PDA

View Full Version : Someone please school me about exsisting U.S. aircraft



x__CRASH__x
04-06-2005, 06:50 PM
I know there have been TM issues regarding incorporation of additional U.S. aircraft into FB. I think it is ******ed that these companies would be so greedy to hunt down monitary compensation for a 60+ year old airframe... but there is nothing I can do, and is beside the point I'm trying to make. I'm sure this isn't an original thought, but I never read anything about it, so here I am asking:

Why can't 1C Maddox take exsisting AI U.S. aircraft, that were a part of the sim PRIOR to the TM payoff, do the work required to make them flyable? Just off the top of my head, it would give us:

TBM
B-17
B-24
B-29

I'm sure there are others, but I don't know what right now.

So, whats the deal? Why can't we turn those exsisting aircraft into flyable birds?

96th_Nightshifter
04-06-2005, 06:55 PM
Good question, I have wondered about the same thing. I know it would be extra work that 1C will be too busy to do as they will be focusing on BoB now but surely 3rd party modellers would jump at the chance to do this and have it included in a small future patch.

carguy_
04-06-2005, 07:01 PM
One bomber interior equals work done for three fighter cockpits.Look how long it took them to get the flyable Me110 in here!

MoritzJGOne
04-06-2005, 07:59 PM
I would say yup on the TBM as it is a carrier aircraft, which is a primary thrust of the game, as I see it.

My guess is, if the TM issue ever went to court, the fact that age of the items invovled, there is no trade issues involved and that the existence of the aircraft and ships were due to taxpayers, the defense contractor would loose.

Ships in particular. WWII Ships were designed by the US Navy bureau of ships and named by the Department of the Navy. The guy at N-G was blowing smoke.

However, sim developers are small and both 1C and Ubi are foreign. I think it will take a large US company to fight this.

TAGERT.
04-06-2005, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
I know there have been TM issues regarding incorporation of additional U.S. aircraft into FB. I think it is ******ed that these companies would be so greedy to hunt down monitary compensation for a 60+ year old airframe... but there is nothing I can do, and is beside the point I'm trying to make. I'm sure this isn't an original thought, but I never read anything about it, so here I am asking:

Why can't 1C Maddox take exsisting AI U.S. aircraft, that were a part of the sim PRIOR to the TM payoff, do the work required to make them flyable? Just off the top of my head, it would give us:

TBM
B-17
B-24
B-29

I'm sure there are others, but I don't know what right now.

So, whats the deal? Why can't we turn those exsisting aircraft into flyable birds? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>not sure.. but Ill be the phrase "cease and dismiss" was very close to the point in the text.

But, as far as we know, sense Oleg has not said a word.. even though he said he would.. Only Northrop planes fall into this.. P-38 is not owned by Northrop.. Nor is the B17.. So there is no excuse for more varations of those planes being added.. If you cant give us a P47M.. Then give us the best P38 ever made even if they only made ONE of them! In that it would be ONE more than the total number of 109Zs ever made! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BSS_CUDA
04-06-2005, 09:52 PM
the K http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

460 MPH level flight at 25,000 ft
4900 FPM climb rate
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Hetzer_II
04-07-2005, 02:23 AM
"In that it would be ONE more than the total number of 109Zs ever made! "

just as question:
Were there not 3 prototyps of the 109z that already flew?

WOLFMondo
04-07-2005, 02:59 AM
I think the mans right ya know, there were more 109z's built than P38K's. Wasn't there only a few P47M's as well? I though the N was the last best and greatest production model?!?

I can't see Boeing being any different from Grumman though. Maybe thats the reason the B29 interior that was made never made it in? Not read anything about it not meeting the Oleg standard to be put in PF.

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 03:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
just as question:
Were there not 3 prototyps of the 109z that already flew? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope.

hawkmeister
04-07-2005, 03:22 AM
As an American this whole situation shames me. Someone needs to stand up to this big business bullying, unfortunately the resources required for such a legal battle are probably on a par with *insert your favorite epic battle here*.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could start some kind of grassroots action group to take on this challenge? Run it like any other PAC or political campaign.

I'm a sucker for the little guy taking on the monolithic giant.

I don't know the inside details of this law suit, but I'd imagine Oleg and company are a bit gun shy about doing any US planes now, and I can't say I blame them. This is their livelihood, after all.

-Bill

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I think the mans right ya know, there were more 109z's built than P38K's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Wasn't there only a few P47M's as well? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only if you consider 130 a few.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I though the N was the last best and greatest production model?!? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only if you consider 1,816 greater than 12,602 of the D model.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I can't see Boeing being any different from Grumman though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Having worked with and or for them.. I can! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Maybe thats the reason the B29 interior that was made never made it in? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Not read anything about it not meeting the Oleg standard to be put in PF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good point. I remember the guy donig the art comming here asking for someone to contact Oleg for him because he was not responding to him.. There was something about that over on netwings too.. Oleg claiming some email problem.. Which most of the artest didnt belive.

Badsight.
04-07-2005, 03:50 AM
there was at least one prototype Bf-109z destroyed due to bombing . it was being built due to an order for a heavy bomber destroyer (five Mk108's filling the "heavy" part of the requirement) at the time the Gustav was under development but all they had to work on was frederich models

i havent read wether there were anymore being worked on at the same site , but the development & the Z program was stopped with the prototypes destruction

the generall theory is that it would have ended up using G6 fuselarges (rather than G2 or 4) on the serial production Z model

if the war wasnt going as well as it was for the americans in the PTO at that time , its hard to see the K modifications not being implemented eventually , those motors (with those props) seem like an obvious step foward for the P-38 Lightning

JG53Frankyboy
04-07-2005, 04:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
I know there have been TM issues regarding incorporation of additional U.S. aircraft into FB. I think it is ******ed that these companies would be so greedy to hunt down monitary compensation for a 60+ year old airframe... but there is nothing I can do, and is beside the point I'm trying to make. I'm sure this isn't an original thought, but I never read anything about it, so here I am asking:

Why can't 1C Maddox take exsisting AI U.S. aircraft, that were a part of the sim PRIOR to the TM payoff, do the work required to make them flyable? Just off the top of my head, it would give us:

TBM
B-17
B-24
B-29

I'm sure there are others, but I don't know what right now.

So, whats the deal? Why can't we turn those exsisting aircraft into flyable birds? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>not sure.. but Ill be the phrase "cease and dismiss" was very close to the point in the text.

But, as far as we know, sense Oleg has not said a word.. even though he said he would.. Only Northrop planes fall into this.. P-38 is not owned by Northrop.. Nor is the B17.. So there is no excuse for more varations of those planes being added.. If you cant give us a P47M.. Then give us the best P38 ever made even if they only made ONE of them! In that it would be ONE more than the total number of 109Zs ever made! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i would like more see a P-38G that could be used 1942 on the NewGuinea map http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
its already a "proplem" that there is no map for the P-38J/L http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

but as Gibbager already told, so far i remember, it would be to much work - would nead a very overworked , if not totaly new cockpit - and sure not few 3Dmodel modifications http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
did i mention that i like the early ware scenarios much more than the late ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

92SqnGCJimbo
04-07-2005, 06:42 AM
i think its a tossup of time spent trying to make these flyable and running the risk of making a new lane that might be seen as a money maker..

**** u grumman and northrop **** u all to hell!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

WOLFMondo
04-07-2005, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I though the N was the last best and greatest production model?!? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only if you consider 1,816 greater than 12,602 of the D model.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P47D vs P47N..I know which one I'd pickhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I can't see Boeing being any different from Grumman though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Having worked with and or for them.. I can! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Not read anything about it not meeting the Oleg standard to be put in PF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good point. I remember the guy donig the art comming here asking for someone to contact Oleg for him because he as not responding to him.. There was something about that over on netwings too.. Oleg claiming some email problem.. Which most of the artest didnt belive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats pretty hard to explain Oleg having prolonged e-mail problems. I can't belive a proffessional development company cannot sort its e-mail out within 1 working day and not get back to essentially a contractor like that. 1C:M either have terrible business practises, terrible systems support or don't want to comment on the situation for whatever reason and simply ignored the guy who made a very nice B29 interior.

Maybe Oleg could directly comment on this?