PDA

View Full Version : TBM/TBF



P-38_Lightning
08-20-2005, 01:54 AM
It is possible to have for the next update or patch the Grumman TBM/TBF Avenger flyable? I think that airplane was on a great bomber, and whiting the game are some variable models, and you perhaps could use just one of them.

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

Nimits
08-20-2005, 01:58 AM
The general consenus is most probably not. Between legal hassles and Maddox and Ubi wanting to move on to Battle of Britain, there just doesn't seem to be much chance of or official enthusiasm for the Avenger. I still continue to hope we will see it flyable someday, but I think it is a forlorn hope.

P-38_Lightning
08-20-2005, 02:06 AM
Thank you for your answer, and I hope in BoB we could fly a great bomber like the Lancaster or the Short Stirling, because I think we have a lot of fighters and not a lot of bombers. The Hakwer Tempest should be in the list of flyable. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

vocatx
08-20-2005, 03:15 AM
I fly Pacific scenarios almost exclusively on-line now days, and one of the biggest things missing from ALL the battles is a real torpedo plane for each side. I wouldn't care if it was the Devastator instead of the Avenger, if we could just have one or the other...and of course, the Kate for IJN.

I am hoping, but not holding my breath, that when the paid add on comes out (I fell confident one will come), that we get the torpedo planes. Of course, it may just be a pipe dream.

csThor
08-20-2005, 03:23 AM
BoB ... that means at best July to November 1940. There is no place for a Stirling, a Halifax or a Tempest, but for a Blenheim or a Whitley.

FritzGryphon
08-20-2005, 04:51 AM
Or a Wellington.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/well.jpg

stansdds
08-20-2005, 05:22 AM
It's a shame that Oleg and company won't license some third party developers to make add-on maps and aircraft for Pacific Fighters. Most of us would even be willing to pay for such add-ons. I guess we Pacific war sim fans are the black sheep of the WW II combat flight sim world.

We are poor little lambs
who have lost our way.
Baa, baa, baaaa.

csThor
08-20-2005, 06:02 AM
Thx Fritz ... I knew there was one missing.

stansdds - Licensing the engine might be an attractive outlook for the fans, but hardly for Maddox Games. It would mean opening business secrets to other folks and it would create the need to train these folks on the development tools - and what I've heard about these tools isn't pretty. "User-unfriendly" isn't even half of it.

MINTZ2
08-20-2005, 09:22 AM
It's a shame that Oleg and company won't license some third party developers to make add-on maps and aircraft for Pacific Fighters. Most of us would even be willing to pay for such add-ons. I guess we Pacific war sim fans are the black sheep of the WW II combat flight sim world.


Amen Brother, Amen.

Taylortony
08-20-2005, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
BoB ... that means at best July to November 1940. There is no place for a Stirling, a Halifax or a Tempest, but for a Blenheim or a Whitley.


There will be a Whitley in the distant future.......BUT A REAL ONE.. Trust me, I have already riveted some parts up for it and a lot of the parts have been gathered together to build one... Oh I am talking about the real deal BTW.. As we speak the UK and Europe are being scoured for parts to rebuild this bomber

This IS NOT A WIND UP. It is for real

P-38_Lightning
08-20-2005, 08:20 PM
I think OLEG and friends, can do some extra money if they listen to the people that want something different in the game.

The possibility to add or create cockpits for some airplanes is the hard part, for all the details.

They can collect some lists and charge for that extra development; I am complete sure that we -the people that play the game- will pay for that upgrades.

What do you thing? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

csThor
08-21-2005, 01:36 AM
Problem is:

Ubisoft has expressed its disinterest to publish any additional content for the Il-2 series. They want Maddox Games to stop work on it and move to BoB 110%. Thatswhy we won't see the russian addon on the shelves outside of the former USSR as Ubisoft holds all publishing rights for the Il-2 series in the world.

They probably burned their little fingers with the copyright issue in PF and want to move on quickly and not get slapped a second time.

|CoB|_Spectre
08-21-2005, 07:28 AM
I've been flying 1C's stuff since the IL-2 demo was made available. IL-2 opened my eyes to so much I didn't know about the Eastern Front and for that I am grateful. However, and this is just my opinion, I have enough Eastern Front to last me and wanted more Western Front and PTO/CBI.

It's only natural, being from "the west", it's the part of the war with which I am most familiar. As soon as the Normandy maps were available, most of my mission building "moved west". Same with the small Desert map. I've used the Kuban map for many Burmese missions and had hopes the PTO would be reasonably well represented with PF. While something is better than nothing, I was very disappointed with the limited map sets of PF and how poorly some of the areas were depicted.

Compare the topography of Kuban with it's peaks, valleys and forests with Okinawa and the Mariannas. You'd think Okinawa, Guam, Saipan and Tinian were desert islands! The one happy accident I notice is the island of Peleliu where the trees off the north end of the runway looks like a mangrove swamp.

I think someone could revisit the existing PTO maps and do a great deal to accurize them. Bring treelines closer to the shore, rivers' edge and roads. Add trees where they should be. Sure, I'd love to get a torpedo bomber for both sides...I'd love to get the flyable Mosquito we were told was ready way back before the last patch. Giving the PTO maps what they rightfully deserve, putting them on-par with the loving detail that the Eastern Front got, would go a long way toward fixing major issues and it's not something anyone will have trademark issues with.

Majormajor-01
08-21-2005, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Nimits:
The general consenus is most probably not. Between legal hassles and Maddox and Ubi wanting to move on to Battle of Britain, there just doesn't seem to be much chance of or official enthusiasm for the Avenger. I still continue to hope we will see it flyable someday, but I think it is a forlorn hope.

If it's legal hassels here is something to think about. The TBM....TBM.......Was build by GRUMMAN if I'm correct. The TBF.....TBF......While the same AIRCRAFT, was built by FORD MOTORS.....Same AIRPLANE, different MANUFACTURER. Is it possible they could call it a TBF, and get around this?

Majormajor-01
Jamming Pentagon computers for over 60 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Zyzbot
08-21-2005, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Majormajor-01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nimits:
The general consenus is most probably not. Between legal hassles and Maddox and Ubi wanting to move on to Battle of Britain, there just doesn't seem to be much chance of or official enthusiasm for the Avenger. I still continue to hope we will see it flyable someday, but I think it is a forlorn hope.

If it's legal hassels here is something to think about. The TBM....TBM.......Was build by GRUMMAN if I'm correct. The TBF.....TBF......While the same AIRCRAFT, was built by FORD MOTORS.....Same AIRPLANE, different MANUFACTURER. Is it possible they could call it a TBF, and get around this?

Majormajor-01
Jamming Pentagon computers for over 60 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


TBF was built by Grumman.

TBM was built by the Eastern Aircraft Division of General Motors.

Majormajor-01
08-21-2005, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Majormajor-01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nimits:
The general consenus is most probably not. Between legal hassles and Maddox and Ubi wanting to move on to Battle of Britain, there just doesn't seem to be much chance of or official enthusiasm for the Avenger. I still continue to hope we will see it flyable someday, but I think it is a forlorn hope.

If it's legal hassels here is something to think about. The TBM....TBM.......Was build by GRUMMAN if I'm correct. The TBF.....TBF......While the same AIRCRAFT, was built by FORD MOTORS.....Same AIRPLANE, different MANUFACTURER. Is it possible they could call it a TBF, and get around this?

Majormajor-01
Jamming Pentagon computers for over 60 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


TBF was built by Grumman.

TBM was built by the Eastern Aircraft Division of General Motors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still my point remains the same, if you have a different MANUFACTURER, you go right around the GRUMMAN issue. Change a letter, and call it a General Motors aircraft

Majormajor-01
Jamming Pentagon computers for over 60 years

Zyzbot
08-21-2005, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Majormajor-01:



Still my point remains the same, if you have a different MANUFACTURER, you go right around the GRUMMAN issue. Change a letter, and call it a General Motors aircraft

Majormajor-01
Jamming Pentagon computers for over 60 years

The fact that this hasn't happened should be a clue that the alleged legal situation is not the only problem preventing the inclusion of a flyable version of this aircraft in this game.

Philipscdrw
08-22-2005, 08:08 AM
SasQon has explained why 3rd party add-ons are impossible. Il-2 was never designed for 3rd party work. If two add-ons were made available, and two people installed them in a different order, those two would not be compatible to play online.

It's sad that the TBF/M couldn't be included. But it's even more saddening to listen to these resentful posts, alleging that 1C:Maddox and Ubisoft have some sort of moral obligation to provide the Avenger and that PF is horribly crippled without it. Il-2 is a victim of its own success - 1C:Maddox have included so much content, everyone is focussing on what's omitted rather than enjoying what's included. If Il-2 had stayed true to the original vision, and remained as a study of the crucial role of the Shturmovik on the Eastern Front, with dozens of Il-2 varients and maybe a few flyable Bf-109s, then there wouldn't be this resentfulness over someone else's favourite aircraft being included, but not yours.

Don't be bitter because the TBM is unflyable. Enjoy the other hundred-odd aircraft instead!

VT-51_Razor
08-22-2005, 08:47 AM
Phillipscdrw, you are only half right. I have been flying IL-2 since it came out as a demo, and I can tell you with certainty that, since the beginning, people have been complaining about the exclusion of this plane, or that one. It just doesn't matter what theater we're in. But you are absolutely right about 1:C Madox being a victom of their own success. As customers, we have been terribly spoiled. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CRSutton
08-22-2005, 03:49 PM
I really don't expect Oleg and company to keep provided free planes. They gotta move on and make some money. I got more than I can fly anyway. That said, I would gladly pay money for more planes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It is worth it. I would pay $30 bucks for a flyable B17 or liberator alone.

PF was not a complete package. It really should have had a better balance of airplanes and the AI for off line people has seen very little improvment. But there are plenty of other planes to try out. I have yet to fool around with the shooting star or that TB-3 thingy with the two fighters attached. Of all the games I have owned this one has given me my moneys worth.

telsono
08-22-2005, 03:58 PM
Taylortony;

I love the flight aspect of the Whitley. That is sure a unique angle. Come up on its "6" and you are firing at the pilot's heels as it flew tail high.

faelas
08-22-2005, 04:45 PM
I really think you guys who say people are not gracious enough to take what they have and be happy are missing the point. What is the PTO without flyable torpedo bombers? It would be different if we had say one for each side, but there are none! NOT ONE FLYABLE TORPEDO BOMBER IN A GAME ABOUT OCEAN COMBAT BETWEEN PLANES AND SHIPS IS REDICULOUS IN THE EXTREME!!!!!!!

VT-51_Razor
08-22-2005, 05:04 PM
You are absolutely right faelas! Now, having said that, do you feel any better? I hope so because we're not going to see a flyable torpedo bomber in this sim anytime soon! The sad fact of the matter is, Oleg and Co have to move on.

You remember ever seeing one of those old westerns where, the guy is lying there in the desert telling his buddy to, "...take the canteen and go on without me!" Well, Oleg has got the canteen, and he's already gotten on his horse! So let's do the right thing and try to ease his conscience by telling him to just go on without us! hehe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Majormajor-01
08-22-2005, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by faelas:
I really think you guys who say people are not gracious enough to take what they have and be happy are missing the point. What is the PTO without flyable torpedo bombers? It would be different if we had say one for each side, but there are none! NOT ONE FLYABLE TORPEDO BOMBER IN A GAME ABOUT OCEAN COMBAT BETWEEN PLANES AND SHIPS IS REDICULOUS IN THE EXTREME!!!!!!!

True, but bear this in mind. 1) This game was originally adaped from a game that did land based aircraft only and 2) If you come from the Falcon 4.0 community like I do, you have two different flavors of the same game to fly, NEITHER ONE of which involves being able to fly off or land on a ship. STILL waiting on THAT one.

Majormajor-01
Jamming Pentagon computers for over 60 years

faelas
08-22-2005, 06:39 PM
Well Razor I guess you're right, 1C Maddox has other stuff to do that has higher priority. But, if enough people make enough noise, maybe after BoB 1C will work on an expansion that includes all those juicy planes that are not in the game yet but ALMOST are: like the TBD Devastator and A5M Claude which have models but aren't in the game yet, and maybe add in a couple flyable torpedo bombers too.

Majormajor, I feel your pain dude.

And I'd also like to say that I definitly am very very grateful for what we've got here already, and even if we never do get any torpedo bombers, what we do have is the greatest sim ever made. Ahmen.

csThor
08-22-2005, 11:32 PM
They do seem to have a rather detailed plan for the time after BoB, but I can't see the PTO being on the top of the list for a few years. Not after the "bad" experiences Maddox Games made with PF and not after the trademark nonsense.

EDIT: Argh .... early morning and me. Those things aren't compatible. Simply put - once the almost complete models are in the engine the chances of additional support for the Il-2 line are slim to not existant. And screaming loudly will only do one thing - keep Oleg off these boards for an even longer time.

VT-51_Razor
08-23-2005, 07:22 AM
Yes csTHOR, what people have to keep in mind is, Oleg is producing a brand new sim, and he (and especially UBiSoft) does not need another one to compete with!

The pisser is, all his talk about the BoB engine eventually getting around to all the theaters of WWII has ceased since that trademark nonsense. I don't see Oleg venturing into the PTO ever again! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif