PDA

View Full Version : Petition for a Lancaster



smokincrater
06-30-2006, 03:59 AM
G`day everybody.I want a flyable Lancaster! I am prepared to pay for it at a modest price but I want to drop grandslams, upkeeps and regular bombs all day long.Who is with me.

smokincrater
06-30-2006, 03:59 AM
G`day everybody.I want a flyable Lancaster! I am prepared to pay for it at a modest price but I want to drop grandslams, upkeeps and regular bombs all day long.Who is with me.

bogusheadbox
06-30-2006, 04:44 AM
I fear you have opened a can of worms my friend.

There has been many many topics on having flyable heavies in this game. However, it appears that we will not get any for the PF merged series.

I do truly hope that this has been rectified for BOB SoW. I do know that there is a huge following for those wanting to fly heavies.

But at the moment nothing is confirmed.

However, for the record. I too would also like flyable heavies. And i of course will be willing to pay for the extra work.

But please, please please, with or without flyable heavies. Can we please have manual bomb bay doors. Thanks.

So....

+ 1 vote.

ImpStarDuece
06-30-2006, 05:17 AM
Maybe if you'd started it 3 1/2 years earlier, and had a hand picked and reliable group of modellers, artists and researchers, then you'd have a chance.

However, as:

A) the game has no radar and there are no plans to include it;

B) the game doesn't model night ops well (wing tip light bug, among others);

C) the game is tactically focused, almost all the m=bombers are attack or fast mediums;

D) there are few, if any, situations where existing bombers wont do as good a job as a Lanc, Halifax or Stirling, cookies aside, and;

e) you could put 5-6 single engine craft in for the same amount of effort as one 4 engine bomber

then the chances of getting another flyable 4 engine bomber are pretty slim.

For sure, bring them on in the Storm of War serise, but the is some stuff to adress if you want to do night ops "right":

1) Navigation and Bombing Aids (Gee, Oboe, H2S Newhaven, Musical Parramatta, Musical Wanganui, marker bombs in 250, 500, 1000, 1200, 1400, 3000 and 3800 lbs capacity and assorted colours)
2) Radar and countermeasures (Window, Serrate, Fu 220 Lichenstien, FuG 216 Neptune, H2S, AI Mk X, XI, the Himmelbelt)
3) Moonlight, especially off the clouds and water for navigation
4) Correct bombsights
5) Better night modeling
6) Appropriate night fighters
7) Sufficiently large maps (for those of us that have a perverse need to climb for 45 min to 19,000 feet with 14,000 lbs of bombs and 1,500 gallons of fuel on board and then fly another hour to the target and back)
8) Crew and ground base interaction
9) Better night-time AI
10) Better flak modelling (appropriate limitations for 37s, 88s, 128s and real Axis/Allied flak tactics: timed patterns, box patterns, sweep patterns, predicitive flack)
11) Large formations

TAW_Oilburner
06-30-2006, 05:17 AM
I'd love heavies also..holding out and hoping for SOWBOB to have them.

goshikisen
06-30-2006, 06:08 AM
This sim isn't really set up for heavies... especially those that flew predominantly at night.

VVaFFenPanZZeR
06-30-2006, 06:13 AM
You find some image planes and I'll model it.

bogusheadbox
06-30-2006, 08:11 AM
Maybe if you'd started it 3 1/2 years earlier, and had a hand picked and reliable group of modellers, artists and researchers, then you'd have a chance.

However, as:

A) the game has no radar and there are no plans to include it;

<span class="ev_code_RED">Agreed, But radar not really needed when flying co-op as the map creator will position enemy patrols to intercept. Radar not really needed in dogfight servers due to there being no commander provisions. (on the fly map updates, radio chatter updates... etc)</span>

B) the game doesn't model night ops well (wing tip light bug, among others);

<span class="ev_code_RED">True</span>

C) the game is tactically focused, almost all the m=bombers are attack or fast mediums;

<span class="ev_code_RED">True</span>

D) there are few, if any, situations where existing bombers wont do as good a job as a Lanc, Halifax or Stirling, cookies aside, and;

<span class="ev_code_RED">True, but the the immersion of the game.......Ohh ahhh bing bang. It may acutally cause those kill***** fighter jocks to want to escort a bomber.</span>

e) you could put 5-6 single engine craft in for the same amount of effort as one 4 engine bomber

<span class="ev_code_RED">Really. A lot current strike aricraft only have two crewable positions modelled. That is all you need for a heavy as well. Cockpit and Bombadier. (i can't remember the last time i sat in a side gunners pos in a b-25 to use it in its intended role. Those position do not need to be modelled unless there is ample resources for 1c to do so.</span>

then the chances of getting another flyable 4 engine bomber are pretty slim.

For sure, bring them on in the Storm of War serise, but the is some stuff to adress if you want to do night ops "right":

<span class="ev_code_RED">Agreed, would be great to see in SoW</span>

1) Navigation and Bombing Aids (Gee, Oboe, H2S Newhaven, Musical Parramatta, Musical Wanganui, marker bombs in 250, 500, 1000, 1200, 1400, 3000 and 3800 lbs capacity and assorted colours)
<span class="ev_code_RED">Again - in co -ops the map designer can put in radio beacons for way point identification. then he can set flares or fires on the target area to simulate the efforts of the bombing co-ordinator.</span>

2) Radar and countermeasures (Window, Serrate, Fu 220 Lichenstien, FuG 216 Neptune, H2S, AI Mk X, XI, the Himmelbelt)

<span class="ev_code_RED">No radar, therefore no need for countermeasures.</span>

3) Moonlight, especially off the clouds and water for navigation

<span class="ev_code_RED">I don't understand where this is a no go for useable heavies..... sorrry</span>

4) Correct bombsights

<span class="ev_code_RED">Why can't we model a normal looking bombsite and utilise it like the b-25. I can't remember anyone using slip on a bombsight to correct for windage in a dog fight server.</span>

5) Better night modeling

<span class="ev_code_RED">Agreed, but we can still run acceptable night missions in co-op or dogfight right now.</span>

6) Appropriate night fighters

<span class="ev_code_RED">Agreed, but we could also ask for a host of torpedo bombers and other aircraft as well. Not a reason why we can't have heavies. Plenty of AI aircraft that can do the job. Pleanty of playable aircraft that can do the job.</span>

7) Sufficiently large maps (for those of us that have a perverse need to climb for 45 min to 19,000 feet with 14,000 lbs of bombs and 1,500 gallons of fuel on board and then fly another hour to the target and back)

<span class="ev_code_RED">We have maps more than large enough. There is no need to exceed 15,000 ft as the game does not correctly model flight characteristics at high altitude anyway. Most mediums bomb from 10-13k. That is all that is needed from a heavy.</span>

8) Crew and ground base interaction

<span class="ev_code_RED">I don't understand. There is none of this for current aircraft. So why would this stop the inclusion of heavies. Would be nice but not needed.</span>

9) Better night-time AI

<span class="ev_code_RED">Agreed, Better cloud AI, Better flight AI that have supercooled engines that never overheat. Not a reason why heavies can't be in game. We deal with those issues now in our current aircraft.</span>

10) Better flak modelling (appropriate limitations for 37s, 88s, 128s and real Axis/Allied flak tactics: timed patterns, box patterns, sweep patterns, predicitive flack)

<span class="ev_code_RED">Again, we already have these limitations and we are dealing with these now. So why does this stop heavies.</span>

11) Large formations

<span class="ev_code_RED">We have the same formation limitations now with current aircraft as we would do with heavies. So i don't understand why this would exclude heavies. We are dealing with this now.</span>


These are my views only of course.

leitmotiv
06-30-2006, 08:31 AM
Roll on Lanc for B OF BRIT follow-ups. Roll on 88C-6 Nachtjager. Roll on Berlin winter 1943-44 and the biggest graphics challenge in gaming history---cookies exploding, shockwave rings, gajillion searchlights, flak, target markers, huge city fires, falling bombers. Good grief!

Texas LongHorn
06-30-2006, 03:08 PM
I gotta agree, the mighty Lanc would be fantastic for night ops. Both sides could have some fun with this beast, the nightfighter role would be a hoot too. All the best, LongHorn

VW-IceFire
06-30-2006, 03:55 PM
For this game I HIGHLY doubt it. For future Storm of War products its a distinct possibility. Oleg had expressed interest in the type.

For Battle of Britain no...because the Lancaster didn't exist for at least another two years. But I can see it being a possibility. Storm of War will model radar and will undoubtedly have better night operations. I would be really neat to have an addon package or something of the sort that added the Lancaster, the B-17, Bf110 and He219 night fighter variants.

I can see some REALLY neat scenarios where multiplayer COOPs have Luftwaffe pilots operating night fighters while the RAF pilots operate a formation of Lancasters. It could be done...perhaps as part of a larger 1943/1944 European theater scenario.

Beirut
06-30-2006, 06:16 PM
As the senior Lancaster whiner at this site, I approve of this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I'd be more than happy to pay for a Lancaster. Actually, I am going to pay for one when the justflight.com model is released for FS2004 later this year.

VVaFFenPanZZeR
06-30-2006, 06:31 PM
Yes I want to beable to fly them in this sim, no other, it would be great if This game grew to where all types were possible.

EiZ0N
06-30-2006, 06:41 PM
This just reminded me of an interesting fact (that I learned today as it happens)- my great uncle was a rear gunner in a Lancaster. Died in the rear gun of a Lancaster, infact.

I'd love a Lancaster for SOWBOB.

ImpStarDuece
06-30-2006, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bogusheadbox:
Maybe if you'd started it 3 1/2 years earlier, and had a hand picked and reliable group of modellers, artists and researchers, then you'd have a chance.

However, as:

A) the game has no radar and there are no plans to include it;

<span class="ev_code_RED">Agreed, But radar not really needed when flying co-op as the map creator will position enemy patrols to intercept. Radar not really needed in dogfight servers due to there being no commander provisions. (on the fly map updates, radio chatter updates... etc)</span>

B) the game doesn't model night ops well (wing tip light bug, among others);

<span class="ev_code_RED">True</span>

C) the game is tactically focused, almost all the m=bombers are attack or fast mediums;

<span class="ev_code_RED">True</span>

D) there are few, if any, situations where existing bombers wont do as good a job as a Lanc, Halifax or Stirling, cookies aside, and;

<span class="ev_code_RED">True, but the the immersion of the game.......Ohh ahhh bing bang. It may acutally cause those kill***** fighter jocks to want to escort a bomber.</span>

e) you could put 5-6 single engine craft in for the same amount of effort as one 4 engine bomber

<span class="ev_code_RED">Really. A lot current strike aricraft only have two crewable positions modelled. That is all you need for a heavy as well. Cockpit and Bombadier. (i can't remember the last time i sat in a side gunners pos in a b-25 to use it in its intended role. Those position do not need to be modelled unless there is ample resources for 1c to do so.</span>

then the chances of getting another flyable 4 engine bomber are pretty slim.

For sure, bring them on in the Storm of War serise, but the is some stuff to adress if you want to do night ops "right":

<span class="ev_code_RED">Agreed, would be great to see in SoW</span>

1) Navigation and Bombing Aids (Gee, Oboe, H2S Newhaven, Musical Parramatta, Musical Wanganui, marker bombs in 250, 500, 1000, 1200, 1400, 3000 and 3800 lbs capacity and assorted colours)
<span class="ev_code_RED">Again - in co -ops the map designer can put in radio beacons for way point identification. then he can set flares or fires on the target area to simulate the efforts of the bombing co-ordinator.</span>

2) Radar and countermeasures (Window, Serrate, Fu 220 Lichenstien, FuG 216 Neptune, H2S, AI Mk X, XI, the Himmelbelt)

<span class="ev_code_RED">No radar, therefore no need for countermeasures.</span>

3) Moonlight, especially off the clouds and water for navigation

<span class="ev_code_RED">I don't understand where this is a no go for useable heavies..... sorrry</span>

4) Correct bombsights

<span class="ev_code_RED">Why can't we model a normal looking bombsite and utilise it like the b-25. I can't remember anyone using slip on a bombsight to correct for windage in a dog fight server.</span>

5) Better night modeling

<span class="ev_code_RED">Agreed, but we can still run acceptable night missions in co-op or dogfight right now.</span>

6) Appropriate night fighters

<span class="ev_code_RED">Agreed, but we could also ask for a host of torpedo bombers and other aircraft as well. Not a reason why we can't have heavies. Plenty of AI aircraft that can do the job. Pleanty of playable aircraft that can do the job.</span>

7) Sufficiently large maps (for those of us that have a perverse need to climb for 45 min to 19,000 feet with 14,000 lbs of bombs and 1,500 gallons of fuel on board and then fly another hour to the target and back)

<span class="ev_code_RED">We have maps more than large enough. There is no need to exceed 15,000 ft as the game does not correctly model flight characteristics at high altitude anyway. Most mediums bomb from 10-13k. That is all that is needed from a heavy.</span>

8) Crew and ground base interaction

<span class="ev_code_RED">I don't understand. There is none of this for current aircraft. So why would this stop the inclusion of heavies. Would be nice but not needed.</span>

9) Better night-time AI

<span class="ev_code_RED">Agreed, Better cloud AI, Better flight AI that have supercooled engines that never overheat. Not a reason why heavies can't be in game. We deal with those issues now in our current aircraft.</span>

10) Better flak modelling (appropriate limitations for 37s, 88s, 128s and real Axis/Allied flak tactics: timed patterns, box patterns, sweep patterns, predicitive flack)

<span class="ev_code_RED">Again, we already have these limitations and we are dealing with these now. So why does this stop heavies.</span>

11) Large formations

<span class="ev_code_RED">We have the same formation limitations now with current aircraft as we would do with heavies. So i don't understand why this would exclude heavies. We are dealing with this now.</span>


These are my views only of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Radar, nav aids and countermeasures were the CORE of night bomber ops, as much as climb rates, turn rates and visibility were for day-fighter ops.

The current engine simply wouldn't do justice to night ops. You seem to see it as "daylight bomber ops flown at night". The fact is that night operations were SIGNIFICANTLY different to daylight ops, in tactics, approach and operations.

By the war, the game accurately simulates atmospheric conditions all the way up to 33,000 feet, after which it is essentially static. Where this idea that the high alt model is not correct came from mystifies me. Lancasters generally bombed from 18-19,000 feet, and later in the war from 22-25,000 feet.

smokincrater
06-30-2006, 10:17 PM
I just want to recreate the great dambuster raid. Imagine flying from Scapton to Muster and back again not flying higher than 1,000ft. Night fighters prowling and the difficult release of your upkeep at 60ft,245ft from the dam wall and going at 220mph at night on a full moon.Thats what I call fun!

Lancaster at 25,000 feet what you got turbojets on your Lanc!
The figures impstardeuce quoted are more like flying forts courtsey of their turbosupercharged engines, Lancs only had single speed superchargers.

I have plans of the lancaster for anyone who whats to use them to make a model.

SaQSoN
06-30-2006, 10:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By the war, the game accurately simulates atmospheric conditions all the way up to 33,000 feet, after which it is essentially static. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not true anymore, since, approximately, ver. 4.0.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Where this idea that the high alt model is not correct came from mystifies me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was said by Oleg long time ago about the IL-2 v1.0.

ImpStarDuece
07-01-2006, 01:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by smokincrater:
I just want to recreate the great dambuster raid. Imagine flying from Scapton to Muster and back again not flying higher than 1,000ft. Night fighters prowling and the difficult release of your upkeep at 60ft,245ft from the dam wall and going at 220mph at night on a full moon.Thats what I call fun!

Lancaster at 25,000 feet what you got turbojets on your Lanc!
The figures impstardeuce quoted are more like flying forts courtsey of their turbosupercharged engines, Lancs only had single speed superchargers.

I have plans of the lancaster for anyone who whats to use them to make a model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lanc's had a usuable service ceiling of 24,500 feet while loaded. Lancasters used for electronic jamming and spoofing flew patrols up to 27,000 feet. The difference is that a fully loaded Lancaster could have up to 11,500 lbs of fuel, 12,500 lbs of bombs and 500 lb of 'Window' on board, so was more comfortable at 15-20,000 feet than strggling along at 24,000 feet.

After the middle of 1944 better pathfinding and nav aid allowed more accurate and higher altitude bombing. In late 1944 the British went as far as replace the T1 bombsight with the T1A and T1B, which raised the maximum sight altitude from 20,000 feet to 25,000 feet.

smokincrater
07-01-2006, 01:44 AM
Lancaster MkI (special) with 22,000lbs bombload. service ceiling: 'Anything higher than the runway' flt lft `Mickey` Martin RAAF.

Lowenherz
07-01-2006, 03:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Maybe if you'd started it 3 1/2 years earlier, and had a hand picked and reliable group of modellers, artists and researchers, then you'd have a chance.

However, as:

A) the game has no radar and there are no plans to include it;

B) the game doesn't model night ops well (wing tip light bug, among others);

C) the game is tactically focused, almost all the m=bombers are attack or fast mediums;

D) there are few, if any, situations where existing bombers wont do as good a job as a Lanc, Halifax or Stirling, cookies aside, and;

e) you could put 5-6 single engine craft in for the same amount of effort as one 4 engine bomber

then the chances of getting another flyable 4 engine bomber are pretty slim.

For sure, bring them on in the Storm of War serise, but the is some stuff to adress if you want to do night ops "right":

1) Navigation and Bombing Aids (Gee, Oboe, H2S Newhaven, Musical Parramatta, Musical Wanganui, marker bombs in 250, 500, 1000, 1200, 1400, 3000 and 3800 lbs capacity and assorted colours)
2) Radar and countermeasures (Window, Serrate, Fu 220 Lichenstien, FuG 216 Neptune, H2S, AI Mk X, XI, the Himmelbelt)
3) Moonlight, especially off the clouds and water for navigation
4) Correct bombsights
5) Better night modeling
6) Appropriate night fighters
7) Sufficiently large maps (for those of us that have a perverse need to climb for 45 min to 19,000 feet with 14,000 lbs of bombs and 1,500 gallons of fuel on board and then fly another hour to the target and back)
8) Crew and ground base interaction
9) Better night-time AI
10) Better flak modelling (appropriate limitations for 37s, 88s, 128s and real Axis/Allied flak tactics: timed patterns, box patterns, sweep patterns, predicitive flack)
11) Large formations </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..yeah, but apart from that, right...??

bogusheadbox
07-01-2006, 04:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Radar, nav aids and countermeasures were the CORE of night bomber ops, as much as climb rates, turn rates and visibility were for day-fighter ops.

The current engine simply wouldn't do justice to night ops. You seem to see it as "daylight bomber ops flown at night". The fact is that night operations were SIGNIFICANTLY different to daylight ops, in tactics, approach and operations.

By the war, the game accurately simulates atmospheric conditions all the way up to 33,000 feet, after which it is essentially static. Where this idea that the high alt model is not correct came from mystifies me. Lancasters generally bombed from 18-19,000 feet, and later in the war from 22-25,000 feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't need to inform me of the differences between day and night ops. I can realise the differences.

High altitude has already been explained.

As for night ops. We can only run night ops in the same way we run them now. That is no reason not to include a heavy.

From the instances you have given, under the games current abilities. I cannot see why a heavy cannot be implemented apart from resource constraints from 1c.

I do realise that we won't get one for PF, but by the same token, please don't tell me that we can't have one.

Before anyone else says it. We already have maps large enough to get a heavy up to 10-15 k feet.

fly_zo
07-01-2006, 04:22 AM
Ok, they are using this game as test for BoB since patch 303 ... agreed? For water reflection , for FM,DM ...etc. So let us test FM,DM for Lanc and B-17 ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DuxCorvan
07-01-2006, 05:00 AM
Bla bla bla bla bla...

It won't happen.

Go sleep. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

bogusheadbox
07-04-2006, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Bla bla bla bla bla...

It won't happen.

Go sleep. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Top post by someone with sooooo much to add http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Zeus-cat
07-04-2006, 07:36 AM
DuxCorvan is correct. The developers of this game have stated repeatedly that there will be no heavies for IL-2. Why do you guys keep asking?

bogusheadbox
07-04-2006, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
DuxCorvan is correct. The developers of this game have stated repeatedly that there will be no heavies for IL-2. Why do you guys keep asking? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for a narcy reply but here goes.

Why does no one bother to read the entire thread and only read the last couple of posts, jump on there high horse and then comment.

I think you will find that my original comment (second in line) already adresses the fact that we will not receive heavies in this instalment. This is not the basis of ensuing argument.

My reply to duxcorvan was due to the fact his response came accross as far from constructive.

Simply another, I am here, i will post, and i am better than you statement that so frequents these ubizoo forums.


So bla bla bla

Go sleep.

Yeah real constructive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

bogusheadbox
07-04-2006, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bogusheadbox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
DuxCorvan is correct. The developers of this game have stated repeatedly that there will be no heavies for IL-2. Why do you guys keep asking? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for a narcy reply but here goes.

Why does no one bother to read the entire thread and only read the last couple of posts, jump on thier high horse and then comment.

I think you will find that my original comment (second in line) already adresses the fact that we will not receive heavies in this instalment. This is not the basis of ensuing argument.

My reply to duxcorvan was due to the fact his response came accross as far from constructive.

Simply another, I am here, i will post, and i am better than you statement that so frequents these ubizoo forums.


So bla bla bla

Go sleep.

Yeah real constructive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zeus-cat
07-04-2006, 12:50 PM
And exactly how constructive was your post bashing me? It adds nothing to the discussion other than letting you vent a little bit.

It amazes me that these "I want..." threads pop up with such frequency, when most of us know the IL-2 series is finished. At this point, the two remaining patches are probably in the can or darn close. If the plane isn't already programmed, it isn't going to be in the sim when they lock the doors.

This thread is on its second page, why?

bogusheadbox
07-04-2006, 01:28 PM
Sorry Zeus cat.

I wasn't bashing you. MY post would have been deleted if i was.

Just stating a fact that this community is becoming snotty nosed in the "i know more than you" department and is not afraid of letting those that are newer know about it.

And i think that is common knowledge on many other forums that discuss this game. that is why they call this place UBIzoo after all.

As for why this is on its second page. Well if you ask that then you didn't read the entire thread or you don't understand where the conversation progressed to.

As i said. My post (No. 2) already advised in a kind hearted way that we were not going to get any heavies in IL2. And that hopefully BOB my wet our appetites.

As for your "amazement" why people ask questions. Well that is what a forum was for. It was on topic, it was a member that didn't know better. (Fair enough they should have used the search function) SO i don't see how you can be disgruntled or disuasive of people asking such questions.

Crikeys, its not like its another one of Raaid's pointless perpetual motion device threads.

Its a relevant topic that has a wanted place in many within this comunity. Therefore it should be duscussed. It may be good feeback for 1c to know how popular or unpopular a certain element may be.

Anyway mate.

I am off flying. Hopefully no offence.

Regards,

Zeus-cat
07-04-2006, 01:51 PM
No offense taken. I just think it makes more sense to answer the original question and then let the thread die in cases like this.

If you feel the points you raise deserve discussion, I recommend you start a new thread. You should get more people to read it than a thread that should have died after a few posts.

smokincrater
07-05-2006, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
DuxCorvan is correct. The developers of this game have stated repeatedly that there will be no heavies for IL-2. Why do you guys keep asking? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because I am the customer and I want IT!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ImpStarDuece
07-06-2006, 03:24 AM
caveat emptor

leitmotiv
07-06-2006, 06:33 AM
Gents, I got sick and tired of waiting for the night air war. After reading the posts on how good FS2004 was for flying, I loaded up on a Lanc, Hallibags, and Welly and started flying from the UK to Berlin dealing with icing, turbulence, and enough flying risks to make it all interesting. There is also a world-class He 219 with the most precise functioning Revi sight in flight simming. Add ACTIVE SKY to the mix and you have a better looking flight than IL-2 COMPLETE. Bring on B OF BRIT, but in the meantime I'm not waiting to fly night bombers. The upcoming Just Flight Lancs for FS2004 will have more detail than any Lanc you will ever be likely to get from any other source! Maybe there would be a way to fly He 219 intercepts online---of course you can't blow anything thing up, but just finding the bugger is most of the pleasure. Cheers, Butch Harris

Beaufort-RAF
07-06-2006, 08:00 AM
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7091/15no6.jpg
http://img421.imageshack.us/img421/4530/27rt.jpg
http://img421.imageshack.us/img421/1761/36ba1.jpg
http://img421.imageshack.us/img421/7924/47se.jpg

leitmotiv
07-06-2006, 10:43 AM
Here ya go, Beaufort-RAF:

http://tinyurl.com/lw4sk

Lowenherz
07-06-2006, 11:43 AM
But that's not a Lancaster. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

joeap
07-06-2006, 02:04 PM
Ok, Beaufort-RAF, where did you get that skin? Please tell me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Beaufort-RAF
07-06-2006, 08:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Here ya go, Beaufort-RAF:

http://tinyurl.com/lw4sk </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Ok, Beaufort-RAF, where did you get that skin? Please tell me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skin (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=144;t=004310)

joeap
07-07-2006, 12:06 PM
Thank you sir. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
07-09-2006, 06:42 AM
Right now there are two superb Lancasters for FS9 (FS2004): the Shockwave Lanc in WINGS OF POWER and a fantastic Lancaster set from Plane Design with the Lancs I, II (yes, no error, the Hercules Mk II), III, Canadian X (several variants), Grand Slam, and Dams Raid aircraft. Intense detail---has the American instruments on the Canadian Lancs, for example.

http://plane-design.com/lancaster.html

There is a mega-Lanc model being done by Just Flight in huge detail for FS9 which will allow the user to take any manned position in the aircraft. Furthermore, Aeroplane Heaven is working on a series of Lancs for CSF3 which will even have working H2S ground mapping radar.

http://www.aeroplaneheaven.com/hangar_dyn.php?PLperiod=WW2

Even the dubious CFS3 with the FIREPOWER add-on has a pretty good Lanc scenario where you are in a sky full of them at night in a real bomber stream, there are night fighters looking for you, and things could go very bad very fast. This is, literally, the only game in town for Bomber Command people, and is likely to be for the extended future. I tried it again for the first time in two years and it was not half bad. To be chugging along with Lancs scattered around you over a blacked out Europe was great. I thought I saw a night fighter and threw the Lanc all over the sky but it was just another Lanc. Thus, there are some options for the hard-core Lanc person.

Don_X
07-22-2006, 09:14 PM
Well whatever the pro's and cons I still want one.
Where do I sign?
http://tkfiles.storage.msn.com/x1pnp_rgmi5o52mR9VancGNgbuLUz--xqZILgwzGxi3LJ2jJweg38HgS_cK4D0_AyH0Se8yhhh2IuvZiU 6MgW9g_lCi6dRZkYcE5Pa57yOzrAHxatvsGzqa4MsIKWuQb6KI uTn9_2USSQI
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f18/Don_X/FI/barenesw2.jpg

flyinmick
07-23-2006, 02:16 PM
All you Bomber Command types should go here http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8821057464 and read this. Jolly interesting stuff, actually.

leitmotiv
07-23-2006, 02:58 PM
Great stuff, flyinmick. Regarding queries on German night fighters of any kind, the best place to go in the English-speaking world is:

http://disc.server.com/Indices/169401.html

Participants are primarily hard-core researchers with tons of information. Want to know if a 110 went down from a certain unit on a certain night and they can certainly help.

flyinmick
07-24-2006, 10:20 PM
Thanks awfully, old chap!
Do you know that the thread about that bloody ventral turret is STILL going. It's actually become sort of funny. I suppose I should stop responding but it's fun, in a very juvenile sort of way!

Targ
07-25-2006, 12:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flyinmick:
Thanks awfully, old chap!
Do you know that the thread about that bloody ventral turret is STILL going. It's actually become sort of funny. I suppose I should stop responding but it's fun, in a very juvenile sort of way! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do tell...

leitmotiv
07-25-2006, 12:44 AM
Some cad vaporized it, flyinmick. One Of Our Wellingtonthreads Is Missing! What should we do next? How about a working Elsen for the Wellington pro and con? Herf herf.

Wtornado_439th
07-25-2006, 08:48 AM
A petition?

What do you think this place is?

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

flyinmick
07-25-2006, 06:11 PM
Yup! Vaporised. "Moderator" Targ hath waved his little fairy stick or something. Apparently, he was hugely offended that I criticised Oleg "the Demi-God", and after telling me I was free to express my opinion he shut off the thread. That boy confuses me, I can tell you!!
I think your Elsan idea is fantastic. We can drop it on someone like the Poles used to do. Targ it for tonight?

flyinmick
07-25-2006, 06:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Ha! Like autocrats the world over they are hostile to the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes indeed.
Now, listen here! Are you going to try and tell me that the Mk.1C had an Elsan? I have it on good authority that they got rid of it due to c.g. problems and used to pee out the hole that was left when they uninstalled that ventral turret!!
Oh, krap! here we go again.....

Targ
07-25-2006, 06:51 PM
"Moderator" Targ hath waved his little fairy stick or something once again...


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

flyingmick
07-25-2006, 07:41 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Targ
07-25-2006, 07:56 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

flyyinmick
07-25-2006, 10:26 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Targ
07-25-2006, 10:55 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

flyyinmick
07-25-2006, 11:34 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif