PDA

View Full Version : Ki-43 Fans, did you know?.......



LEBillfish
07-22-2005, 11:31 PM
there were only;
35 Ki-43-Ia built?
45 Ki-43-Ib built?
636 Ki-43-Ic built?
2224 Ki-43-IIa built?
300 Ki-43-IIa Tropical built?
1031 Ki-43-IIb built?
500 Ki-43-IIKai built?
1098 Ki-43-IIIa built?

Ia my favorite of what we have.....So with so few of the version would that make me a test pilot?

Feathered_IV
07-23-2005, 01:25 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG53Frankyboy
07-23-2005, 01:56 AM
interesting read about the Ki-43-I armament

http://www.warbirdforum.com/rdunn43.htm

and that even in November/December 1942 two Sentais with Ki-43-I were sent to Rabaul , not 43-II http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ImpStarDuece
07-23-2005, 02:14 AM
I love the Ic. Hmmmm, maybe there is something in the name?

With the 2x 12.7mm and the ability to turn like a kids toy on a string, its a wonderful little bird.

Take it into a WonderWoman dogfight server and watch the feathers fly. You can out turn any monoplane and outpace any biplane. Ages back, when PF first came out, I had someone PM me on HyperLobby afterwards asking where they could get the hacks I was using http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Badsight.
07-23-2005, 04:34 AM
with such pathetic armament & speed , why couldnt they have allowed the 20mm cannon model in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Atomic_Marten
07-23-2005, 04:38 AM
I would like to see 3-blade propeller version flyable. Ki-43 isn't used much online except for HC Ki fans, or on server with really limited planeset.
The one with 2x20mms and 'regular' gunsite would be used much more often.

Nonetheless, KI43 is a fun plane to play with.

JG53Frankyboy
07-23-2005, 05:45 AM
sry, but the 20mm armament version, the Ki-43-IIIb was only build two times.
and the weight of the canosn influenced the performance so bad - it came never in production.

all these Ki-43 were realy , except the Ia&b , only aremd with two 12,7mm Ho-103 the whole wartime http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

F19_Olli72
07-23-2005, 06:22 AM
Well, ive read that many Ic's were retrofitted with Ib armament because pilots thought the ROF was too cr@appy of the original Ic guns.

I actually prefer the Ia version myself because of the ROF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Telescopic sight and peashooters, now thats a real fighter! Pity Ki-27 (if we ever get it), will propably be AI only http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Also the fatter cousin Ki-44 would be fun, with telescopic sights of course http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Anyone read Ryuji Nagatsuka's book? Good combat account of how they attacked B-29s with Oscars.


Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
and that even in November/December 1942 two Sentais with Ki-43-I were sent to Rabaul , not 43-II http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hey, in 1942 Flying Tigers still scored against Ki-27s(!).

JG53Frankyboy
07-23-2005, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:

Hey, in 1942 Flying Tigers still scored against Ki-27s(!).

sure, the Ki-43-I was in december 41 a brand new plane ! only 2 Sentais had some

Atomic_Marten
07-23-2005, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
sry, but the 20mm armament version, the Ki-43-IIIb was only build two times.
and the weight of the canosn influenced the performance so bad - it came never in production.

Apparently your criteria isn't matched with 1C's criteria.
Or, then how can explain MiG-3U or I-185 .. ?

Siwarrior
07-23-2005, 08:06 AM
Flying on some severs with externals i find it easy to lure a FW pilot into a dogifght and kill the pilot :0 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

ElAurens
07-23-2005, 08:21 AM
Generally I fly the Ib. When that short ammo load on the 12.7 runs dry (all to fast I might add), at least I have more than my joystick in my hand to get home on.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

JG53Frankyboy
07-23-2005, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
sry, but the 20mm armament version, the Ki-43-IIIb was only build two times.
and the weight of the canosn influenced the performance so bad - it came never in production.

Apparently your criteria isn't matched with 1C's criteria.
Or, then how can explain MiG-3U or I-185 .. ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

but they HAVE a good performance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
07-23-2005, 11:51 AM
ki43 with 2 cannon would be a terror http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
07-23-2005, 02:44 PM
Very interesting how selective the approach is with regards to most one-offs. We don't get any cannon-armed Tonys either, and they accounted for nearly a third of the production.

Clearly on the Ki-43, there should be no cannon version. But, it would be nice if, in one of these patches, Oleg did the right thing and just cleaned out the I-185, the MiG-3U, the 109Z and all the other completely unrepresentative planes and excised them from the planeset entirely.

Stackhouse25th
07-23-2005, 02:50 PM
i think oleg does it...cus odds are future sims you wont be able to fly the version that didnt see much action on other titles. im sure the planes all fly kinda the same.

Fred_77
07-23-2005, 03:41 PM
The Ki-61 Hei is equipped with 2 20mm cannons. The real issue with the Tony is the 25 km/h missing from it's top speed.

A flyable Ki-43-II should also be a priority seeing as it made up by far the majority of Ki-43's producded. It's not like it would be hard to make, the original Ki cockpit would just need to be modified and then added to the AI Ki-43-II. It would help fill out the mid/late IJA lineup.

S!
Fred.

A.K.Davis
07-23-2005, 08:04 PM
Yes, I knew this. I also know that Gibbage offered to make Ki-43-II after Ki-43-I, but was told by game design guru Luthier that it was not needed for PF project.

LEXX_Luthor
07-23-2005, 08:14 PM
Stiglr::
Clearly on the Ki-43, there should be no cannon version. But, it would be nice if, in one of these patches, Oleg did the right thing and just cleaned out the I-185, the MiG-3U, the 109Z and all the other completely unrepresentative planes and excised them from the planeset entirely.
Followed through, this means the sim will have only one (1) flyable airplane -- the one built in greatest numbers in WW2. Who knows, that may mean IL-2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Not sure. When we count all the "prototype" dogfighter planes and compare them with "real" dogfighter planes, the "prototypes" can't explain the lack of <span class="ev_code_yellow">flyable bombers</span>. Best to focus on the artificial requirements for crew station modding in this case, and not the "prototypes."

These were historically representative of military Aviation development in the 1940s. That's not to say they all made it into The Dogfight(tm). Indeed, the only MiG-3U combat mission I know of was a tactical failure but stopped any further German recce missions over Moscow -- a strategic air warfare victory. That's not to say simulation of strategic interception will be popular within the arcade Online dogfighter community.

nakamura_kenji
07-23-2005, 08:27 PM
luthier made some strange chosices like no ki-44 but instead he gave us the dinah ???0_0???

Feathered_IV
07-24-2005, 06:16 AM
I also know that Gibbage offered to make Ki-43-II after Ki-43-I, but was told by game design guru Luthier that it was not needed for PF project.



....Speechless http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
07-24-2005, 12:06 PM
Stackhouse wrote:

i think oleg does it...cus odds are future sims you wont be able to fly the version that didnt see much action on other titles. im sure the planes all fly kinda the same.

This depends on how you look at it. I'd be all for the "oddities" if you could find a MAJORITY of the action in the community centered around the representative planes. This is CLEARLY not even CLOSE to being the case. Because a lot of the oddities are built around upgunned versions, people gravitate toward them. That's why you can't find a stock '43 Corsair for all the Cannon C versions flying around.

In a sim like this, where the planes are totally unstructured (for purposes of game play), it's a better design decision to model the planes that MATTERED.

I'd also add that you don't see these planes in other sims because the designers probably made the correct assumption that they were rare enough as to be irrelevant to a "representation" of WWII combat, and that they would be an imbalance to game play.

LEXX_Luthor
07-24-2005, 06:11 PM
Stiglr::
I'd be all for the "oddities" if you could find a MAJORITY of the action in the community centered around the representative planes.
Thanks for the honesty. That's the problem we need worry about -- tools for realistically structuring the sim. That's why I don't mind the Oddballs, and in fact like most of them. They have no relation to the needed tools.

Stiglr::
In a sim like this, where the planes are totally unstructured (for purposes of game play), it's a better design decision to model the planes that MATTERED.
That won't work either. Then you have historical Bf-109G10 vs historical Bf-109G14 dogfighter servers. The Oddballs are not the problem here.

LEXX_Luthor
07-24-2005, 06:26 PM
Also Stiglr, The Oddballs are identical to all the "real" fighters -- all are single seat fighters. I don't think we have any "prototype" multi-crew bombers. I think we simply ran out of single seat WW2 fighters and cockpits to mod. Think about it.

Bolt40
07-24-2005, 06:38 PM
The only thing you ran out of ..is lack of motivation ..

SaQSoN
07-24-2005, 07:26 PM
I also know that Gibbage offered to make Ki-43-II after Ki-43-I, but was told by game design guru Luthier that it was not needed for PF project.

You know nothing. If I wouldn't suppose you're misinformed, I'd say it's a lies.
By the way, there IS Ki-43-II in the game, if you didn't notice. Though it is AI only. Why? See below.
The Ki-44 was also ordered by Luthier to a 3rd party modeller, however, this guy failed to acomplish, what he started (And that's, BTW, is the main reason, why many important for the PF planes and ships didn't make it in).

Stigler_9_JG52
07-24-2005, 09:40 PM
Luthor wrote:

Stiglr::
quote:
In a sim like this, where the planes are totally unstructured (for purposes of game play), it's a better design decision to model the planes that MATTERED.

That won't work either. Then you have historical Bf-109G10 vs historical Bf-109G14 dogfighter servers. The Oddballs are not the problem here.

I don't get what you mean here. The idea would be to match these two 109s vs. their contemporaries, which'd be La5FNs, some La7s, some Yak 3s, lots of Yak 9s, P-51 C and Ds, P-47Cs and Ds, Spit IXs, etc., etc. not to match them against each other.

The oddballs ARE the problem. IF (and it's a big if) people would still gravitate toward the real life matchups a majority of the time, and every now and then dip into the 'what if' pool, it'd be fine. But the sim is so structureless that people just figure out which planes are the most capable, and don't factor in that "only 6 were built" or that "they appeared for basically the last month of the entire war and were deployed against barely trained Kamikaze pilots".

The lack of bombers is a different issue, although a pressing one, I grant you.

p1ngu666
07-24-2005, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I also know that Gibbage offered to make Ki-43-II after Ki-43-I, but was told by game design guru Luthier that it was not needed for PF project.

You know nothing. If I wouldn't suppose you're misinformed, I'd say it's a lies.
By the way, there IS Ki-43-II in the game, if you didn't notice. Though it is AI only. Why? See below.
The Ki-44 was also ordered by Luthier to a 3rd party modeller, however, this guy failed to acomplish, what he started (And that's, BTW, is the main reason, why many important for the PF planes and ships didn't make it in). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

there is no below, or gib failed to complete II ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

anyone care to enlighten me to whats the difference from the I we have ingame, to the II and III ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

SaQSoN
07-24-2005, 11:53 PM
gib failed to complete II ?
He did the EXTERNAL model for both, Ki-43-I and Ki-43-II and both are present in the game from the very beginning.
As for the cockpit, it's a long story, but generally, it's something like that. One, who had to do it, failed to complete it.

Utchoud
07-25-2005, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
anyone care to enlighten me to whats the difference from the I we have ingame, to the II and III ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The Ki-43-II had a Nakajima Ha-115 engine (1166 HP takeoff) with a 3-blade propeller and 2-stage supercharger. Stretghtened wing, 0.6 m shorter wingspan, ability co carry two 250 kg bombs or two 200 l droptanks. Self-sealing tanks and 13 mm pilot seat armor.

The Ki-43-IIIa had a Ha-115-II engine (1230 HP). Weaponry remained at the Ki-43-Ic standard. Only few IIIs were built and tested. Two prototypes of Ki-43-IIIb interceptor were being built, with Ha-112 engines for high altitudes and two 20 mm cannons.

Utchoud

sapre
07-25-2005, 12:41 AM
I don't mind at all just using the cockpit of I for II.
I just want to fly the plane.

alert_1
07-25-2005, 02:10 AM
I don't mind at all just using the cockpit of I for II.
Ki 43 II had much better rearview then I...

Utchoud
07-25-2005, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Ki 43 II had much better rearview then I...

Not really. There was no substantial difference in the cockpit / canopy design (I don't want to say the cockpits were identical, I don't know anything about this).

However, the real rear view of the Ki-43 was much better than what we have in the game. It's due to the telescopic sight, you can't lean forward by pressing Shift+F1 like with other planes. The K-43-II did not have a telescopic sight, so I can assume the in-game rear view would be better.

JG53Frankyboy
07-25-2005, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

anyone care to enlighten me to whats the difference from the I we have ingame, to the II and III ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki43.html

SaQSoN
07-25-2005, 04:24 AM
Not really. There was no substantial difference in the cockpit / canopy design (I don't want to say the cockpits were identical, I don't know anything about this).

The panel, controls and other in-cockpit stuff layout was very different in the II from the I.
But the canopy did not undergo much changes, so the view quality shouldn't change much.

JG53Frankyboy
07-25-2005, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not really. There was no substantial difference in the cockpit / canopy design (I don't want to say the cockpits were identical, I don't know anything about this).

The panel, controls and other in-cockpit stuff layout was very different in the II from the I.
But the canopy did not undergo much changes, so the view quality shouldn't change much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it would change a lot !
because, as already said, you could lean forward because of the "normal" Revi - think about your Ki-61 pit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEBillfish
07-25-2005, 08:05 AM
First off when it comes to the Ki-43 get "Cannons out of your noggins"....A couple test bed prototypes, of the III series they toyed with the idea but was never ever put into any production craft.

ALL Ki-43 that anyone would have seen in combat anywhere JUST had 2-12.7mm MGs. Additional armament would have been....
Ic....2x15kg bombs (though may just of been another continuous improvement prototype like above).
II-III series, 2x30 or 250kg bombs, droptanks. Interestingly Ki-43 would commonly be seen carrying a single droptank yet could carry 2.

Naturally just as with the Ki-61, Ski's were tried for the everconstant threat on the soviet border.

Other changes besides H.P. was a "jet type exaust" which added 40km/h, clipped wings, large intake filtration for Tropical version, and so on.

What is MOST interesting however is how the Ki-43 unlike most other planes was in a "constant" state of continuous improvement. Most others simply had problems addressed, the Ki-43 they were constantly trying out every idea they could come up with. It truly was an "exceptional" example of engineering and manufacturing working hand in hand.

Sadly, by 1943 however it was already obsolete, though continued improved production till all efforts finally shifted to the Ki-84 as its replacement.

Perhaps that is why the Ki-84 is so good huh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
07-25-2005, 10:22 AM
I would really enjoy the Ki-43 if it had a reflector sight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif The cockpits of all the Ki series are some of my favorites.

Atomic_Marten
07-25-2005, 10:48 AM
"ALL Ki-43 that anyone would have seen in combat anywhere JUST had 2-12.7mm MGs"

Hey LEBillfish did that mean that Ki-43 with 7,62mms didn't saw any combat?

LEBillfish
07-25-2005, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
"ALL Ki-43 that anyone would have seen in combat anywhere JUST had 2-12.7mm MGs"

Hey LEBillfish did that mean that Ki-43 with 7,62mms didn't saw any combat?

Not that I'm aware of but will look into it.

Utchoud
07-25-2005, 12:01 PM
The 59th and 64th Sentai entered war on the Malayan peninsula in December 1941 only with Ki-43-Ia fighters, and with great success. The later versions -Ib with one 12.7 mm and one 7.62 mm gun and -Ic with two 12.7 mm guns were delivered as soon as the production of the Ho-103 guns grew, but at least for some time the IJAAF pilots had to fight in the Ki-43-Ia.

TeaWagon
07-25-2005, 12:02 PM
It certainly demonstrates how neglected the Japanese types are in Pacific Fighters. The Betty as flyable we didn't get until just recently, and as you have yourself noted, Billfish, the KI-61 Hien versions we have are bastardized and blended versions of other types, forming versions that never seemed to have existed.

It is a sad enough joke that the versions of the IJA's main fighter, the Hayabusa, are the oldest and least produced ones... As your figures note (I'd like to know where you got those figures, please) the IC we have is the closest thing we have to a major version, with most of the manufactured types being of the II series, which we only have as AI.

Pretty remarkable, really. Just goes to show you just how how much poor planning, scattered effort, and unfinished patches can damage a product that otherwise has some fine work done to it. Here is hoping for something better (and most importantly more professional) when Battle of Britain comes about.

~S~

A.K.Davis
07-25-2005, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I also know that Gibbage offered to make Ki-43-II after Ki-43-I, but was told by game design guru Luthier that it was not needed for PF project.

You know nothing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that Gibbage told me this himself, but that was a long time ago and I can't find the discussion in Netwings archives. If that is wrong, fine, but poor communication and coordination would be Luthier's failing on the PF project and such misinformation is the result. AFAIK, this is the first time someone has said that the Ki-43-II cockpit was even worked on.

A.K.Davis
07-25-2005, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not really. There was no substantial difference in the cockpit / canopy design (I don't want to say the cockpits were identical, I don't know anything about this).

The panel, controls and other in-cockpit stuff layout was very different in the II from the I.
But the canopy did not undergo much changes, so the view quality shouldn't change much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

View quality would change substantially, as you would benefit from rearview with head leaned forward instead of rearview with head against headrest.

LEBillfish
07-25-2005, 01:47 PM
I have it where the 1a/1b went to the Akeno flying school as they were used simply to set up manufacturing lines and tooling, the 1c going to the 59th and 64th Hikosentai and all other units....So the lesser gunned versions used for conversion training...But will check a few more sources and compare.

Utchoud
07-25-2005, 02:15 PM
Possibly, check your sources, I don't have too many. I've found my information in two books that quote similar sources, they may be both wrong.

LEBillfish
07-25-2005, 02:36 PM
Well I tell ya what, I'll also ask the experts on j-aircraft

han freak solo
07-25-2005, 02:53 PM
Let's fly this against the Ki-43. 330mph top speed, 2x.50 MG, 1x20mm cannon. Little wings make it look like a BnZ plane compared to the Ki-43.

Oops, only 2 XP-77 were built. Oh well.

http://www.lssdigital.com/strangeplane.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
07-25-2005, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Luthor wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Stiglr::
quote:
In a sim like this, where the planes are totally unstructured (for purposes of game play), it's a better design decision to model the planes that MATTERED.

That won't work either. Then you have historical Bf-109G10 vs historical Bf-109G14 dogfighter servers. The Oddballs are not the problem here.

I don't get what you mean here. The idea would be to match these two 109s vs. their contemporaries, which'd be La5FNs, some La7s, some Yak 3s, lots of Yak 9s, P-51 C and Ds, P-47Cs and Ds, Spit IXs, etc., etc. not to match them against each other.

The oddballs ARE the problem. IF (and it's a big if) people would still gravitate toward the real life matchups a majority of the time, and every now and then dip into the 'what if' pool, it'd be fine. But the sim is so structureless that people just figure out which planes are the most capable, and don't factor in that "only 6 were built" or that "they appeared for basically the last month of the entire war and were deployed against barely trained Kamikaze pilots".

The lack of bombers is a different issue, although a pressing one, I grant you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are getting there. The server structuring you want won't exist with or without the Oddball planes. Do you think something as simple as taking planes out of the sim will change gamer behavior? I don't think you do, but you are frustrated at the excessive wild matchups, and the Oddballs are a tempting target for blame.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-25-2005, 05:19 PM
Au contraire.

The planes I listed in there were all representative for their time. There's not a I-185, 109Z, Bi-1 or anything like that in the bunch. Would that change gamer behavior or lazy server design behavior? No. But, if "everyone" gravitates more towards a 109K instead of a 109Z, you still get representative action, even with typical "gottawin" behavior. That's because a 109K was, at one time, "the" representative 109 in the skies.

On the other hand, if these oddities were taken out of the sim, you'd still be left with the ability to recreate almost all the matchups that DID decide the war. But, with these oddities in the list, and with no limits on their use (plus all kinds of cheesy benefits to tempt players to fly them), that's when they become a problem.

TeaWagon
07-25-2005, 05:30 PM
To my knowledge, most of the experimental types we have were built by 3rd party modelers and were of high enough quality to be included in the game, and thus Oleg and company stuck a flight model on them.

I never fly them and have no real interest in doing so other than once in a blue moon for a lark, but to dictate to people that they can't fly in unrealistic servers with airquake matchups is wrong.

I, like you, dislike it as well, but I recognize the right these people have to do it; to many this is just a game, not a simulator (and one could certainly argue whether FBAEPPF is much of a simulator as well) so the solution to airquake servers is... Just don't join them or pay attention to them. Just that simple.

There are scripted, historical match-up dogfight servers...but personally, I think there is nothing better than a good historical cooperative. Even if these high-performing experimental planes were removed, it wouldn't change the behavior of airquakers at all.

They'd just use the best, conventional types readily available in the manner. Realize this, and please.. Move on.

p1ngu666
07-25-2005, 06:29 PM
thanks for the info http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

id put the likelyhood of II pit not being done due to miscomunication at 60% or higher http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

LEXX_Luthor
07-25-2005, 07:19 PM
Stiglr::
The planes I listed in there were all representative for their time. There's not a I-185, 109Z, Bi-1 or anything like that in the bunch. Would that change gamer behavior or lazy server design behavior? No. But, if "everyone" gravitates more towards a 109K instead of a 109Z, you still get representative action, even with typical "gottawin" behavior. That's because a 109K was, at one time, "the" representative 109 in the skies.
You are saying that all 109K servers will be historic and realistic? Not trying to pick on you, but the problem is tools to structure the sim, not the oddities.

Stiglr::
On the other hand, if these oddities were taken out of the sim, you'd still be left with the ability to recreate almost all the matchups that DID decide the war. But, with these oddities in the list, and with no limits on their use (plus all kinds of cheesy benefits to tempt players to fly them), that's when they become a problem.
With all the oddities, we still have the all the other planes and the same ability to recreate almost all the matchups that DID decide the war. You may have "forgotten" that we have Bf-109 E,F,G, and K models to work with here. Now, we just need the Tools to work with all these plane Choices. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And the fans of military aviation can still czech out the oddities, much like the real life (not gamer) top combat pilots who competed to fly these aircraft -- except Yak-3R coming in Russian CD who's pilot "hated this aircraft" (Gunsten) and got killed by it's rocket exploding.

SaQSoN
07-25-2005, 09:46 PM
poor communication and coordination would be Luthier's failing on the PF project and such misinformation is the result.

id put the likelyhood of II pit not being done due to miscomunication at 60% or higher

The main Luthier's failing and the main reason, why this or that important plane or ship didn't get into the game, was his decision to rely on 3rd party enthusiast modellers, instead of hiring proffessional outsourcers.

As for miscommunication, well, yes, he can be accused in that, but this played very small part in the process and usually was most noticable, when payment question would arise. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
When you have several dozens of models and every each of them makes you doubt in it's author's sanity, you can't do much about that. You can't write a 3 dozen of detailed bug reports with pictures in one day. All you can do - is merely one report per 24 hours.
Guess, what the guy would feel, when he gets "fixed" version of the model with the same old bugs, which he described in previous bug-report? I, myself, at such occasions just asked such modellers to fck off. Probably, Luthier is more polite, so he simply stopped answering to their e-mails. And note, I didn't have to pay those "modellers".

Oh, and do you know, why I am writing all that stuff? Because right now I am fixing a model, that had to go into the initial PF release, but was put aside due to the numerous bugs. Now I am ordered to fix it.
You can't even imagine in what odd ways I would torture and kill it's **** author!..

Stigler_9_JG52
07-25-2005, 11:07 PM
I agree, Lexx, the preferable thing would have been for Oleg to exercise more quality control and structure the sim better. I've said this many times before, and will continue to say it.

Of course, if he had any cajones, he could do that retroactively. Just pick a patch, lift the one-offs lock stock and barrel and just FIX it. As it is, people use the inclusion of every other plane that shouldn't be in the sim, to justify the inclusion of their own favored self-serving "neverflew". And the mistake just gets compounded. But I don't think Oleg has the will to do that, let alone the sense.

LEBillfish
07-26-2005, 12:32 AM
Yadda, Yadda, Yadda...Blah, blah, blah...this is not about anyones sour grapes they got this, we didn't get that blah, blah, blah......

It's about Ki-43's.....More specifically "Type 1 Fighters/Sentoki"

So back to the topic.....In response to the above virtually every book/ebook/article I have states the 1a & 1b were mostly initial tooling set up craft....The 1c the actual unit built and shipped and what would be everywhere till the II series came out......

However.....and I'll let you read this for yourself.. http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/nakajima_ki43arm.htm ...this article states with some rather convincing arguments that there was NO such beast as a 1a, 1b, 1c......Yet just a Type 1 fighter Model 1.

That by itself would suggest what we have found so far would make sense...1a/1b prototypes, 1c production.....However, if you read above (and you really need to to understand)...WHat Mr. Dunn suggests is that what we call the "1b" was the true common Ki-43-I fighter...the other two oddities.

However, and I intend on posing this to him....I have a sneaking suspition that the 1c was the production run....However most became 1b's in the field.....For the reasons he states.

However read for yourself...

& fans of Ki-43's you really really need to find a copy of "Aero Detail #29" You will find more up close and detailed pics there then anywhere....as an example...the self sealing fuel tanks.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/78th/Untitled-1.jpg

sapre
07-26-2005, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> poor communication and coordination would be Luthier's failing on the PF project and such misinformation is the result.

id put the likelyhood of II pit not being done due to miscomunication at 60% or higher

The main Luthier's failing and the main reason, why this or that important plane or ship didn't get into the game, was his decision to rely on 3rd party enthusiast modellers, instead of hiring proffessional outsourcers.

As for miscommunication, well, yes, he can be accused in that, but this played very small part in the process and usually was most noticable, when payment question would arise. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
When you have several dozens of models and every each of them makes you doubt in it's author's sanity, you can't do much about that. You can't write a 3 dozen of detailed bug reports with pictures in one day. All you can do - is merely one report per 24 hours.
Guess, what the guy would feel, when he gets "fixed" version of the model with the same old bugs, which he described in previous bug-report? I, myself, at such occasions just asked such modellers to fck off. Probably, Luthier is more polite, so he simply stopped answering to their e-mails. And note, I didn't have to pay those "modellers".

Oh, and do you know, why I am writing all that stuff? Because right now I am fixing a model, that had to go into the initial PF release, but was put aside due to the numerous bugs. Now I am ordered to fix it.
You can't even imagine in what odd ways I would torture and kill it's **** author!.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any chance that you can tell us WHAT model you that are fixing now?
Please! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Feathered_IV
07-26-2005, 02:39 AM
Oh, and do you know, why I am writing all that stuff? Because right now I am fixing a model, that had to go into the initial PF release, but was put aside due to the numerous bugs. Now I am ordered to fix it.


Yes! Tell us PLEASE!!!!!

ElAurens
07-26-2005, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Au contraire.

That's because a 109K was, at one time, "the" representative 109 in the skies.



Stigler, have you been hanging out with Issy/Kurfurst? The "K" was never the "representative" 109 type. Too little too late I'm afraid.

I think you need to find some better online servers. Or better yet, start one yourself. this little piece of software allows all of us to find, or to make, anything we want of it. If some like the "what if" birds, cool. Let them fly them. You don't have to. No one is forcing you to fly on any server you don't like.

Grow up.

csThor
07-26-2005, 06:01 AM
I wouldn't dismiss that so easily, ElAurens. At the end of 1944 the transition program to the K-4 was beginning to pick up speed and even though I'm speculating here it would be entirely possible that the majority of the serviceable 109s in frontline use at the end of the war was of the K-4 subtype.

Utchoud
07-26-2005, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/nakajima_ki43arm.htm (http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/nakajima_ki43arm.htm)

Thanks, Billfish. I am now one website more clever http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif So It seems that most of the Ki-43-I flew with one 7.7 mm and one 12.7 mm gun, while the version with two 7.7 mm guns was not used in combat. Furthermore, the designations -Ia, -Ib, -Ic probably don't have much to do with the armament variants, and it's questionable if they have anything to do with anything.

But I think the thread is already somewhere else.

Utchoud

Atomic_Marten
07-26-2005, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Utchoud:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/nakajima_ki43arm.htm (http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/nakajima_ki43arm.htm)

Thanks, Billfish. I am now one website more clever http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif So It seems that most of the Ki-43-I flew with one 7.7 mm and one 12.7 mm gun, while the version with two 7.7 mm guns was not used in combat. Furthermore, the designations -Ia, -Ib, -Ic probably don't have much to do with the armament variants, and it's questionable if they have anything to do with anything.

But I think the thread is already somewhere else.

Utchoud </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good to know.. but.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

A.K.Davis
07-26-2005, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> poor communication and coordination would be Luthier's failing on the PF project and such misinformation is the result.

id put the likelyhood of II pit not being done due to miscomunication at 60% or higher

The main Luthier's failing and the main reason, why this or that important plane or ship didn't get into the game, was his decision to rely on 3rd party enthusiast modellers, instead of hiring proffessional outsourcers.

As for miscommunication, well, yes, he can be accused in that, but this played very small part in the process and usually was most noticable, when payment question would arise. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
When you have several dozens of models and every each of them makes you doubt in it's author's sanity, you can't do much about that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are mistaking my remarks as a criticisim of Luthier's personality or character. The decision to use 3rd party modellers, the failure to coordinate such an arrangement (perhaps no one could have, but that is beside the point) and the very high demands on communication skills needed for such an arrangement all contributed to the final outcome of PF.

I think to say that all PF problems were because of unprofessional behavior of 3rd-party enthusiasts is unfair. First you must establish that they were treated as professionals.

LEXX_Luthor
07-26-2005, 03:00 PM
Stiglr::
Just pick a patch, lift the one-offs lock stock and barrel and just FIX it.
Oleg could leave the prototypes in the sim and just FIX it. The prototypes have nothing to do with the tools to structure dogfighter servers. And that's the problem...even a "real" planeset will be nothing more than an X-box Dogfight game because few will fly bombers (if any). You see this in TargetWare forums where they are on their knees begging for bomber pilots.

Stiglr::
As it is, people use the inclusion of every other plane that shouldn't be in the sim, to justify the inclusion of their own favored self-serving "neverflew". And the mistake just gets compounded. But I don't think Oleg has the will to do that, let alone the sense.
These personal Faves are single seat dogfight planes. Given the difficulty of bomber modding, the only thing left for (most) 3rd Parties to model is single seat dogfight planes, and only the prototypes are left to mod as most "real" single seat fighters are already in the sim. Prototypes themselves are not the problem, and in fact the prototypes are beautiful evidence of an almost *complete* sim with respect to single seat dogfight planes. We are going in circles here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(to LEBfish .. ) BACK to our regularly scheduled programming:: Island Oscar

Stigler_9_JG52
07-26-2005, 05:17 PM
Must've been looking too high and missed those "people on their knees". But I do see lots of B-25s, A-20s, even Betties, Kates and Vals in Targetware missions.

And it's a problem common to most sims, not just IL-2 or to Targetware. Only a few guys really like to concentrate on the BUFFs.

LEXX_Luthor
07-26-2005, 07:08 PM
Ya, you missed it, but only because I made an example of just one part of one thread. Most are not like that I admit. Overall, Well Done!

Is there any way to force assignment of aircraft to Online players, even Pay~Play, and assuming a structured Online War? I assume bombers have the power to take out enemy airfields, thus denying fighter aces the ability to fly for some time.

p1ngu666
07-26-2005, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SaQSoN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> poor communication and coordination would be Luthier's failing on the PF project and such misinformation is the result.

id put the likelyhood of II pit not being done due to miscomunication at 60% or higher

The main Luthier's failing and the main reason, why this or that important plane or ship didn't get into the game, was his decision to rely on 3rd party enthusiast modellers, instead of hiring proffessional outsourcers.

As for miscommunication, well, yes, he can be accused in that, but this played very small part in the process and usually was most noticable, when payment question would arise. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
When you have several dozens of models and every each of them makes you doubt in it's author's sanity, you can't do much about that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are mistaking my remarks as a criticisim of Luthier's personality or character. The decision to use 3rd party modellers, the failure to coordinate such an arrangement (perhaps no one could have, but that is beside the point) and the very high demands on communication skills needed for such an arrangement all contributed to the final outcome of PF.

I think to say that all PF problems were because of unprofessional behavior of 3rd-party enthusiasts is unfair. First you must establish that they were treated as professionals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, ive seen your report on the swordfish u did for us, and for sure that took awhile for sure..

for us, the general fb community only heard one side, the luther is gone side http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
he did better than i would have for sure, but still it could have been better.

hope u get paid well for correcting that model http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LEBillfish
07-26-2005, 10:50 PM
Lot of courage here slamming someone who's not reading the thread because it's about a topic unrelated to what they're doing...

Impressive.......However simple solution...Do better.....

07/27/05 00:49.......I'll start the clock there, tell me when your done.