wait you can't hahahahahhahah! Its not in BA2! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Good to hear that. My Grandfather was a Fighting Seabee in WW2. I was questioning you on where you were from so I could reference your line of thinking. But, by saying you are American, I have to now question your understanding when it comes to WW2 not being an American War.

Yes. The Germans had the Me-262. Chuck Yeager had an interesting comment in regards to the Me-262. I don't remember the exact thing he said, but he was speaking of the first time he saw one of those planes out of his Mustang cockpit. You know what he said? "I shot it down" Perhaps we could discuss what a unreliable warplane the 262 was. Or perhaps we can discuss how other prop planes in the era shot down the jet warplanes that were in flight at the time. The Me-262 was too little to late.

As I stated in my initial statement at the top of this thread, it would require one to read to understand the point I was making. You obviously, and admittingly stated you did not bother to read all the "useless info". If you bothered to read it like I asked, you would have found that I suggested an option for things like that.

Confused. Not at all. It seems you are correct, I am more for the historical side of things, but I am also after a game that caters to everyone including you. Put your create an unrealistic plane feature in (and paint yellow for all I care) and you'll see the same crowd that depends on guided missiles and rockets live in that world. I am not saying you are that type, but think about it. Now, lets say that they put in a create a plane feature. As long as only create a plane's can fight one an other, it could be a good idea. Just give the players options.

You state "Another thing, armor and weight are 2 different things.. Armor is somethings ability to withstand something." Are you speaking of arcade flight games such as this? I hope so, because you HAVE to realize that the more armour you have in place on an aircraft the less maneuverable and heavier it gets. Why do you think the Zeke was one of if not the most maneuverable planes in WW2? A few rounds from a Browning would it put it down, as the Japanese soon found out.

Not at all. This is a discussion based Message Board is it not? Since when did discussing things become a waste of time? It's obvious you and I have opposing viewpoints, but a waste of time, it is not. I have just one viewpoint, as do others.

Wow. Good one.

Only the uneducated flew the Mustang on BA1(for that matter, came online without upgrading the planes as well). I flew the Spit IX in most cases FYI. Plus, you won't catch me playing BA2 online, for the game is not my style. Power ups? No thanks.

My PSN ID is maxpontiac. It used to be maxGTP, and I have seen you on the leaderboards on BA1. We never ran into each other, and I only missed playing a few of you guys in the top 10. I would love to fly a one v one match against you, once I am done upgrading my planes. BTW, you won't catch me playing in a game with camera ON and secondary weapons OFF.

EDIT

This message has been edited. Last edited by: maxpontiac,

woah wait no camera? What ww2 pilots could not turn their heads? Bubble canopies we never actually used? I realize the camera is better than actually turning your head but staring at a fixed viewpoint is simulation?

quote:

Originally posted by IamKFAM:
woah wait no camera? What ww2 pilots could not turn their heads? Bubble canopies we never actually used? I realize the camera is better than actually turning your head but staring at a fixed viewpoint is simulation?

Sorry man. I messed up with my wording.

Camera on. I agree that you should be able to look around.

Secondary weapons off. Firing dumbfire rockets requires no skill.

Cool.

Maxpontiac,

Lot of good info there. You definitely did your homework. However, how dare you express an opinion! You want to do stuff like that you should post to a forum or something like that.

I like the idea of flying a realistically performing aircraft and improving the plane and yourself as you complete missions and gain experience. Customizing your aircraft by trading armor for speed, etc., and making the plane "your own" (within reason) is also a good idea.

There's a lot Ubi could do w/ these games, but I wouldn't hold my breath. They already have a pretty realistic flight sim, IL2. BA 1&2 are arcade games. Period. In WWII it was a rare pilot who was skilled & LUCKY enough to get a dozen kills during the whole war. What did we have to kill in the Red Square mission? A hundred planes? Two hundred ground targets? Let's fly THROUGH a mountain a few times and take out some gigantic Tesla coils. Power ups??? Chuck Yeager meets the Mario Brothers! They're arcade games. Even if you try to be as realistic as possible, cockpit/simulation view, no hud, no camera, you can't do it because you can't turn your head unless you use the camera to point your head for you at a target. (TracIR type interface would be cool)

My biggest beef w/ the GAME is that the computer keeps taking control of the aircraft. Auto level, turning the aircraft if you fly too far in one direction, etc., etc. Let ME fly the plane. If I suck at it then too bad for me.

Having said all that, if they came out w/ a BA3 I'd probably play it 'cause it's a fun (in a frustrating kinda way) GAME.

One last thing, WE Americans (yes I are one)like to think that we won the war all by ourselves. We didn't. We like to think that we had the best of EVERYTHING. We didn't. Maybe in BA3 we could join a real squadron, American, British, German, Japanese, whatever your choice, as a newbie and come up through the ranks flying realistic missions. Nah!

BA is what it was designed to be, a fast paced arcade game.


Hmmm, Chuck Yeager meats the Mario Bros., might be able to do something w/ that.

Y'all do realize that you are basically describing Aces of the Pacific and Aces Over Europe... from the 80's by Seirra right?

Time to crank up the old 386!!

quote:

Originally posted by someguynamedbil:
Maxpontiac,

Lot of good info there. You definitely did your homework. However, how dare you express an opinion! You want to do stuff like that you should post to a forum or something like that.

I like the idea of flying a realistically performing aircraft and improving the plane and yourself as you complete missions and gain experience. Customizing your aircraft by trading armor for speed, etc., and making the plane "your own" (within reason) is also a good idea.

There's a lot Ubi could do w/ these games, but I wouldn't hold my breath. They already have a pretty realistic flight sim, IL2. BA 1&2 are arcade games. Period. In WWII it was a rare pilot who was skilled & LUCKY enough to get a dozen kills during the whole war. What did we have to kill in the Red Square mission? A hundred planes? Two hundred ground targets? Let's fly THROUGH a mountain a few times and take out some gigantic Tesla coils. Power ups??? Chuck Yeager meets the Mario Brothers! They're arcade games. Even if you try to be as realistic as possible, cockpit/simulation view, no hud, no camera, you can't do it because you can't turn your head unless you use the camera to point your head for you at a target. (TracIR type interface would be cool)

My biggest beef w/ the GAME is that the computer keeps taking control of the aircraft. Auto level, turning the aircraft if you fly too far in one direction, etc., etc. Let ME fly the plane. If I suck at it then too bad for me.

Having said all that, if they came out w/ a BA3 I'd probably play it 'cause it's a fun (in a frustrating kinda way) GAME.

One last thing, WE Americans (yes I are one)like to think that we won the war all by ourselves. We didn't. We like to think that we had the best of EVERYTHING. We didn't. Maybe in BA3 we could join a real squadron, American, British, German, Japanese, whatever your choice, as a newbie and come up through the ranks flying realistic missions. Nah!

BA is what it was designed to be, a fast paced arcade game.


Hmmm, Chuck Yeager meats the Mario Bros., might be able to do something w/ that.

I appreciate the acknowledgement. Took me alot of time, and I was suprised to see how the planes actually stacked up versus each other. For my own reasons, I am going to look at another 4 or so "well known" planes from WW2. Maybe I'll post them here. Who knows.

That is basically what I was attempting to do. Us hardcore airplane fans will buy whatever they throw at us. I was trying to possibly give some reasons for players on the fence to buy this one. While I honestly believe BA3 would need to take a realistic approach very seriously, the more I think about it, Wingman48's idea of a create a plane could be a good thing. Just don't make me in P-51 fight against him in his X plane.

I know. I seriously doubt anyone from the Blazing Angels team has even read this, but I can still hope.

Agreed. BA2 was much arcade like, and I doubt the sales increased that much. I tried one versus fight, only to see a shield power up floating in the sky, which pretty much completely turned me off that game.

Agreed. My main problem with BA1 is was the fact that several US planes were excluded from the PS3 version (F-4U, P-47, P-38 etc) all the while I forced to stare at multiple versions of other planes. I also did not care for the aircraft ratings due to the UNREALISTIC manner that they were done in. BA2? Wow. Have you seen the FW-190A on that game? It's so wrong. So is the fact that I am an American pilot not flying American planes. I understand the planes used in theater, but come on, the Buffalo? WOW.

Well, IL2 is due out on the PS3, and I am afraid BA will fall into obscurity once IL2 comes out if they continue this "Super Mario" path with the Blazing Angels series..

quote:

Originally posted by IamKFAM:
Y'all do realize that you are basically describing Aces of the Pacific and Aces Over Europe... from the 80's by Seirra right?

Time to crank up the old 386!!

I'll be one happy camper if IL2 turns out the be the game I hope it'll be.

Of course BA3 could make me a happy customer as well, if it is done right.

BTW - I just finished the story mode, with the Ace and Mini to go!!

quote:
Originally posted by IamKFAM:
Y'all do realize that you are basically describing Aces of the Pacific and Aces Over Europe... from the 80's by Seirra right?

Time to crank up the old 386!!


Hey, don't laugh, I used to fly Sopwith Camels in "Blue Max" w/ my 286. I predate DOS, used to use CP/M. I never got the "Blue Screen of Death" on my abacus!

AoE & AoP w/ modern graphics would be better than most of the crap out there.

Great job max

quote:

Originally posted by AirTiger:
Great job max

Hey AirTiger, I appreciate the compliments.

Any suggestions??

So, I was in the HAWX forums, and another member supplied me a link to some disturbing information in regards to Blazing Angels 2.

http://vgchartz.com/swlaunch.php?reg1=All&game1=Blazing...WII+-+X360&weeks=114

The above link is for the 360 versions, but I can only assume the games performance was similar on the PS3.

Blazing Angels 2 sold approximately 4 to 5 times WORSE then the original Blazing Angels.

What's that tell me?

That tells me that this game is probably toast, and we will not be seeing BA3. That and of course sci-fi weapons and unrealistic scenerios in WW2 don't mix.

Interstingly enough, Over-G Fighters (the most realistic console flight game out there) sold roughly 3 times that of the arcade heavy BA2.

My proposal of realism sounds better already.