PDA

View Full Version : Devastator



Eagle1_Division
10-17-2006, 06:20 PM
Why isn't there a devastator in the game? The devastator played a major role in the battle of midway and was the most offen used U.S. Torpedo bomber, why do we have the TBM-3 avanger instead of this? Can we get a flyable devestator or at least a devastator at all?!

Skycat_2
10-17-2006, 06:33 PM
It's a long, painful story. Don't expect to ever see this plane as flyable, especially as the series has come to its foreseeable end.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL-2/FB/AEP/PF FAQs (http://www.airwarfare.com/sturmovik_101/faq_index.htm) * Nutcase's Full Mission Builder tutorials (http://www.jumpintojapan.com/index.html) * Lowengrin's DCG (http://www.lowengrin.com/news.php) * Downloads at Netwings (http://www.netwings.org/library/)
UbiSoft Customer Solution Center: Pacific Fighters (http://ubisoft.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/ubisoft.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=10061&p_created=1099077749&p_sid=3_uGGxsh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PWRmbHQmcF9ncmlkc29yd D0mcF9yb3dfY250PTQmcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1zZWFyY2hfbmw mcF9wcm9kX2x2bDE9ODgmcF9wc) * CombatAce.com (http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?act=downloads&Itemid=70) * Hyperlobby (http://hyperfighter.sk/) * UberDemon UQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/) * <A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/9901017394" TARGET=_blank>
I mapped my keyboard controls so they're easier to remember, and added user- defined commands</A>

berg417448
10-17-2006, 06:39 PM
The Avenger was a much larger player in WWII than the Devastator. I checked a couple of sources and they both say that there were only 129 Devastators built and they were withdrawn from front line service after Midway.

Contrast that with

TBF-1 2,290 built
TBM-1 2.882 built
TBM-3 4,664 built


EDIT: According to info on the US Navy Historical Center page there were only 39 Devastators left in the USN after the battle of Midway.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/ac-usn22/t-types/tbd.htm

VW-IceFire
10-17-2006, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
The Avenger was a much larger player in WWII than the Devastator. I checked a couple of sources and they both say that there were only 129 Devastators built and they were withdrawn from front line service after Midway.

Contrast that with

TBF-1 2,290 built
TBM-1 2.882 built
TBM-3 4,664 built
That'd be about right.

Whatever Devastators were not destroyed during Midway (because the vast majority were slaughtered) were withdrawn from frontline service.

Avenger was by far the biggest player in the Pacific war on the whole as far as torpedo bombers go. As for the Devastator...long and painful story that, should you really want to know about, should search the forums for.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

gdfo
10-17-2006, 07:11 PM
My own opinion as to why there is not an Avenger for Pacific Fighters is because there is an influence that disallows the best representation of the USA military in this series of games.

VW-IceFire
10-17-2006, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by gdfo:
My own opinion as to why there is not an Avenger for Pacific Fighters is because there is an influence that disallows the best representation of the USA military in this series of games.
Generally that influence being that at the start of the project no modeler was willing to do a 3 full station station carrier aircraft. PF was driven largely by 3rd party contracts at the start...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

Skycat_2
10-17-2006, 09:30 PM
There were some renders of WIP external model, but as I recall there were technical problems with the model and it wasn't ready for PF's release. Perhaps it was beyond salvage, I don't know ... either way, a certain legal fracas put the brakes on new American planes.

As for the cockpit, one explanation was that the proper references weren't available. Whatever the case, the deadline for 3rd party submissions was quite a while ago and 1C:MG moved on to the Storm of War project. If there isn't a completed version of the TBD 'in the can' at Maddox Games right now and ready to be coded into the final patch after "1946," we aren't ever going to see it. And that's that.

Personally, I don't get the ongoing fixation with a flyable Devastator. A career would be a couple of suicide missions in a slow, flimsy, unmaneuverable plane. Just because it would be an interesting novelty and marginally useful in online wars, this hardly justifies pinning 1C:MG's ears to the wall to make it flyable. Don't get me wrong here though; I won't complain if it magically gets added in some form.

On a similar note, I just discovered that the A-20 has a torpedo loadout. That's an American plane, just not a carrier borne-single engine type.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL-2/FB/AEP/PF FAQs (http://www.airwarfare.com/sturmovik_101/faq_index.htm) * Nutcase's Full Mission Builder tutorials (http://www.jumpintojapan.com/index.html) * Lowengrin's DCG (http://www.lowengrin.com/news.php) * Downloads at Netwings (http://www.netwings.org/library/)
UbiSoft Customer Solution Center: Pacific Fighters (http://ubisoft.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/ubisoft.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=10061&p_created=1099077749&p_sid=3_uGGxsh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PWRmbHQmcF9ncmlkc29yd D0mcF9yb3dfY250PTQmcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1zZWFyY2hfbmw mcF9wcm9kX2x2bDE9ODgmcF9wc) * CombatAce.com (http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?act=downloads&Itemid=70) * Hyperlobby (http://hyperfighter.sk/) * UberDemon UQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/) * <A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/9901017394" TARGET=_blank>
I mapped my keyboard controls so they're easier to remember, and added user- defined commands</A>

Phil_C
10-17-2006, 11:39 PM
Personally, I don't get the ongoing fixation with a flyable Devastator. A career would be a couple of suicide missions in a slow, flimsy, unmaneuverable plane. Just because it would be an interesting novelty and marginally useful in online wars


IDK but then again the use of the 163's on the european front is basically the same, but at higher speeds http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_______________________
My "ride"--> Alienware Area 51-7500-->
Intel Dual Core Extreme 3.2Ghz,Windows XP_SP2,Dual 512 Gf7900 GTX, 4Gb Ram,160Gb HD,52x32x52xCDR/W, 16xDVDR/W, Sound Blaster Audigy 2Zs, logitech 5.1 surround sound speakers

WOLFMondo
10-18-2006, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by gdfo:
My own opinion as to why there is not an Avenger for Pacific Fighters is because there is an influence that disallows the best representation of the USA military in this series of games.

Northrup-Grumman won't allow them into this sim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers!!

jasonbirder
10-18-2006, 04:56 AM
My own opinion as to why there is not an Avenger for Pacific Fighters is because there is an influence that disallows the best representation of the USA military in this series of games.

Yawn, yawn, yawn....ANOTHER conspiracy theorist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

roybaty
10-18-2006, 05:12 AM
Stop listening to the yellow man in your head http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

For the those new here it's probably because of copyright issues. Evertime I think of how stupid and petty this is I wanna bang my head into the wall http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


Originally posted by gdfo:
My own opinion as to why there is not an Avenger for Pacific Fighters is because there is an influence that disallows the best representation of the USA military in this series of games. <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-------------- QUICK SPECS --------------

-------------- HARDWARE --------------

SYSTEM: DELL XPS 600 3Ghz/P4/630
VIDEO CARD: nVidia 6800GS/256
RAM: 1 Gig DDR2 4200
HOTAS : Thrustmaster COUGAR
PEDALS: CH Pro Pedals USB
OTHER INPUT: Track IR2


-------------- SOFTWARE --------------

OS: Win XP Pro SP2
VOICE COMMAND: Shoot 1.6/VR Commander
COMMUNICATION: Teamspeak 2 R2
DX Ver: 9c

Eagle1_Division
10-19-2006, 06:43 PM
Most people seem to know the devastator better than they do any other torpedo bomber. I think it deserves its place in the game, i mean, i never even knew the a-20 existed, or many other planes in the game. And im preatty certain the Mistel wasn't mass produced...

berg417448
10-19-2006, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Eagle1_Division:
Most people seem to know the devastator better than they do any other torpedo bomber. I think it deserves its place in the game, i mean, i never even knew the a-20 existed, or many other planes in the game. And im preatty certain the Mistel wasn't mass produced...


Actually , there were more Mistels manufactured than Devastators (about 250)!

The Devastator would be a good addition to the game along with a flyable Kate torpedo bomber.

JG53Frankyboy
10-19-2006, 07:26 PM
sometimes i wish Maddox games would have never left the eastern front !

not that i prefer the eastern front much, but with that they begun this game..........

berg417448
10-19-2006, 07:51 PM
LOL! I get your point. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tater-SW-
10-19-2006, 09:55 PM
Every time a VT thread comes up I like to point out that without decent ship AI that can at least make a turn when it spots VTs in bound, player flown VTs are absurd.

tater

Chuck_Older
10-20-2006, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by gdfo:
My own opinion as to why there is not an Avenger for Pacific Fighters is because there is an influence that disallows the best representation of the USA military in this series of games.

What's that opinion based on?

Nimits
10-24-2006, 10:38 AM
A flyable Devestotar would be better than no flyable torpedo bombers at all, but admittedly the B5N and TBF played much bigger roles. Not having a Devestator at all (as AI) does severely hamper recreations of Coral Sea and Midway.

leitmotiv
10-26-2006, 01:46 PM
Tater is absolutely right. Ship AI was a huge let-down in PF. Dive bombing ships sauntering along at about 20 knots, which refuse to maneuver, is like trout fishing with a stick of dynamite. We could have had all the VT for which we could have wished to no avail. Torping a sitting duck is not a challenge. I thought PF was going to be the all-time WWII ship strike simulator, and looked forward to flying through flak against a twisting carrier charging at 30 knots in a B5N2 or TBD but no dice. Sigh.

Antoninus
10-26-2006, 02:11 PM
The TBF or B5N or others were not only used a torpedobombers but also as conventional level bombers with bombsights and in the case of the Avenger even for rocket attacks. For me a carrier borne strike plane with so many possibilities would have enriched gameplay imensively, despite the porked attacks against ships in FAP.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________________
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3734/il2sig26hf.jpg

Actually everybody talks about aerial combat. I maintain that hitting ground targets, and especially ships is more dangerous than aerial combat. - Joe Foss

leitmotiv
10-26-2006, 04:32 PM
Right, but torpedo runs against carriers were the most challenging missions of the Pacific War.

LEXX_Luthor
10-26-2006, 04:46 PM
Flyable Devastator would be great fun in an early 1941 campaign. I personally enjoy the F2A as carrier fighter more than the Wildcat, and the Brewster would would fit well with a...say...dynamic campaign or Online War starting December 7, 1940.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

VF-51-Dart
10-26-2006, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Every time a VT thread comes up I like to point out that without decent ship AI that can at least make a turn when it spots VTs in bound, player flown VTs are absurd.

tater

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Man Tater, I don't know what you've been flying in online wise, but any time our VT boys go into attack an enemy fleet in our ongoing SEOW wars we're lucky to get half of them out after their attack runs, that is if they live long enough to make the attack! Granted the ships don't turn to avoid, but good grief it's a dangerous proposition nonetheless for VT! Poor bastards! LOL<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Lawn Dart
CAG Air Group 51 USN www.airgroup51.com (http://www.airgroup51.com)
"You fight like you train."
- Motto, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN)

http://www.airgroup51.com/images/FISClogo.gif
www.gofisc.com (http://www.gofisc.com)

IV_JG51_Razor
10-27-2006, 05:15 PM
It would certainly be nice if Luthier and RRG would consider finishing the TBF and B5N cockpits off. The TBF would be the work horse of the US fleet for sure, and there's no doubt that anybody would complain about the lack of a gunner position or two missing from the plane. The plane's already in the game, so I don't want to hear about the N-G debacle either. They've already been paid. If Oleg doesn't have time for it, maybe someone at RRG does is all I'm saying.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Razor
Air Group 51
http://www.airgroup51.com/
F.I.S.C.
http://atlas.palomo.dyndns.org/fisc/forum/index.php
"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

Tater-SW-
10-27-2006, 05:23 PM
I've never flown a VT online except a betty. At least in a coop the ships would move, in DF servers people can let the fish go from way too far.

Is there any speed limit on TT drops right now? I admit, if you actualyl flew historically, it could be pretty brutal AAA wise, but if you fly as fast as you like, I can skip bomb and take nary a hit, and that's a lot closer than I need get with a VT---IF I practiced with torpedos enough to actually be able to aim them, lol.

It'd be cool to have the TBD as an AI, though.

I'd have to say I'd trade flyable VTs (and loads of other stuff) for simple AI for ships, even just turn a tight evasive circle when AAA opens up.

tater

leitmotiv
10-27-2006, 06:01 PM
TBD had to drop at 100 feet at 100kts---straight and level---no dives---or the Mk13 torpedo would break up on impact. Ditto with TBF in '42. By 1944, the figures were much more reasonable. The Japanese in 1942 could drop higher and faster---but their VT still got destroyed en masse.

I'd still love nothing more than to have at a carrier in a TBD or Kate---when I think Pacific War, that's what I think, not a bunch of fighter brawls!

Nimits
10-28-2006, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
It would certainly be nice if Luthier and RRG would consider finishing the TBF and B5N cockpits off. The TBF would be the work horse of the US fleet for sure, and there's no doubt that anybody would complain about the lack of a gunner position or two missing from the plane. The plane's already in the game, so I don't want to hear about the N-G debacle either. They've already been paid. If Oleg doesn't have time for it, maybe someone at RRG does is all I'm saying.

I hear you, and still hold out a faint hope that some third party might become interested in polishing up Pacific Fighters with a few more ships and carrier planes.

For the time being, though, it looks as if I will have to stick to CFS2 or Pacific Storm for TBF rides . . .

JG53Frankyboy
10-28-2006, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
.............. The plane's already in the game, so I don't want to hear about the N-G debacle either. They've already been paid. ...............

well, there are rumors that an Avenger cockpit was in work, and it was stopped. so it seams (if true), the N-G "debacel" was not such easy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

anyway, sure, these carrierbased torpedobombers would be fantastic as flyable. i also miss them in carrieroperations. espacially the japanese, because they would give in carrierbased missions (in the Dogfight map online part) at least some "punch" as bombers - looking at the armament options of the AI B5N.

leitmotiv
10-28-2006, 06:48 PM
The promised TBD (note the botched perspective in image!):

http://www.pacific-fighters.com/ss/deva65.jpg

VW-IceFire
10-28-2006, 06:50 PM
Its beautiful in an ugly sort of way.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

leitmotiv
10-28-2006, 06:56 PM
http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Devastator/tosave.htm

leitmotiv
10-28-2006, 07:17 PM
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g10000/g19231b.jpg

leitmotiv
10-28-2006, 07:37 PM
http://www.aviationarthangar.com/avartharefor2.html