PDA

View Full Version : What do you think of aircraft...



x__CRASH__x
02-15-2005, 01:18 PM
What do you think of aircraft didn't quite make it into the air, or see combat?

We have several in the game now, and we have several that are on way and could be on the way. I'm trying to gauge response.

My personal opinion: I like them. As long as they are appropriately incorporated and used. I mean, if you are part of a historic campaign, leave them out. Other then that, bring them on!

What do you think?

x__CRASH__x
02-15-2005, 01:18 PM
What do you think of aircraft didn't quite make it into the air, or see combat?

We have several in the game now, and we have several that are on way and could be on the way. I'm trying to gauge response.

My personal opinion: I like them. As long as they are appropriately incorporated and used. I mean, if you are part of a historic campaign, leave them out. Other then that, bring them on!

What do you think?

SlickStick
02-15-2005, 01:40 PM
I want it all and I want it NOW!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I agree, Crash. The more the merrier and who could complain about getting MORE planes?!?!

As you stated, historic plane set servers can still be made leaving the "questionable" aircraft off and the rest of us get to have a ball on DF servers with an abundance of flight choices. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

x__CRASH__x
02-15-2005, 01:51 PM
Some people get upset because they believe that some aircraft are "fantasy aircraft", like the 109Z for instance. But I personally like the variety. But it begs the question: How do you prove the FM?

Well, I retort: The FM has never been "proven" for the common aircraft we have now! If they were, then we wouldn't see changes to FM almost every time we get a patch!

FoolTrottel
02-15-2005, 01:57 PM
Agreed.
Bring 'm on...
But.... browsing Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II... there's a lot of experimentals...
One of 'm:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/fooltrottel/SeaMossie.jpg

Text says "Rocket Assisted take-off gear is being developed and will be installed in the production aircraft" ...

initjust
02-15-2005, 02:10 PM
"Well, I retort: The FM has never been "proven" for the common aircraft we have now! If they were, then we wouldn't see changes to FM almost every time we get a patch! "

So, how can anyone really say whether any FM is accurate or not?

Also, this sounds very much like some of the reasoning that was presented in a few threads touching on the taboo of opening up PF for 3rd party development.

The argument that servers could still run 'historic' plane sets was also made by proponents of opening up PF and they were run out of town on a rail.

Stiglr
02-15-2005, 02:11 PM
I'd be much less opposed to "what-if" fantasy aircraft if the sim were designed in such a way as to reflect the "rareness" of the planes.

As "open" as the system is, these planes become nuisances and curiosity pieces that often "run amok" in servers and ruin things for people who are just trying to have some fun with the planes that actually *did* something in the war.

As for the FM, even those we think are "ueber" or "unter" bear some resemblance to the FM they're attempting to model. But, not having anything besides designer intentions or half-proven prototypes is not enough to base a model on. A good example is the I-185. It seemed to be a really nice aircraft on paper, and actually did fight; but other problems made it unsafe to operate (and that's unsafe factoring in the usual dangers of combat!!). If the Russians couldn't clear it for production for a reason like that, you can BET the shortcomings of the plane well outstripped its otherwise beneficial abilities. Right there is one good reason it shouldn't be in the sim: why should people be able to fly these around, enjoying all the good things, and not suffer the problems or the risks associated with the plane?

Finally, the way I see it, we shouldn't have ANY of this "what-if" nonsense until we are able to explore the fighting that DID happen. Let's get the planes, ships, weapons and systems that DID fight in the sim, get them right, and explore the battles that DID happen. That will keep us busy for years before we get so bored and jaded of that that we need to explore what "might have" happened.

BlackShrike
02-15-2005, 04:18 PM
IM bored of all the planes already. I WANT MORE.

ps ban the Z. its a joke.

x__CRASH__x
02-15-2005, 04:33 PM
From what I understand, there is not tasking for airplanes. Modelers give Oleg what they have done, and if it meets Oleg's requirements, then he will put it in the game. On occasion he would ask for a model, but rare.

I could be wrong on specifics, but the idea holds true.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-15-2005, 04:41 PM
Doesn't really matter one way or the other to me. They're interesting to have but I've probably flown each one once or twice. I did like the P-80 just because my grandfather flew one in Korea, it was a much more advanced plane then but it was still kind of cool to buzz around in the thing for a while. The only thing I really don't like about them is their appearance in online dogfight servers, even the quality full real servers will end up throwing up a "historical" Russian Front map that features the I-185. Even for the planes that have historical data to back up their flight models, I doubt they went through the same extensive testing that front line fighters ended up going through so the data on them isn't as complete, and in most cases doesn't exist at all.

LEXX_Luthor
02-15-2005, 05:03 PM
crash:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We have several in the game now, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's what I think about them too. The sim has 1 "fantasy" plane for every 20 "real" planes, depending on the definitions you Choose, so its very balanced, fully "real" but allowing a small taste of "fantasy."

More important than what I think is what did test pilots think? And the combat hardened pilots who competed with each other for the opportunity to fly captured enemy prototypes (like the USA pilots ~loved~ flying Do~335), and the engineers that built the planes, and the government people who Funded the development who only gave out money if they thought there would be a possibility of something useful developed.

More simply said...what did the the real life people think about these planes at the time, not the computer gamers a century later?

carguy_
02-15-2005, 05:04 PM
As much as I favor German planes I do not fly or allow the Go229 and Me109Z.

No "what if" planes for me,thank you,I think we have enough real campaign planes cockipts in the works not to think "hmmm what else is there to add".
IMO making fantasy planes flyable is a mistake even though I`d like to have the FW190 D13.

The upcoming Do335 I will fly some and leave it like all the rest of what if planes.

I stand by my point from the start.Make current AI planes flyable,do not incorporate new models.

EnGaurde
02-15-2005, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> IM bored of all the planes already. I WANT MORE. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

VW-IceFire
02-15-2005, 05:45 PM
I think they are neat. I made The Shooting Star campaign (which many have downloaded and tried) because of all the unique and hypothetical aircraft that we have in the game. Nothing like Go-229s, YP-80s, and Bf-109Zs in the same battle with each other.

fordfan25
02-15-2005, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
What do you think of aircraft didn't quite make it into the air, or see combat?

We have several in the game now, and we have several that are on way and _could_ be on the way. I'm trying to gauge response.

My personal opinion: I like them. As long as they are appropriately incorporated and used. I mean, if you are part of a historic campaign, leave them out. Other then that, bring them on!

What do you think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well its ok i think. just seems kinda silly that all these resources have went into fighters that didnt see combate or very little of it while planes that did like the p47N and f4u-4 are left undone. i still dont get the double standerd. i remeber the fit so many people had when some one would ask about the bearcat wich did fly and was what about 2 weeks from combat.

LEXX_Luthor
02-15-2005, 06:37 PM
fordfan:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>fighters that didnt see combate or very little of it while planes that did like the p47N and f4u-4 are left undone. i still dont get the double standerd. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oleg was working with P~47N Fan Eagle to get the -N into the sim.

You already knew this, and Got it. Only a Chevy Fan would say they still don't Get it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As SkyChimp notes, about all that is left after the Ussian Lawyers' Feast is the Ryan FR~1 Fireball mixed power jet~prop (similar to MiG~13 coming in Russian CD).

actionhank1786
02-15-2005, 07:14 PM
It's not like Oleg's telling people what to make.
People make something, and submit it, he sees it fit to make the cut, he adds it.
if you want to tell anyone no more new planes, tell the modelling community
As for having them, if people are willing to make them, and give them a realistic flight model, hell why not?

x__CRASH__x
02-15-2005, 09:27 PM
There is a reason I ask this question. It will hopefully come clearer in the near future.

Thanks for the input! Good discussion!

~S~

ElAurens
02-15-2005, 10:17 PM
Well...

The so called "46" planes really should never show up in 1939 to 1945 settings, even in DF servers. And aircraft that never flew (109Z) should never fly.

I have flown some very good Korean War coops made by BlitzPig_Bury that were quite immersive.

If the "46" planes, or things like the BI1 have their own servers/campaigns/etc...that is fine with me.

Some of the Russian prototypes do present problems, as two fo the types in game actually did fly in combat. The Mig 3U and I 185. If used in a proper scenario I really like them. But a room full of them is just silly. we really need the ability to limit the number of planes on a server by type and number. To wit, there should never be more than six (6) Mig 3Us in the air at any one time.

Badsight.
02-15-2005, 10:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
BLAH!. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Badsight.
02-15-2005, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
BLAH!. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Badsight.
02-15-2005, 10:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Well...

The so called "46" planes really should never show up in 1939 to 1945 settings, even in DF servers. And aircraft that never flew (109Z) should _never fly_.

arrrrg TRIPLE BLAH!. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Badsight.
02-15-2005, 10:39 PM
No Fun , Party Pooping , stick-in-the-mud , GRUMPY OLD MEN THE LOT OF YOU !

tenacioustanaka
02-16-2005, 02:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I'd be much less opposed to "what-if" fantasy aircraft if the sim were designed in such a way as to reflect the "rareness" of the planes.

As "open" as the system is, these planes become nuisances and curiosity pieces that often "run amok" in servers and ruin things for people who are just trying to have some fun with the planes that actually *did* something in the war.

As for the FM, even those we think are "ueber" or "unter" bear some resemblance to the FM they're attempting to model. But, not having anything besides designer intentions or half-proven prototypes is not enough to base a model on. A good example is the I-185. It seemed to be a really nice aircraft on paper, and actually did fight; but other problems made it unsafe to operate (and that's unsafe factoring in the usual dangers of combat!!). If the Russians couldn't clear it for production for a reason like that, you can BET the shortcomings of the plane well outstripped its otherwise beneficial abilities. Right there is one good reason it shouldn't be in the sim: why should people be able to fly these around, enjoying all the good things, and not suffer the problems or the risks associated with the plane?

Finally, the way I see it, we shouldn't have ANY of this "what-if" nonsense until we are able to explore the fighting that DID happen. Let's get the planes, ships, weapons and systems that DID fight in the sim, get them right, and explore the battles that DID happen. That will keep us busy for years before we get so bored and jaded of that that we need to explore what "might have" happened. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



That right there folks has got to be the most effective and otherwise worthwhile point of view yet written in this forum...EVER!

LEXX_Luthor
02-16-2005, 06:44 AM
Yes....

Stiglr:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'd be much less opposed to "what-if" fantasy aircraft if the sim were designed in such a way as to reflect the "rareness" of the planes.

As "open" as the system is, these planes become nuisances and curiosity pieces that often "run amok" in servers and ruin things for people who are just trying to have some fun with the planes that actually *did* something in the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with Stiglr, the problem is Gamer internet Behavior AND lack of method of limiting the number of "fantasy" planes in the Brownie Point servers other than banning them totally. The 1 "fantasy" plane for evry 20 "real" planes are just fine in the sim.

han freak solo
02-16-2005, 07:30 AM
I like the fantasy planes. They are great for entertainment when screwing around.

But, for some reason, I always fly the types that actually saw combat. Not for being correct in the timeline of things, either.

No explanation comes to mind............

Bearcat99
02-16-2005, 07:32 AM
I like it all.. I say bring em all on. Whatever can get in here as flyable... even if I will never fly it. I think I flew a Z once.... and that not online. Server hosts can setup the server however they like to limit the planesets as they see fit so the whole it messes up the continuity argument goes out the window. Herr we can simulate air battles from biplane action to jet engagenements... and under decent FMs and DMs.... thats priceless to me.

tigertalon
02-16-2005, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlickStick:
The more the merrier and who could complain about getting _MORE_ planes?!?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do for example, for some 2 years now, all the time. Yes, it is nice to have new planes to try them out. But:

We all agree on the fact that a sim like this requires a lot of work. For every single flyable you need enormous amount of man-hours to be spent.
I would by far rather see those resources spent on paining bugs and improvement on EXISTING planes. For example: Mg151/20 IS WRONG (test here here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=2111099562&p=5) ), Fw190s don't have sealing fuel tanks, Macchi MC202 has entirely wrong DM (have you ever seen it flame up? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, some (MG17) light machineguns are as strong as paintball guns, object viewer is all messed up, Yak3 has wrong 3D model (gear stick out of wings a little bit when retracted), etc etc etc... I really don't feel like counting all those major (IMO at least Mg151/20 bug can be considered as "major") bugs and flaws of game here - there are other forums to do that.
I would just like that just some 10 or 20% of the time, spent on new "fantasy" or other planes, would be dedicated to problems/bugs/issues that are already in the game. I think (hope) that we would all be happy with that although this would mean that we will get our beloved Do335, Ki100 or Ju88 one or two months later...

On the other hand: How many times did you actually fly Bi1 for example? More times than you have fingers on your hands? I doubt. I haven't. How many times do you think people use Mg151/20? Time, that needs to be spent to correct Mg151/20 ammo composition is at least 10 times fewer than amount of time to develope and integrate a new flyable into the game. See what I'm saying?

I feel a lot of respect to what Oleg and the devs have done sincerely, anyway I'm affraid those new flyables have more like commercial intentions...

LEBillfish
02-16-2005, 07:46 AM
For the most part, I'm just glad to get to fly.....the end.

However, "if wishes were horses then beggers could ride"....I'd have to say I'd much rather see some planes we're missing that saw a lot of action.....My focus currently PF type planes, and past that would like to see "2" not 4 engined bombers/fighters/ground attack planes.

Fantasy is nice, but I like the real thing... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

DmdSeeker
02-16-2005, 11:04 AM
These fantasy planes just distract resources from improving the game.

Is there a 190Z campaign? Is there a Horten campaign?

If all this software is for is throwing out an endless supply of new planes then we may as well be flying Xplane.

Strangely; it takes more than just planes to make a flight sim; you need a game to put them in; and it doesn't seem to me that IL-2 has had any attention with respect to improving the interface; the controls interface nor the campaign nor missions to any degree in comparison with the attention spent on throwing even more planes in the mix.

Hopefully BoB will be different.

LEXX_Luthor
02-16-2005, 11:09 AM
Dmd:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>These fantasy planes just distract resources from improving the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We have only 1 "fantasy" plane for every 20 "real" planes. If all planes were "real" planes the planeset would change very little.

This is called a Pink Elephant. Ssshhhh be very Quiet on the webboard http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tip for the Quiet:: What is happening is we are running out of single engine fighters to make (except Italians), and few people have the time (about a year with high skills) to make the multi~crew bombers because of the high standards required and hard to find cockpit data (Stiglr and modding G3M "Nell" for example).

airdale1960
02-16-2005, 11:26 AM
We need more 1930-1938 aircraft; He-51, F3F-3, Dewoitine 510, Hawker Nimrod, Hawk III, Ki-27, you get the picture. A what if the war was a little sooner.

LEXX_Luthor
02-16-2005, 11:29 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

airdale:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We need more 1930-1938 aircraft; He-51, F3F-3, Dewoitine 510, Hawker Nimrod, Hawk III, Ki-27, you get the picture. A what if the war was a little sooner. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, WW2 started in Spain and China around 1936-1937. But the focus seems to be on late WW2 or 1941+.

The other problem, from reading Gibbage, is the multi~crew bombers take infinitely more resources to program into the game than the single seat fighters.

ElAurens
02-16-2005, 04:19 PM
F3F-3 you say?

Ask and ye shall receive...

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/F3F.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DuxCorvan
02-16-2005, 04:33 PM
Siglr, the 'safety' issue about I-185 was just an excuse to retire a design made by the then disgraced and politically cursed Polikarpov to favour Stalin's protected such as Yakovlev and Lavochkin. We all know how much USSR war effort was conditioned by Stalin's capricious and paranoid decisions.

LEXX_Luthor
02-16-2005, 04:48 PM
Ya, if they ordered and recieved production of 100 far more fatal MiG~1 fighters in late 1940 during a time of Peace, they would not be concerned with "safety" in any plane in time of WAR.

Just that La~5 was already there to fullfil the basic need. I also read I~185 was more expensive to produce than La or Yak...the same cost problem stopped Germany from manufacturing G.55 in place of Bf~109.

mortoma
02-16-2005, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Siglr, the 'safety' issue about I-185 was just an excuse to retire a design made by the then disgraced and politically cursed Polikarpov to favour Stalin's protected such as Yakovlev and Lavochkin. We all know how much USSR war effort was conditioned by Stalin's capricious and paranoid decisions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, the problems of the I-185 were exaggerated propaganda in a country where propaganda was more common than truth, logic or facts, as in all communist systems. The small wrinkles in the I-185 could have been worked out easily as they were in all designs. And most aircraft designs in the Soviet Union at that time started out with problems, in some cases far more that the I-185. But yet many of them were mass produced. So Stig ain't quite right on this 'safety' stuff but I do agree some planes should not be in here, especially the Go-229 and the 109Z, since they had to 'invent' FMs for them, and overly optimistics ones at that. The I-185 however doesn't stretch things too much. Besides, this is a sim from Russia and you gotta expect their dev. team would have some pride about Soviet aircraft.

Treetop64
02-16-2005, 05:31 PM
I'm not so much into "fantasy" aircraft as I am into aircraft that actually existed and flew during WWII, but the war having ended before these aircraft got past the developmental or pre-mass production stage. Personally, I would love to fly in PF-AEP-FB the Ar-335, or the U.S. navy's twin-engined Tigercat, just to name a couple.

"Treetop"

Griffon_25th
02-16-2005, 05:31 PM
I just get mad that they are spending time on making new planes for the planewhiners and not spending time where we need it; mission builder, AI and that sorta thing.

Stiglr
02-16-2005, 06:00 PM
Whether propoganda or not, the I-185 was not put into production. Despite being an effective combat plane the Russians "could have" used.

Thus, it belongs in a smoking pile with all the other aircraft that "could have" been used, "could have flown 500+ mph", etc. I'd prefer to think of these in the exact same historical perspective: they "could have been modeled" for IL-2, but weren't. That would properly reflect their role. When you think of them in that light, you can see how badly overrepresented they are, even in their small numbers.

As for the "1 out of 20" ratio being bandied about, that still means 4 or 5 planes we're clamoring for right now, that DID have an effect in the war, that we don't have because somebody was wasting time on Bi-1s, I-185s, Gothas, or whatever the heck else.

jarink
02-16-2005, 06:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Dmd:: [QUOTE]Tip for the Quiet:: What is happening is we are running out of single engine fighters to make (except Italians), and few people have the time (about a year with high skills) to make the multi~crew bombers because of the high standards required and hard to find cockpit data (Stiglr and modding G3M "Nell" for example). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not all are fighters, but I can name *several* single engine a/c that I would rather see time spent on making flyable models than any fantasy planes (just for PF):

Torpedo Planes
TBD, TBF/TBM, B5N, B6N
Dive Bombers
D4Y, Barracuda, SB2C, B7A
Fighters
Boomerang, A5M, P-47N, J2M

If we had to have 'fantasy' plaes, I would rather see ones that entered (or would have entered) service in late '45 or '46. Things like the F8F, P-80 (I know, it's in FB+AEP), P-51H, Shinden, etc.

x__CRASH__x
02-17-2005, 12:40 PM
What I don't understand is that the TBM is already in the game as AI. So it should be beyond the TM situation. All they would need to do, I would think, is add an interior, and there we go.

But thats another topic altogether I suppose.

Hoatee
02-17-2005, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackShrike:
IM bored of all the planes already. I WANT MORE.

ps ban the Z. its a joke. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oliver Twist, right?

KG26_Oranje
02-17-2005, 01:22 PM
S!,

Personel i dont mind if the prototype/pre produktion airplane`s are coming or are in the game.
It is for the waht if fans , great toy`s to play wiht it.
Buht as a bomber/big plane fan i wonder way the are working hard on a X-plane that is/was not historical in the war and not working on a historical transport/bomber/groundatack or seaplane (Flyable).
I know its hard to work on big plane`s (Eating time) buht there are so many ahter type`s off plane`s used in the war and not so big (only slow lol)
For exemple the HS126 , this plane dont have turrets , its a small two engine groundatack plane that need only a cockpit and flight data to make it flyable.
And for FB its historical correct and for DF room fun to fly/straffe wiht.
So personel i dont mind prototype buht a i like it more if we get more historical correct plane`s and not only (or 80% off it) fighters.
I hope for the future that sim/game bilders make more variation and historical correct so that , even if its a small groop that like to use/play it , we cane play total airwar and not only DF or coop style shoot a.i. down or lets escort a.i. , i hate A.I.
its candy we cant fly (wiht cockpit).
Is it not possible that to make a X-Plane Sim for the If waht fans?
Give the Historical fans there corect toy`s and leave the X-Plane`s out.

S! all
And even if we players have negative or positive coment , keep on bilding , U 3e party bilders are doing great work for us players.

Big S! to u all.

I/KG26_Oranje