PDA

View Full Version : Regarding Jets and Rockets on IL2 FB



Loco-S
09-17-2004, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
ELEM posted 16-09-04 05:59
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>:
Originally posted by Loco-S:
The only jets that should be allowed on this sim are the 262, he- 163, the ar-234, gloster meteor but no the P 80.

so if they put in the Beriev thingy that looks like its gonna pop like a bottle rocket, they should include the heinkel 280 shouldnt they?...regarding other prop planes, could be interesting to have them in as a sort of "crimson skyish sim", because some of them never saw production...and no production, no real historical value to affect the combat front, do they?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are refering to the BI-1, it was designed by Bereznyak & Isayev and it's a rocket not a jet. It may not have gone into servce but it did go through flight acceptance tests and was put into production only to have them all scraped before completion. Also, as has already been said, the P-80 did enter service but did not see combat. If third party modelers wish to model these lesser known esoteric types then it is Olegs decision as to whether they should be included. If you wish to model the Heinkel 280 and it is up to Olegs demanding standards then it stands a good chance of being accepted. Although with only 9 prototypes and no production models it was not as close to being in service as the BI-1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must Apologize fro my lack of knowledge regarding Russian aircraft, what I believed was a Beriev ( the BI-1) was what Elem said, and let me tell you , I know the difference between a Rocket aircraft and a Jet Aircraft,

The He 280 passed the flight tests with flying colors, including mock up dogfight with a FW 190 during the trial tests, but due to political favoritism the ME 262 model was the one chosen,under your explanation, you say the BI -1 was scraped, so, then you must agree that his apearance in a historical context as a front line aircraft is at best imaginary, now you see my idea?...if they put non service aircraft in the sim, why not to put them all?....


in my opinion, the Arado 234, Heikel 162, and De Haviland Vampire deserve the same privileges as the BI-1, and why not to put in the pot the Bell P-59?...after all it was a plane that didnt quite make it and was phased out before production began....



The basic Idea of this sim was to re create the largest and most massive aerial conflict battleground in history with the highest degree of realism, adding non operational aircraft to it, defiles its basic premise.


and mods, Im not trolling here, i just want to start a constructive and positive thread without the usual "I know more than you " stuff.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/new+sig-1.jpg
Ad Maiorem Bella Gloriam

Loco-S
09-17-2004, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
ELEM posted 16-09-04 05:59
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>:
Originally posted by Loco-S:
The only jets that should be allowed on this sim are the 262, he- 163, the ar-234, gloster meteor but no the P 80.

so if they put in the Beriev thingy that looks like its gonna pop like a bottle rocket, they should include the heinkel 280 shouldnt they?...regarding other prop planes, could be interesting to have them in as a sort of "crimson skyish sim", because some of them never saw production...and no production, no real historical value to affect the combat front, do they?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are refering to the BI-1, it was designed by Bereznyak & Isayev and it's a rocket not a jet. It may not have gone into servce but it did go through flight acceptance tests and was put into production only to have them all scraped before completion. Also, as has already been said, the P-80 did enter service but did not see combat. If third party modelers wish to model these lesser known esoteric types then it is Olegs decision as to whether they should be included. If you wish to model the Heinkel 280 and it is up to Olegs demanding standards then it stands a good chance of being accepted. Although with only 9 prototypes and no production models it was not as close to being in service as the BI-1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must Apologize fro my lack of knowledge regarding Russian aircraft, what I believed was a Beriev ( the BI-1) was what Elem said, and let me tell you , I know the difference between a Rocket aircraft and a Jet Aircraft,

The He 280 passed the flight tests with flying colors, including mock up dogfight with a FW 190 during the trial tests, but due to political favoritism the ME 262 model was the one chosen,under your explanation, you say the BI -1 was scraped, so, then you must agree that his apearance in a historical context as a front line aircraft is at best imaginary, now you see my idea?...if they put non service aircraft in the sim, why not to put them all?....


in my opinion, the Arado 234, Heikel 162, and De Haviland Vampire deserve the same privileges as the BI-1, and why not to put in the pot the Bell P-59?...after all it was a plane that didnt quite make it and was phased out before production began....



The basic Idea of this sim was to re create the largest and most massive aerial conflict battleground in history with the highest degree of realism, adding non operational aircraft to it, defiles its basic premise.


and mods, Im not trolling here, i just want to start a constructive and positive thread without the usual "I know more than you " stuff.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/new+sig-1.jpg
Ad Maiorem Bella Gloriam

WUAF_Badsight
09-17-2004, 11:34 PM
Maddox Games put certian planes in FB because they were GIVEN to them by 3rd party modelers

not because they were more historical or not

not because they were more unique or not

but because they were made by people who had the time & skill too . . . . . . time which the Maddox Games staff must be short of

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
want some Flight sim advice ? look here ~~~~&gt; complete user guide for flight sims (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues)

Tooz_69GIAP
09-17-2004, 11:34 PM
The reason these other jets like the Go-229, the YP-80, the Me-163, etc, etc, is because 3rd party modellers liked these aircraft, and made them, and then sent them to Oleg. As far as I am aware, IC have no created one single aircraft between the release of FB and the release of AEP; all of the new aircraft until then were done by 3rd party modellers. Because 1C didn't have aircraft ready themselves, they took these models, so long as they were up to scratch, and programmed them in and released them.

If you want an aircraft in the game, model it, submit it, and hope it meets the standards. Otherwise, shush.

whit ye looking at, ya big jessie?!?!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_tooz.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)
Executive Officer, 69th GIAP
Za Rodinu!
Petition to stop the M3 motorway through the Tara-Skryne Valley in Co. Meath, Ireland (http://www.petitiononline.com/hilltara/petition.html)

WUAF_Badsight
09-17-2004, 11:36 PM
gah Tooz beat me to the punch

i dont want to make excuses for the makers of this game . . . . . im of the opinion that certian planes that are AI are very important to the ETO & should have been flyable from the box release v1.0 . . . .

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
want some Flight sim advice ? look here ~~~~&gt; complete user guide for flight sims (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues)

LEXX_Luthor
09-17-2004, 11:50 PM
Loco:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I must Apologize fro my lack of knowledge regarding Russian aircra<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We have learned something new, something USA Microsoft knows nothing of. Thanks Oleg. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif


Loco, Real Life pilots jumped at the chance to fly experimental combat planes, friendly or captured enemy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (Do~335 is good example)


Do~335 is the only "Fantasy" plane flight simmers never Whinnig about over possible inclusion in FB. Would make fascinating clinical Psycho study of flight simmer mental behavior.



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Loco-S
09-18-2004, 12:04 AM
very interesting approach, that of the "if you like it make it, otherwise shut up"

quite mature,

what Im trying to know is that why not to make the planes alredy there flyable, instead of adding "imaginary planes" to this sim

I dont expect to get an intelligent response from people who have limited knowledge on the issue.

the fact is: if the plane is not historically accurate to the situation, it should not be there in the first place.

otherwise somebody begin to model 1946 and forward airplanes and stuff them in the sim...

IIRC there are some models in the projects, from way long ago, say PBY fliable, Dornier 335, and such, that actually saw if not action at least service during ww2 ( and with that im talking of planes that were actually there)


I know the he 280 was scrapped, the He 112 on the other hand ( THIS WAS A PROP PLANE for the record) saw service at squadron level since the Munich crisis, and some FW 187 ( PROP PLANE) saw service in Norway ( being liked by their pilots over the Bf 110), could be cool to have them in the sim.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/new+sig-1.jpg
Ad Maiorem Bella Gloriam

Loco-S
09-18-2004, 12:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Loco, _Real Life_ pilots jumped at the chance to fly experimental combat planes, friendly or captured enemy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (Do~335 is good example)


Do~335 is the __only__ "Fantasy" plane flight simmers never Whinnig about over possible inclusion in FB. Would make fascinating clinical Psycho study of flight simmer mental behavior.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> &lt;edited to change this colon...

Lexx, as a RL pilot I can tell you I would fly a broom if it was available for free to fly, but when it comes to a sim like FB I want it Historically accurate, not imaginary planes.

and thanks for the sarcasm.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/new+sig-1.jpg
Ad Maiorem Bella Gloriam

BlakJakOfSpades
09-18-2004, 12:16 AM
i think that some of the AI planes little is known about how they actualy preformed, therefore making it difficult to accurately model them. and it still comes back to the if u like it so much then make a cockpit for it and if not shutup. and if it happens to be a bomber find all your references and make multiple cockpits

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v344/BlakJakofSpades/sig2.jpg

Spectre_USA
09-18-2004, 12:17 AM
As soon as someone models them, and they meet 1C's stringent criteria, I am quite confident they will
be added.

As for the various "wonder weapons", they seem to have had a short-lived gee-whiz type effect, and
were quickly dropped from serious consideration, at least on line.

They very things that make them unique, also make them pretty worthless. The 262, for instance
rocks in raw speed and hitting power, but have glass engines. It all evens out, IMHO...

http://www.BlitzPigs.com/SpectresStash/Spectre_AEP_Avatar.gif
CombatSim.com Forums Moderator (http://WWW.CombatSim.com)
BlitzPigs Co-WebMaster/Moderator (http://www.BlitzPigs.com)

Loco-S
09-18-2004, 12:22 AM
Loco-S
Posts: More than 2000 but lost due to banning | Registered: Tue July 09 2002

BlakJakOfSpades
Posts: 113 | Registered: Sun June 20 2004

Kiddo, if you want to be a fanboy its your call,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> posted 17-09-04 23:16
and it still comes back to the if u like it so much then make a cockpit for it and if not shutup. and if it happens to be a bomber find all your references and make multiple cockpits<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

now, can you make an intelligent argument?, or will you childishly tell me to shut up again?

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/new+sig-1.jpg
Ad Maiorem Bella Gloriam

BlakJakOfSpades
09-18-2004, 12:26 AM
wasn't actually tellin u to shutup, i was using your own words, more or less, i was saying it comes back to the same thing u said before but i dont really wanna argue about that thing, now i think it would be nice if we got some of the more commonly used planes yes, am i gonna contribute myself no, am i going to therefore complain because its an otherwise excellent game no.

edit: i dont know what i meant up there but i fixed it in any case
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v344/BlakJakofSpades/sig2.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
09-18-2004, 12:28 AM
Loco:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>when it comes to a sim like FB I want it Historically accurate, not imaginary planes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know what you are trying to say, but your language fails you here. Real Life German [and USA] pilots did not imagine they were flying the Do~335. They did it for real and you know this.

If you, or anybody here, wants to start a thread to campaign against Oleg including Do~335 in FB--now being modded with cockpit, I may be willing to listen to you, but don't expect Compassion and Tolerance from others... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20031123/226hawks24_denied.jpg
~ http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/149657_hbok24.html



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Loco-S
09-18-2004, 12:41 AM
Lexx, maybe you are right, English is not my first language, I think the Do 335 and other aircraft should belong to -another- section of FB, something like an imaginary extension of WW2, "imaginary battles"?...Oleg said long ago he wants the most accurate flight model for each of the planes, I know the info is scarce and expensive if available, but instead of getting with the old " make it yourself' thing, we should get info available to 1c, I know there are lots of people around the world with bits and pieces of manuals and original blueprints kept as souvenirs, that can be borrowed or scanned to make a concrete pool of factual evidence, if we can make it we could have a sim with no equal, and with the most accurate FM than any other product, what do you think about this Idea?

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/new+sig-1.jpg
Ad Maiorem Bella Gloriam

WUAF_Badsight
09-18-2004, 12:49 AM
Loco-S i remember you from ages ago & how you would literally foam-at-the-mouth over the stuff RBJ posted (eheheh which he quite usually was wrong over)

but here you are getting told that they were included into FB because the 3D models were made for FB by 3rd party people

i.e. they were given to Maddox Games for use/inclusion into FB

is that hard to understand ?

also . . .

Maddox Games seems to have limited resources . . . . why have the uber-important-to-the-ETO mid weight bombers like the JU88 & PE2 as AI only ?

time & money

these "fantasy" planes were made instead of the important planes because the guys who made them for free liked them more

its all well & good to say others deserve to be in FB instead of the limited / no combat time planes . . .. . but what is that going to achieve

it wasnt Maddox Games decision to make these planes is what you are getting told

it was people outside of Maddox Games who had planes they were eager to fly in this game who put up the time & effort to create them digitally

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
want some Flight sim advice ? look here ~~~~&gt; complete user guide for flight sims (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues)

Daiichidoku
09-18-2004, 02:00 AM
I love all warbirds. I'm an enthusiast.


Yes, Loco, I would also love to see the He 280 ( FIRST ever installation and use of an ejection seat, first jet fighter to fly, first twin jet to fly ) it was fitted with armament, and while having a straight wing, benefitted from much more development than the 262

The FW 187 is sweet also...never knew it was in Norway, I thought it was only used to defend a FW works in Germany

I have heard that we wil lget a He 100/112 someday, I hope so, in spite of it's higher wingloading, the He 100/112 outperformed the Bf 109, but was not chosen due to politcs and cost...and it looks SO good

I also love the late war/experimental stuff...most interesting...however, I sympathize with Loco...I feel the AI types should have all been completed first...and that the "x-types", while interesting, largely have incomplete flight testing, leading to "hypothetical" FMs...it's all well and good to have them, but perhaps packaged separatly in a "x-plane" add-on (or should have been)

I agree, that some types included in FB "defile" the basic premise of the context of the game...I 185, 109Z ( particularly galling, a type based on the model F that NEVER flew, FB has the one based on the G, never even BUILT!), Go 229, B1...even the "marginal La7 3x B20, Yak 3P(a type that only really was service in 1946!) Ki84B and C

Yes, of course, don't fly these types if you don't like them...but it is frustrating when many, many servers include several of these types, and everyone and his brother all filling the sky with the POS's

LEXX, please, sir, don't generalize...many, of not most real pilots wished to finish military flying with thier lives, return home, and, unless other careers or schooling was to be pursued, perhaps find employment flying as commercial pilots...flying experimental or captured enemy types of unknown or dubious quality was NOT a practical way to see this end...sure, there was a small number out of the many that were driven to, or dreamed of flying the "hot" ships, but these were the "1%ers"...those truly crazy or super passionate flyers...remember, one may read a lot about pilots wanted test jobs and the latest and greatest, but you will never hear of the vast majority that simply wanted the tried and true, reliable ships that would bring them back to gf's, mothers and children.


Yes, Badsight, 1C/Maddox did not make these planes...private persons toiled over them, with thier blood sweat and tears...and I commend them for that! But it was 1C/Maddox games' decision to put them in the game...THEY made the choice to "dilute" the sim...IMHO, the wrong choice...but $$$ rules, I suppose...again, IMHO, if 1C/Maddox had any intregity about the product in this regard, after whatever first outside model submission came along, they should have made it be known, that at least as far as IL2/FB (and perhaps PF, now) goes, that they would gladly accept private contributions, but only those within certain parameters of production numbers and/or service life/combat deployment...maybe then, someone would have made a mossie, or DO 17 series, or whatever, or even nothing at all, stil lwould have been better. If a 109Z was still made, 1C/Maddox should have complied them until such time as enough were available to warrant a patch, or even an add on cd to buy, which would represent these types properly, as an "x-plane" type of thing...that would have the added bonus of not allowing some younger, or less aquainted players/aviation/history enthusiasts to simply assume many of these types were trapaising about the 39-45 skies in common numbers ( not that FB is touted as, or should be taken as, educational, but a "sim" should not be so "disney", as, say, a crimson skies, nes't pas? )

I do agree with you that Loco doesn't seen to understand that it's not 1C/Maddox MAKING the planes...let's chaulk it up to his ESL skills, but the gist of what he's saying rings true to me.

http://groups.msn.com/TaoofDaiichidoku/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=1

Daiichidoku
09-18-2004, 02:07 AM
Forgot this part, hehe...

Ironic, that the Me 163 (which I feel, and I would imagine most other feel) is a "legit" type to include in FB, is a true superplane with extraordinary performance, and would seem to be very well modeled in the sim, is bacically unusable online with it's lag/ufo/untrackability bug/problem...

Also I find it ironic that in a preview of AEP, it was said that Oleg's fav out of all the planes included in the add on was the Me 163...did he know the problems it was going to cause the servers? that lil devil!

http://groups.msn.com/TaoofDaiichidoku/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=1

T_O_A_D
09-18-2004, 04:19 AM
I have to agree Loco on planes made flyable for this sim. I also understand why 1c put them in though. THe Host or the ofliner can choose to allow or not to allow them in anyway.

As far as people giving you a hard time in this thread I only saw your Sarcasim first.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>very interesting approach, that of the "if you like it make it, otherwise shut up"

quite mature, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I may be late, and someone above might of edited thier message already.

All I can say is straighten up guys. Or it will just get locked.

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
Commanding Officer of the 131st_VFW (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

ELEM
09-18-2004, 04:38 AM
Tooz and Badsight have said it all. It does not need repeating. As for getting the existing AI a/c flyable before introducing exotic prototypes, the answer is the same. If you wish to do the research and model the cockpits (and other crew positions) Oleg would be only too pleased. Details of some of the a/c is very hard to find and Oleg is a stickler for accuracy. If it cannot be done correctly he does not want it in at all. He is a very busy guy trying to please as many people as possible, but it's quite clear he cannot please all the people all the time. Be thankful for the wonderfull sim he's created and for all the hard work that 3rd party modelers have put in to make this sim as great as it is. Nobody is forcing you to fly any a/c that you don't think should be in the sim. Some people think otherwise and welcome flying these rare "also rans".

I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as a member!

http://img35.photobucket.com/albums/v107/Elem_Klimov/I-16_desktop.jpg http://img35.photobucket.com/albums/v107/Elem_Klimov/dhm_787_small.jpg

LStarosta
09-18-2004, 08:40 AM
http://www.bttf.com/graphics/BeatADeadHorse.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~l.starosta/sig2.jpg
Spacer nad Berlinem!
Spitfire = Technoblabble(Oleg/"Favors Recieved" from [wo]men)^PI(Magic 8 Ball)(amount of LSD Taken+Booze)(Position of the Earth Relative to the Sun)(Position of the Sun relative to God)^2

"You must factor in the alignment of the planets for the day in which the equation is completed, because the Spit can harness the power of the Earth's rotation and we're working on harnessing the power of ALL rotating and revolving objects in our solar system, later the whole universe, thus boosting the Spit's top speed to r0xx0rz KPH." -Dr. Nathan Roberts

Flying online as (56th)*MRBROWN

MrOblongo
09-18-2004, 10:13 AM
Me 262 (Saw extensive combat in late 1944 to the end of the war. Just take a look at this kills list, not how many are Me262 kill, JG7/JV44/KG53)

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/1945.html
NOTE THIS ARE 1945

Me163 was used in combat also, JG400 (can see some kills in those lists).

About the He162, it reached the operational status, but due to the lack of fuel and continuing bombing, made few flights (Only one non-confirmed kill).

The Ar234 flew combat missions even in 1944, recon missions over England, and Scotland (based in Norway http://www.luftwaffe.no ), also made bombing missions, like the bombing of Remagen Bridge in early 1945.

Gloster Meteor was operational almost at the same time as the Me262, but was used to chase down V1 rockets and never enganged with enemy aircrafts (only a Storch if im right).

YP80, I think there were some in Italy (30?) never saw combat, just operational trial flights?.

Go229 / BI-1 / Do335 / Vampire / P-59 didnt saw any combat so can go to hell (maybe can include the YP80 wich is there just to "balance" the things... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif)

[This message was edited by MrOblongo on Sat September 18 2004 at 09:42 AM.]

p1ngu666
09-18-2004, 10:38 AM
ive always wanted a miles m52, bnz in total safty
from the other side of the sound barrier, yeah past mach 1 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

but the amount of work that goes into the model, which u guys prolly dont realise is massive. say u made made a blitz bomber, and oleg says no, your lookin at 100+ hours if your a modeler like gib, easily.

oleg has a moral obligation kind of to add these aircraft.

you want your do 17 etc well u go get the models and do it yourself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

btw i wouldnt mind seeing more servers have the 262 u4? wid the bk50 and the 2a jabo, and he162, they require more skill/luck and arent so uber http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt;NO SPAM!
&lt;badsight&gt;my name is tracy and pingu is the Antichrist of Combat Flight Simmers
&lt;lexx_luthor&gt;flowers across the land in BoB
&lt;stiglr&gt; Ctrl+F1.

Loco-S
09-18-2004, 01:50 PM
yep, the he 162 was a terrible plane to fly, bad glue ( tegofilm substitute), made it shred the wings in flight ( it killed Heinkel test pilot on a big brass demo doing a high speed pass) unstable longitudinally on cruise and weak tail section made it a death wish with a turbine on its back, also the only one used for tests in England suffered "massive parts migration" during a test flight killing the Brit pilot instantly, The He 280 suffered because of its engines, they tended to catch fire if handled improperly, plus their considerable fragility ( 12 hours netween overhauls....crazy stuff) regarding the 262 its a well known fact that their analog fuel metering computer suffered lag and caused spooling of the engines to be delayed up to 10 seconds between imput and reaction, if you moved thottle too fast you could burn the engine or destroy it , frankly Im not familiar with the p 80 other than its later name ( model) was designed p-33 or t 33......my basic rant is to avoid this sim to go the way of M$ CFS, with ridiculous flight models and add ons that are purely fictional.

My idea still stands, we need a pool of info for a modeler(s) or for 1c to finish adding FM to the existing AI in order to restore the balance between "non operational " aircraft in the Eastern front theatre and Aircraft that saw action as production model.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/new+sig-1.jpg
Ad Maiorem Bella Gloriam

Daiichidoku
09-18-2004, 02:00 PM
Oleg should be morally obliged to set some parameters as to what should be submitted, if anything....at the very least, something like "ok, everybody, if you want to create and submit an ac type to us to use, please make it a type that at least was produced in small numbers, and should be a type that saw combat"

seems if 1C/Maddox games gets a type for free, theyre gonna put it in the game...look at the 109Z, never flown as the F based version, and our current G based version was NEVER built...

this shows me that 1C/Maddox will, of given for free by hard-working modellers (dont get me wrong, I know it a labor of lovve for these modellers) include truly "paper" planes...sets a nasty precedent....to me, this means that any modeller that likes any type that was proposed during WWII, where there are drawings for, can make a model, with an FM/DM that is at best suspect, and totally speculative (again, as in the 109Z) and submit it ti 1C/Maddoz who will release it............very irresponsible on thier part...for a "WWII" "sim", at least

If 1C/Maddox games have any responsibility, it is to set certain standards and/or parameters to model submissions...we know they only accept those with the highest level of detail and historical accuracy, but I think they should also apply this to the submissions themselves...how can a type that never flew be accute in FM?

Actually, pingu, you have seem my map with the 1939 and earlier types flying in a df...with a 262 u4..err...the the big 50mm gun one, hehe

You're right about the 262/162 tho....they arent uber, they take skill to ge tclean kills and RTB with...I think most ppl in thier cushy La7s and such dont like that they have to actually watch thier @sses when these birds are around, so they whine and complain that jets are uber, nooby, etc...

Id rather fight a 262 than a La7 or Ki84C ANYday

http://groups.msn.com/TaoofDaiichidoku/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=1

LStarosta
09-18-2004, 03:43 PM
You guys sure love to bludgeon that poor dead horse...

http://home.comcast.net/~l.starosta/sig2.jpg
Spacer nad Berlinem!
Spitfire = Technoblabble(Oleg/"Favors Recieved" from [wo]men)^PI(Magic 8 Ball)(amount of LSD Taken+Booze)(Position of the Earth Relative to the Sun)(Position of the Sun relative to God)^2

"You must factor in the alignment of the planets for the day in which the equation is completed, because the Spit can harness the power of the Earth's rotation and we're working on harnessing the power of ALL rotating and revolving objects in our solar system, later the whole universe, thus boosting the Spit's top speed to r0xx0rz KPH." -Dr. Nathan Roberts

Flying online as (56th)*MRBROWN

Loco-S
09-18-2004, 05:54 PM
im running the steamroller on this dead puppy..he he
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/deadhorse.bmp

seriously, I dont have the know how to make models, nor the time, but im getting loaded with original wartime material regarding maintenance and flight ops manuals on several of the planes in FB, I'd love to have a way to send it to 1c for future reference.

and I encourage anybody with good info to do the same, any takers?

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/new+sig-1.jpg
Ad Maiorem Bella Gloriam

darkhorizon11
09-18-2004, 06:47 PM
"The reason these other jets like the Go-229, the YP-80, the Me-163, etc, etc, is because 3rd party modellers liked these aircraft, and made them, and then sent them to Oleg. As far as I am aware, IC have no created one single aircraft between the release of FB and the release of AEP; all of the new aircraft until then were done by 3rd party modellers. Because 1C didn't have aircraft ready themselves, they took these models, so long as they were up to scratch, and programmed them in and released them.

If you want an aircraft in the game, model it, submit it, and hope it meets the standards."

Otherwise, shush."


WELL SAID. I mean if its available, why turn it down? Given as long as its not to ridiculus, like an F-16. I mean take the P-80 or Go 229. Both did fly, during the war though they never saw combat. If the war was six more months they probably would've. Plus not to mention neither plane is infallable and can still be taken down by many of the props by a decent pilot. On top of that there are prop only forums anyways...

LEXX_Luthor
09-18-2004, 07:23 PM
Loco, check out Netwings they are the FB modders and they do talk with Oleg, from time to time...

http://www.netwings.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID43&conf=DCConfID1

-----------------------------------------------


Daiich:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>but it is frustrating when many, many servers include several of these types, and everyone and his brother all filling the sky with the POS's<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Me 163...did he know the problems it was going to cause the servers?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are blaming Oleg and real life aircraft designs and their designers for the problems you are having with internet dogfighter behavior...or server host behavior. Why do others here have to remind you that your internet server hosts can turn off any plane in the plane set? At least this shows the difference between military aviation enthusiasts and arcade internet dogfighters--your focus on pure internet dogfighting gave you away. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That we call the work of Willy Messer and his engineers "POS" is another give away. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiich:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>LEXX, please, sir, don't generalize...many, of not most real pilots wished to finish military flying with thier lives, return home, and, unless other careers or schooling was to be pursued, perhaps find employment flying as commercial pilots...flying experimental or captured enemy types of unknown or dubious quality was NOT a practical way to see this end...sure, there was a small number out of the many that were driven to, or dreamed of flying the "hot" ships, but these were the "1%ers"...those truly crazy or super passionate flyers...remember, one may read a lot about pilots wanted test jobs and the latest and greatest, but you will never hear of the vast majority that simply wanted the tried and true, reliable ships that would bring them back to gf's, mothers and children.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most likely, the number of test pilot slots was greater than the number of applications. There is much competition to become test pilot for the military and the aircraft producers.

The 1% as you call them are one of our main sources of dogfight stories from the past, and we usually make internet webboard names from Their names, and wear Their skins as our own.



---------------------------------------------

Sorry for the Rant everybody.

For the 95% offline simmers, or for servers that do more than just corny internet dogfight, the Bf~109Z makes a great long range high speed ground attack or interdiction platform. Somewhat similar to what the Me~262 bomber could have been. It makes an interesting "what if" scenario as much Fantasy as any PC pilot or RealLife modern pilot flying during WW2.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WUAF_Badsight
09-18-2004, 08:57 PM
LEXX is biased . . . .

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
want some Flight sim advice ? look here ~~~~&gt; complete user guide for flight sims (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues)

VW-IceFire
09-18-2004, 09:04 PM
How many people know that most of those aircraft were submitted by third party sources?

How many people also know that those sources were responsible for a fair number of other aircraft that served in good numbers. Third party members are responsible for a flyable P-47, the P-38, the Spitfire's, and the Bf-110. Some (not all) cut their teeth on these "what-if" aircraft. Largely because of a reservation system that saw all aircraft pretty much gobbled up and they had nothing to work on (and unfortunately most of the reservations didn't work out).

These aircraft don't even ruin or affect the game anyways. I haven't seen a Go-229 or a BI-1 in a very long time.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

p1ngu666
09-18-2004, 09:56 PM
me262 is a great jabo..
it can run away from most things, prolly only jets can keep up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

i made a skip bombing coop with it in http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
900kph skip bombing, its actully the safest/best skip bomber imo

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt;NO SPAM!
&lt;badsight&gt;my name is tracy and pingu is the Antichrist of Combat Flight Simmers
&lt;lexx_luthor&gt;flowers across the land in BoB
&lt;stiglr&gt; Ctrl+F1.

Loco-S
09-18-2004, 11:52 PM
Hey Lexx, you seem to be a little on the edgy side, get a coffee, relax on your desk, and tell us why you seem to be upset when somebody asks for cooperation from the forumers regarding flyable models, im not demanding nothing, I just want a little more information on the subject.. be nice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/new+sig-1.jpg
Ad Maiorem Bella Gloriam