PDA

View Full Version : Kate



RAF_Loke
10-28-2004, 03:07 AM
It was with joy that I bought and installed PF.
And it is a really great sim, no doubt about that.

But I can't believe that there are no Japanese torpedo carring plane like the Kate. It's to low.
Also the Betty should have been made flyable, as well as the Avenger.

If they had been in there - as flyable, we would have a perfect sim.

269GA-Veltro
10-28-2004, 03:29 AM
You are not alone....

We need torpedo carrier bombers, ABSOLUTELY we need them (Devastator, Avenger, Kate and Tenzan.....off course not for free) but to have them we must help Oleg & company to find cockpit references.

beepboop
10-28-2004, 06:48 AM
In the readme file of PF, it alleges that there are more cockpits ready for release and that they could not be made to fit onto the CDs. It states that we should expect a free expansion. Don't know what to make of this, but it seems reasonable to hope that at least the Kate and the Avenger will shortly make their appearance.

redsuzuki31
10-28-2004, 06:54 PM
I am all for the kate being flyable. But a lot af people are not going to like it because there is only one gun on the hole plane & that was a 7.7mm in the tail. So there will be nothing to do if you are flying untill you drop the torpeto. And then it may be the radio man that may have that job.

All.American.
10-28-2004, 06:59 PM
i dont know how they did not include an avenger, i almost did not buy the game because of that. i wish i still had AOTP http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

VW-IceFire
10-28-2004, 07:05 PM
They say free stuff is on the way...no need to cry until you find out what it is.

The Betty is on the first patch...apparently because it pushed the size over the top. So it'll be flyable with that.

Other Japanese planes coming...Kate is a problem...lack of resources. For every person who complained...if each of those people had one new resource we'd soon have a flyable Kate. We'll see in the future. I'd expect an Avenger in the very near future however. Shouldn't be too hard to put that one together (in comparison).

Sakai9745
10-28-2004, 07:08 PM
I hope you're right, Boop. At this point, ANY flyable torpedo bomber (outside the IL-2T) is preferrable to none. Granted I can see Red's point, but running the gauntlet of CAPs and AA fire to personally plant a fish in the belly of an enemy ship is what I was looking forward to doing.

I guess for now, we should all hone our dive-bombing techniques. At the very least, we could indulge in the satisfaction of covering the tails of the VTs at Midway (haven't gotten my copy yet... I assume that mission is there, if not at least providing the possibility of creating it).

Levethane
10-28-2004, 07:12 PM
Wish this game was released on a dvd, Cd's are a thing of the past. Codemasters, EA and many others are moving forward.

Stiglr
10-28-2004, 07:17 PM
Once again, you guys miss the point:

Why bother having torpedo bombers when torpedos aren't modelled properly???

These planes had VERY strict, restrictive deployment parameters for use of those fish. Too high, too fast, not level, and the torpedo was going to miss badly, or just go to the bottom.

This sim "allows" you to use torpedos like iron bombs, and to operate way out of parameters. So, you're not really even simulating dropping torpedos at all.

Let them do torpedos right, then we can worry about flyable kates, devastators and other dedicated torp bombers.

rodion_zero
10-28-2004, 08:02 PM
Reference for Kate? Hmm, I hope these can be of use...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/rodsky/rod_kate001.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/rodsky/rod_kate002.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/rodsky/rod_kate003.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/rodsky/rod_kate004.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/rodsky/rod_kate005.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Sigh, life was so simple then...

...But thank God for DOSBOX 0.62! My time-travel machine hehehe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BTW, at least the BB's at Battleship row in AOTP didn't look like the KG5 hehehehe

-RODION

Snootles
10-28-2004, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> torpedos aren't modelled properly <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume this means you've already tried torpedoes out in PF. Please elaborate on their PF performance.

rodion_zero
10-28-2004, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:

These planes had VERY strict, restrictive deployment parameters for use of those fish. Too high, too fast, not level, and the torpedo was going to miss badly, or just go to the bottom.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AOTP actually models this, and it's over 12 years old, can you believe that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

-RODION

Lateralus_14
10-28-2004, 08:30 PM
I'm confident that we will get torpedo bombers for both sides eventually. The dev team know there's a bit of a hole in the planeset, and they know a lot of people are upset about their absence. They may not be in the first patch, but I think they will be in the next couple patches thereafter.

This is assuming they can find good references, of course.

Atomic_Marten
10-28-2004, 08:58 PM
A few famous PF theatre torpedo bombers flyable? Must have in this sim, and I think that we will get them in future releases.

About Kate, it have certain feel of 'special' plane (that is for me of course), because of it's armament. Or lack of it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You have only one chance to hit target ship with that plane. Amongst all other charm of that bomber, that is maybe the biggest one IMHO.

203Ku_Takasaki
10-28-2004, 09:36 PM
rodion_zero,

What water settings are you using in those screenshots? Is that "perfect" water?? I see some nice ripple effects in front of that battleship. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Tater-SW-
10-28-2004, 09:36 PM
I'd have to agree however torps are modelled is probably a compromise. To model them properly, they'd need to be like little planes. The hydrodynamics are as complicated as the aerodynamics of the planes. The speed/height/angle of the drop determines how DEEP they go. Too deep, and they pass harmlessly below. I did notice in AEP that if a torp goes past a sinking ship, it can pass over a sunken part. This implies the torps might travel on the surface, but it actually knows the ship is under water... there is some hope it is possible to have a slightly complicated ttorp model if they realy tried.

tater

rodion_zero
10-28-2004, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 203Ku_Takasaki:
rodion_zero,

What water settings are you using in those screenshots? Is that "perfect" water?? I see some nice ripple effects in front of that battleship. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*smug expression on his face*

Well TAkasaki-san, that's because I have a Trident SuperVGA+EGA combo card! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Top of the line! With a whopping 2mb of Video RAM, can you believe that???

http://www.abcresellers.bigstep.com/Images/TridentSuperVGA.jpg

That's why I get those awesome ripples! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And The math co-processor on my 386DX 40Mhz also helps a lot in making those ripples move in a realistic fashion! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

-RODION

matthewlue
10-28-2004, 10:23 PM
Waaaaooooo!!! Ace Of The Pacific by Dynamix, my first combat sim ever played!!! U guys know how much I miss this !??!?