PDA

View Full Version : Tentative Proposal for BoB



Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 01:08 PM

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 01:08 PM
I'd like to guage the community's response to the following:

BoB is expected to have a more streamlined inclusion process for 3rd party planes AFAIK. Apparently modellers will get to build their planes and then later on, if they pass Maddox quality standards, they may be included to the core game. On the one hand, this bodes well in that we may have faster access to ommitted planes. On the other, the content modelled will no longer be subject to Oleg's control.

I would like to propose that a further restriction be included, not just based on the quality of the model, but its relevance. i.e. I would like to see 3rd party efforts judged by their possible contribution to the theatre(s) in question.

Cheers...

StG2_Schlachter
01-30-2006, 01:32 PM
I voted Yes.

Oleg should add the most important planes of all theaters first and then move on to the less important. Of course some theaters have more important planes than others.

danjama
01-30-2006, 02:05 PM
i said yes too, good motion

Philipscdrw
01-30-2006, 02:37 PM
Adding 3rd-party aircraft would still require significant work from 1C, they should concentrate on the more 'important' aircraft first.

I.e. the early-war forgotten aircraft that I like. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

StG2_Schlachter
01-30-2006, 02:44 PM
Damn, i see quite some whining potential here.
People will start to argue which planes are the most imporant ones and fill ORR with threads to convince Oleg to implement their favorite first http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

georgeo76
01-30-2006, 03:33 PM
I see no reason to make any restrictions beyond quality control.


If someone is passionate enough about an AC to model it, then it should be included.

russ.nl
01-30-2006, 03:54 PM
This is about the new add-on having planes that have never seen action.

Sure there should be rules. You can't have a concept "good quality" space fighter in a ww2 fighter sim, but we're still a/c nuts and would love to fly a/c that where designed and tested in that time. In a good sim!

MLudner
01-30-2006, 04:17 PM
In addition to Georgeo's point; Players can also decide what aircraft to use or not to use and on-line servers control the aircraft allowed in the missions on their servers.

Thus, even if I modelled my EX-IVC's, PV-IIIE's and IN-VD's I'd be the only one flying them.

The-Pizza-Man
01-30-2006, 05:39 PM
I wouldn't like to see the official game get just any aircraft. But on the otherhand, obscure aircraft are often the most fun to fly. For example I wouldn't want a defiant to excluded from the game simply because it wasn't particularly relevent to the out come of the war.

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 06:08 PM
MLunder and Georgeo, that is exactly my point, people will model whatever they prefer. Let them. Including that plane into the core game though just because it's there is the issue. What if someone makes an excellent Bf109Z? IMO such a fantasy plane (and no disrespect intended to its modeler) isn't worth even 1 hour of coding by a Maddox employee to include in the game.

Pizza-Man, the 'relevance' I'm talking about has less to do with impact and everything to do with what utility the plane has for mission makers.

e.g. when was the last time you flew a Bf109Z in any setting? How about the Mig3U? Bi-1? Go229? Similarly, how often do you think we'll be seeing the Do335, uber-K4 and boosted Spit online? Even offline, I know I have little use for those.

So far 90% in favour, let's keep the vote going for a real feel of sentiment though.

LEXX_Luthor
01-30-2006, 06:44 PM
I think Oleg will have tighter "historical (combat) relevance" standards, but he will be making the decisions and we can possibly expect some exceptions of unique historical relevance for a sim Made In Russia -- MiG-3U, I-185 and BI-1 are three excellent examples (Made In Microsoft sims can model the "homemade" XP-66, XP-70, etc...). If Oleg is smart, he has learned to ignore flight sim webboard Polls, or learned to implement the OPPOSITE of what the Poll results "show" which is actually what they conceal, and has learned to think for himself. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

All the FB "fantasy" planes have one (1) thing in common -- single seat dogfight cockpit. This is not a coincidence.

Jetbuff, its not attraction to "fantasy" and lack of historical (combat) "relevance" but the insane skill required to make multi-crew aircraft that caused the rash of "fantasy" single seat fighter cockpits over the last few years. We pretty much ran out of single-seat single-engine dogfight planes to model, which leaves the "fantasy" single seat dogfight planes, unless the modders have the ability to meet Oleg's astronomically difficult standards of multi-crew aircraft. This also applies to Oleg's Team, which can include a 1-pilot seat "fantasy" dogfight plane in the sim in far less time than a multi-crew aircraft.

That said, all aircraft in FB have "historical relevance" (combat or no-combat) to the history of aviation in World War 2, and all are useful in Offline Dynamic Campaign. But...not at the expense of multi-crew aircaft that did see alot of combat.

Jetbuff:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
e.g. when was the last time you flew a Bf109Z in any setting? How about the Mig3U? Bi-1? Go229? Similarly, how often do you think we'll be seeing the Do335, uber-K4 and boosted Spit online? Even offline, I know I have little use for those. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
MiG-3U is useful in a dynamic campaign where the German Army is a bit more successful, thus allowing the Luftwaffe the luxury of launching a bombing campaign on the eastern factories. This, however, does require a good focus on the design of Offline simulation content which could be possible if BoB And Beyond is successful. Do-335 would be useful in a dynamic campaign where Germany can at least delay the war's end.

Imagine a Dynamic Campaign where Germany is winning, but cannot field a Do-335. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That said ... commonly used multi-crew aircraft first!

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 06:58 PM
Lexx, first about the Mig3U: there was a grand total of six examples ever made. Seriously? Some Luft '46 projects probably had almost as many prototypes built. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I understand what you are saying about difficulty modelling the multi-crew aircraft. However, looking at the current list of aircraft announced, it seems there was still a wealth of single-crew fighters that had not been modelled.

I am not trying to influence Oleg (yet!) with the poll, I just wanted to know how many shared my opinion.


The best argument I can think of against this idea is what Georgo said, can we really impose limits on what people can do with their free time? If Joe Schmoe wants to build a 109Z, do we have the right to stop him? Obviously the answer is no. Similarly though, what's wrong with passing on including it in the core game? There should be no obligation to include a plane just because it's "done".

My hope is that saying up front that all 3rd-party aircraft need to pass a 'validity' test as well as a quality test before inclusion might encourage people to choose more useful projects.

LEXX_Luthor
01-30-2006, 08:06 PM
JetBuff:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The best argument I can think of against this idea is what Georgo said, can we really impose limits on what people can do with their free time? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, and No. (what?)

Yes it makes sense to limit aircraft on theater relevance, and for Eastern Front, the MiG-3U is very relevant, like a small number of specially modded high altitude Spitfires are relevant for Western Front, as well as The Meds I believe -- was it over Egypt that the first Ju-86P was downed? I "forgot" again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif On a historical technicality, The MiG-3U did force the end of ultra-high altitude Luftwaffe recon over Moscow.

Jetbuff:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lexx, first about the Mig3U: there was a grand total of six examples ever made. Seriously? Some Luft '46 projects probably had almost as many prototypes built. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Seriously, I'll try to be more clear. In an Offline Dynamic Campaign where the Luftwaffe launches bombing of the eastern factories, the USSR could give more emphasis on interceptors like the -3U. You may post this is not "historical campaign" (go ahead, get it over with http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) and I will post that you and I playing WW2 "Hartmann" on a computer is less "historical" than a dynamic campaign with MiG-3U available given a Luftwaffe bombing attempt. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Granted, this type of campaign depends on the resources available for Offline software content development...or Online War...I mean, imagine a Barbarossa Online War where the Luftwaffe players actually have a chance to *win* the campaign? That could require a few airplanes that did not make it into production -- if the Luftwaffe side (say, online leader) decides to bomb strategic targets, the VVS side could be able to choose MiG-3U and sacrifice, say, LaGG-3-66 production.

But, as I said, the more commonly used multi-crew aircraft should come first. Put like this, BoB And Beyond is going to be developed over a decade...

"return to eastern front in 7 years" ~ Oleg last year

Over a decade, there should be enough time to model all common combat aircraft and then add less common aircraft. It seems like we are learning the "lessons" of Trench Warfare and are building a Maginot Line to protect us against "fantasy" aircraft over the next decade of BoB And Beyond. The French learned the wrong lessons from WW1, we may be learning the wrong lessons here, if we simply "ban" the development of lesser used aircraft even if more common aircraft are well developed.

This brings us to another point. Jetbuff, count the number of "fantasy" planes in Oleg's sim. You will find that the numbers of "fantasy" planes cannot explain the LACK of much more needed commonly used aircraft. What can explain this lack is astronomically difficult modding standards for multi-crew aircraft -- (edit) -- *and* the difficulty of programming them into the sim.

Jetbuff, count the "fantasy" planes, and see what is going on here.

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 08:58 PM
OK, mind you I'm including 'novelty' planes that see little to no use for whatever reason in this list:

Bi-1
109Z
Mig3U
Me-163
Go-229
TB-3 with I-16's under-wing
I-185, 2 variants
P-80
109K-4@1.98ata*
Do335*

* just predictions

Now, substitute a single seat plane for each of them and we could have had:

Typhoon
Spit IX with Merlin 61
Spit Mk1
Hs123
Properly rated Antons
Ki-27
Bloch 152
MS 406/410
Hawk75

Now keep in mind that most of these only need a cockpit while many of the 'novelty' planes above were done from scratch.

I know that multi-crew bombers are the most glaring ommissions but that doesn't mean there aren't any single seat ommissions of import, e.g. the Hs123 remained the primary German close support aircraft well into 1941 iirc and was operational until mid-1944.



I think I need to clarify at this point that I am not in any way ungrateful for any free content we have received. I would like to see BoB encourage more relevance in its 3rd party efforts though.

LEXX_Luthor
01-30-2006, 09:38 PM
Thanks Jetbuff. If you don't mind, I'd like to make a point about your list. Bloch I don't think is theater relevant -- I could be WRONG. As you note, Spit-61 and rated Antons would use the same or very closely derived cockpit and external models, and need only FM,DM tweaking by the Central Moscow Bureau. The "fantasy" planes are not the cause of Spit-61/RatedAnton missing from the sim.

Flyable Ki-27 may be coming.
Spit-1 *is* hugely different, but is Reserved and everybody here knows it.
Typhoon was supposed to be coming, but I think you know what happened there.
Hs-123 was considered long ago, but I believe is now Reserved also (for BoB~&gt;1939Poland).

Here's my list of the most needed Flyable aircraft...very partial list, ignoring versions, Eastern Front only which is something csThor would agree on...

Flyable...

He-177
Ju-188
Fw-189
Ju-52
Me-210
Me-410
Ar-234
Hs-129 ...I "forgot" this one!!
(let Bf-110C and Hs-123 be Reserved for BoB And Beyond)

I-152
R-10
Su-2
SB
DB-3
Tu-2
Pe-2, IL-10 ... coming soon

I too have certain Limits, and that limit is the historical intention to field a production combat aircraft. BI-1 fits this, so this rocket interceptor is not "fantasy" in a combat flight sim that seeks to simulate WW2 rather than merely "re-enact" WW2. The purely experimental rocket boosted La-7 and Yak-3 that Oleg is creating for the Russian Addon are not directly usable in a dynamic camapaign, unlike aircraft initially intended for the possibility of mass production and use such as MiG-3U, I-185, Do-335, He-162, Ta-152H (and -152C) etc....



I kinda include He-162 as "fantasy" but not Me-163. The "numbers" don't tell the whole story, as the -163 had a profound impact in the minds of 8th Air Force crew members.

Not sure if I include Ta-152H as "fantasy" or "real" but either way its an essential addition for late war dynamic campaign.


TB-3/I-16 is a core feature in an Eastern Front combat flight sim, as it was a unique system used several times successfully in combat. I consider a well designed combat flight sim as a historical educational tool. Don't forget, the Blue members of ubi.com threw a Panick on the boards when the first TB-3/I-16 "zvenyo" or "stack" screenshots were releaced. They thought it was some 1946 Russian thing, they never saw this before. Now they have learned something new about WW2 aviation, and its not 1944. Also -- we NEEDED the higher performance TB-3 that came with TB-3/I-16, and this was NOT a "fantasy" plane as it was produced in large numbers. Better, it has a tail gunner with a *simple* to mod cockpit, so does not fit with the single-crew "fantasy" planes I am thinking of.

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 09:53 PM
I cannot deny the "wow" factor in some of the novelty planes listed. I also know that the planes you listed are sorely missed. However, in the first instance, I contend the "wow" factor is not enough and in the second I purposefully limited myself to considering single crew compartment aircraft due to the immense workload involved in building multi-crew aircraft which you brought up; not to mention the lack of info on the internals of some planes like the Pe-2/3.

To illustrate: The way I look at it, you can simulate a reasonable fidelity early eastern front campaign without particularly lamenting the absence of the TB3/I16 combo. OTOH, trying to experience an Ardennes Blitz requires a serious stretch of the imagination for lack of the Hs123, Bloch, Ms and Hawk75. That's my yardstick but you are definitely entitled to your opinion.


PS: I never said the Ta-152 was a fantasy plane.

LEXX_Luthor
01-30-2006, 10:09 PM
Shucks, I only brought up the Ta because of my own thought about it. -162 also.

Thanks...I edited something above, and that you made me think the later version TB-3 we got with the Zvenyo stack is an example of what we need *most* -- multi crew aircraft.

I leave 1940 France out of discussion, as that WOULD require Reserved aircraft (-110C, -123) as well as a whole population of new French and 1940 German aircraft and French/British ground units, rather than filling out the two theaters we already have (Eastern Front and Western Front 1942+).


There is no "wow" factor here. Please don't rely on saying that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I am talking about dynamic campaign Online or Offline to simulate WW2 air war on a level higher than "historical accurate dogfight" and that could result in some aircraft reaching production that did not. For example, a campaign where the Luftwaffe undertook the bombing of Soviet targets could see use of MiG-3U, as well, the He-177.

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 10:13 PM
Wow factor is not meant in a demeaning way, just what it is: You go "wow, I never knew that" or "wow, what an interesting plane" but after a few flights, it gets relegated to merely occupying space on your hard drive.

As to "what if" campaigns, I think the limitations have more to do with FB's campaign engine than anything else.

LEXX_Luthor
01-30-2006, 10:14 PM
JetBuff, Have you tried the new TB-3 that came with the I-16SPB? It has one dorsal gunner moved to the tail, and has somewhat higher performance. It can be setup and used as a pure bomber with good load, so its an example of what we do need most, although still insanely obsolete by 1941.

LEXX_Luthor
01-30-2006, 10:19 PM
Jetbuff:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As to "what if" campaigns, I think the limitations have more to do with FB's campaign engine than anything else. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes. BoB And Beyond hopefully is designed from the start with very deep dynamic campaigns in mind, either from developer or 3rd Parties.

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
JetBuff, Have you tried the new TB-3 that came with the I-16SPB? It has one dorsal gunner moved to the tail, and has somewhat higher performance. It can be setup and used as a pure bomber with good load, so its an example of what we do need most, although still insanely obsolete by 1941. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Alas, my experience in designing online campaigns at least has been that most people lobby for clown-crates like the Spit/K-4 we're getting but rarely for a TB-3. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-31-2006, 12:05 AM
Ya, sometimes I wonder what the world would be like today if McNamara hadn't cancelled the B-70, and Oleg made Spanish Civil WAR instead of AEP.

fordfan25
01-31-2006, 12:38 AM
i would like to see the FM and DM's not be subject to olegs opinion alone but reviewd and passed by a small number of people. a set numer of reprosenatives from each nation whos planes are in the game. another words if there are brit,ussr,usa and japo fighters in BOB there should be at least two people form each country that has to OK the FM and DM befor it gets put into a game. probly not posable but it would be great

LEXX_Luthor
01-31-2006, 12:57 AM
Nah, we can do it if we want to. I Whined about Whiners recently, and none offered numbers with their Wine. All you have to do is get people together and test the flight models in the game. Easy? No. Does it work? Yes. I'd be nice to see a FM test squad, one from each Online squad maybe. But then, the bombers would never get tested. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

fordfan25
01-31-2006, 01:01 AM
yea that would be fair.i think it should be an even numberof players for each country in the game who A: have been playing or a part of this community for a set number of years. B:is of a agreed apon age and C" biased towards the F4u-4 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

waffen-79
01-31-2006, 01:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Thanks Jetbuff. If you don't mind, I'd like to make a point about your list. Bloch I don't think is theater relevant -- I could be WRONG. As you note, Spit-61 and rated Antons would use the same or very closely derived cockpit and external models, and need only FM,DM tweaking by the Central Moscow Bureau. The "fantasy" planes are not the cause of Spit-61/RatedAnton missing from the sim.

Flyable Ki-27 may be coming.
Spit-1 *is* hugely different, but is Reserved and everybody here knows it.
Typhoon was supposed to be coming, but I think you know what happened there.
Hs-123 was considered long ago, but I believe is now Reserved also (for BoB~&gt;1939Poland).

Here's my list of the most needed Flyable aircraft...very partial list, ignoring versions, Eastern Front only which is something csThor would agree on...

Flyable...

He-177
Ju-188
Fw-189
Ju-52
Me-210
Me-410
Ar-234
Hs-129 ...I "forgot" this one!!
(let Bf-110C and Hs-123 be Reserved for BoB And Beyond)

I-152
R-10
Su-2
SB
DB-3
Tu-2
Pe-2, IL-10 ... coming soon

I too have certain Limits, and that limit is the historical intention to field a production combat aircraft. BI-1 fits this, so this rocket interceptor is not "fantasy" in a combat flight sim that seeks to simulate WW2 rather than merely "re-enact" WW2. The purely experimental rocket boosted La-7 and Yak-3 that Oleg is creating for the Russian Addon are not directly usable in a dynamic camapaign, unlike aircraft initially intended for the possibility of mass production and use such as MiG-3U, I-185, Do-335, He-162, Ta-152H (and -152C) etc....



I kinda include He-162 as "fantasy" but not Me-163. The "numbers" don't tell the whole story, as the -163 had a profound impact in the minds of 8th Air Force crew members.

Not sure if I include Ta-152H as "fantasy" or "real" but either way its an essential addition for late war dynamic campaign.


TB-3/I-16 is a core feature in an Eastern Front combat flight sim, as it was a unique system used several times successfully in combat. I consider a well designed combat flight sim as a historical educational tool. Don't forget, the Blue members of ubi.com threw a Panick on the boards when the first TB-3/I-16 "zvenyo" or "stack" screenshots were releaced. They thought it was some 1946 Russian thing, they never saw this before. Now they have learned something new about WW2 aviation, and its not 1944. Also -- we NEEDED the higher performance TB-3 that came with TB-3/I-16, and this was NOT a "fantasy" plane as it was produced in large numbers. Better, it has a tail gunner with a *simple* to mod cockpit, so does not fit with the single-crew "fantasy" planes I am thinking of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree 100%

those planes would be a nice adition to the existing series (FB+AEP+PF)

Custom content for BOB? but plz no more P-51D with 6 .50 cals on each wing (CFS anyone?)

LeOs.K_Walstein
01-31-2006, 01:46 AM
I voted "No". No restrictions...

All in all this sim is literally a dream-come-true game. I am happy to fly the planes what others seem not to like. Let there be Bi-1, Bf109-Z etc. I am waiting for the Pfeil and Bf-109K-4 with 1,98 ata and high octan fuel.

About the Battle Of Britain: I would like to see relevant aeroplanes added by 3:rd party, but if we get "irrelevant" oneÔ┬┤s I`ll still be gratefull and happy for it.

It requires more work than what I can estimate to create flyable aeroplanes. That is why I donÔ┬┤t want to criticize the developerÔ┬┤s choises. I`ll be happy with what they decide to create.

Thank you, kindly,
Wallstein

Jetbuff
01-31-2006, 06:20 PM
The hope is that we won't have to criticize their choices, but influence them Walstein. Besides how do we judge the performance of some of these fantasy planes? It's hard enough with the common variants.

LEXX_Luthor
01-31-2006, 07:41 PM
JetBuff:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Besides how do we judge the performance of some of these fantasy planes? It's hard enough with the common variants. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
109Z and Goth are the only fantasy planes in the sim that do not have test data. All the others do have test data available at least in varying amounts, or did have data but it was lost, and that causes a crippling problem not restricted to mere "fantasy."

There are probably many "forgotten" aircraft that were widely used in war, but data and photographs not preserved. Kharkov-Kai R-10 test data and SB rear gunner cockpit come to mind as a good guess. They might have to be done "as best as possible" and that means As Best As Possible. The alternative, no R-10 and No SB, is even less historical -- funny they are "realistic" enough to be used as AI in the campaigns that ship with the fully marketable software content -- Think about that.

Flight sims of 15 years ago did not have the "historical detail" of FM or 3D modelling of Oleg's sim today, but I bet they gave just as much enjoyment to the hardcore flight simmer as does Oleg's sim today. When you consider that in another 15 years, Oleg's FM and 3D modelling standards will be considered "insufficient" you see what is going on here. If you have little data, you do the best you can to expand the simulation of air warfare.

TargetWare is slowly developing a Spanish Civil WAR "mod" and I wonder what test data and 3D cockpit data if any is available for some of those forgotten aircraft, yet TargetWare prides itself on "realistic" flight model, and lack of data is not stopping them from hopefully offering software content that many people want to see -- Spanish Civil War.

ie...lack of "data" comparable to Lockheed's extensive recorded and preserved data on P-38(tm) is not stopping TargetWare developers from working the Spanish Civil War or World War 1 for that matter. They do the best they can with what's available. ThirdWire is making a WW1 sim also, and a Russian Team is working World War 1 with Oleg's sim engine, and another Russian developer is creating an even earlier WW1 simulation based on Sikorsky's designs. That is software content. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-31-2006, 08:01 PM
Sorry Jetbuff, that long winded thing I wrote above is to show that "fantasy" and "forgotten" planes may share the same difficulties in data and 3D references.

Why couldn't I just SAY that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If it helps, I'll take the "forgotten" planes before any "fantasy" planes, but once the planeset is filled out, the fantasy planes can be handled much like forgotten planes. There are lessons to be learned from the fantasy planes in FB/PF, but with a decade of development ahead for BoB And Beyond, lets not learn the wrong lessons. We may be banning much more than fantasy planes.

jarink
01-31-2006, 09:40 PM
Forgotten planes?

That might be hard to sell to 3rd party modellers.
As for forgotten planes that I'd like to see, I'd really like this one:
http://www.2iemeguerre.com/avions/images/image1486.jpg

Jetbuff
02-01-2006, 11:49 AM
Interested in seeing a few more votes to validate any conclusions drawn from this thread.

jasonbirder
02-01-2006, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">reviewd and passed by a small number of people. a set numer of reprosenatives from each nation whos planes are in the game. another words if there are brit,ussr,usa and japo fighters in BOB there should be at least two people form each country that has to OK the FM and DM befor it gets put into a game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are we seriously suggesting that the modelling in this game is done on a "Eurovision" song-contest style basis...
IE: I'm from county x so will make sure planes from MY contry perform better relative to planes from country y & Z and so forth...

Jetbuff
02-01-2006, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">reviewd and passed by a small number of people. a set numer of reprosenatives from each nation whos planes are in the game. another words if there are brit,ussr,usa and japo fighters in BOB there should be at least two people form each country that has to OK the FM and DM befor it gets put into a game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are we seriously suggesting that the modelling in this game is done on a "Eurovision" song-contest style basis...
IE: I'm from county x so will make sure planes from MY contry perform better relative to planes from country y & Z and so forth... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hope not! I never noticed this particular post, but the poll is about whether we could encourage modellers to work on planes that actually have a point in the theatre(s) in question.