PDA

View Full Version : Please...No more JET'S !!!



O-NO
04-15-2004, 06:38 PM
Many of us are very Disappointed with the Addition of Jet's in the IL-2 Series. It has brought a Carnival type Atmosphere to IL-2 And Has removed the Uniqueness of the game IMHO. And besides there are many jet oriented games out there already . I would rather see Olegs resources go into the refinement of present aircraft and an addition of Aircraft that were actually used in many numbers ( unlike the BF-190z) And most of all the influx of new Maps . Thank You for your time - O-NO

[This message was edited by O-NO on Thu April 15 2004 at 05:46 PM.]

O-NO
04-15-2004, 06:38 PM
Many of us are very Disappointed with the Addition of Jet's in the IL-2 Series. It has brought a Carnival type Atmosphere to IL-2 And Has removed the Uniqueness of the game IMHO. And besides there are many jet oriented games out there already . I would rather see Olegs resources go into the refinement of present aircraft and an addition of Aircraft that were actually used in many numbers ( unlike the BF-190z) And most of all the influx of new Maps . Thank You for your time - O-NO

[This message was edited by O-NO on Thu April 15 2004 at 05:46 PM.]

luthier1
04-15-2004, 06:42 PM
I am Not Even aware of Any JET'S oper'ating In THE! P'Acific ,so Dont Worry , you Will not g'et any http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - Luthier

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

O-NO
04-15-2004, 06:48 PM
Thank You , Luthier1 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fennec_P
04-15-2004, 07:33 PM
How about rocket planes? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

You could reskin the Bi-1 to be a piloted missile.

FltLt_HardBall
04-15-2004, 09:19 PM
Sheesh.

How many times do we have to hear this chestnut?

DON'T LIKE IT? DON'T FLY IT! STFU ABOUT IT!

It's simple.

VW-IceFire
04-15-2004, 09:21 PM
You never even see these things in dogfights anyways...only in co-ops are there ever jets.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Gibbage1
04-15-2004, 09:43 PM
How about the F5U? Its not a jet!

http://www.netaxs.com/people/ebailey/xf5u_dwg.gif

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Maj_Death
04-15-2004, 09:53 PM
How about a PBY, no one will argue against that. It's pretty and it is definatly a WW2 plane.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maj_Death here, Stab.I/JG1Death at HL

I build COOPs and DF maps. If you would like some of them you can get them atmy COOP page (http://www14.brinkster.com/triggerhappy770/default.htm)

I/JG1 Oesau is recruiting axis pilots who prefer to fly maximum realism. We accept both veterans and rookies. We fly in VEF2, VOW and may join other online wars in the future. Go to our forums at http://www.jg1-oesau.org/ for more details and to apply.
http://www.bestanimations.com/Humans/Skulls/Skull-06.gif

heywooood
04-15-2004, 09:56 PM
Luthiers favorite plane ? here ? wrong thread Gibbage.. but thats cool.

this one was powered by maple syrup, wasn't it? aero6? wasn't it also common for it to fly in a "stack" formation? The pilots all said it handled like "butter" didn't they. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The 'ol flyin' pancake.

necrobaron
04-15-2004, 10:06 PM
I guess this might suprise some people but FB is a WWII flight sim and jets flew in WWII. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

"Not all who wander are lost."

Penguin_PFF
04-15-2004, 11:45 PM
No more JET'S... What's? What does a jet have that shouldn't be added any further?

(A, I see, somebodys already skewered the original posters usage's of posessive's in his post's.)

Longjocks
04-16-2004, 08:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FltLt_HardBall:
DON'T LIKE IT? DON'T FLY IT! STFU ABOUT IT!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup, I've read the manual back to front and I'll be a monkey's uncle if there's any entry saying that flying a jet is compulsory.

http://users.tpg.com.au/mpdeans/misc/midgesign2.gif "Thanks for the inspiration to rise above you all."

DuxCorvan
04-16-2004, 08:52 AM
"Please... No more jets..."

Someone forgot to tell that to the nazis in 1944...

O-NO, there were jets and rocket planes in WW2. And there's nothing in a jet that make it less pleasing or realistic than a prop aircraft. It's your problem if you can't enjoy them... or defeat them.

And, Luthier, it's true that Japanese plans to make licensed versions of German 262 or 163 were aborted by the outcome of war. But it isn't less true that the Ohka, the rocket-engined kamikaze plane was built, flown and used in combat -usually launched from a Betty- and this would be a very interestin add to PF, merging in one the emotions of FB/AEP's TB-3 SPB, Mistel and V-1. Not to mention the adrenaline shock it must be a mission trying to fly frantically to death against a running boat, amongst AA bursts, gun tracers and horrible buzzing sound...

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

ASH at S-MART
04-16-2004, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by O-NO:
Many of us are very Disappointed with the Addition of Jet's in the IL-2 Series.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Many of us are not Disappointed with the Addition of Jet's in the IL-2 Series.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by O-NO:
It has brought a Carnival type Atmosphere to IL-2 And Has removed the Uniqueness of the game IMHO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only if you make use of the options to fly them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by O-NO:
And besides there are many jet oriented games out there already.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by O-NO:
I would rather see Olegs resources go into the refinement of present aircraft and an addition of Aircraft that were actually used in many numbers (unlike the BF-190z) And most of all the influx of new Maps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First valid argument that I can agree with!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by O-NO:
Thank You for your time - O-NO<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No problem.. any time

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

ASH at S-MART
04-16-2004, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
I am Not Even aware of Any JET'S oper'ating In THE! P'Acific<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually Gibb found a very interesting link a week or so back about a P38 pilot in WWII pacific that mentioned there was about 30+ P-80s (not YP80s) sent to the pacific before the close of the war

And then there is this

http://www.ijnafpics.com/B&W/kikka.jpg
http://www.ijnafpics.com/B&W/Kikka__1.jpg
http://www.ijnafpics.com/B&W/kikka_10.jpg
http://www.ijnafpics.com/B&W/kikka_11.jpg
http://www.ijnafpics.com/JB&W/Kikka-3.jpg
http://www.ijnafpics.com/JB&W/Kikka-6.jpg
http://www.ijnafpics.com/JB&W/Kikka-7.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
so Dont Worry , you Will not g'et any http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - Luthier<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So with that said.. the same reasoning that went into the decisions made in ACE EP will not be applied to PF? i.e. the decision to provide options for the user.. Why penalize the users that realize that flying a jet is a *choice* they make and not something forced on them?

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

sugaki
04-16-2004, 01:54 PM
Jet planes have a place in IL2FB simply cus' the Germans actually used them. Nobody used jets in combat in the Pacific War, except the Japanese Ohka bomb. (P80 never saw combat)

Which reminds me, will there be Ohka bombing escort missions? That'd totally rock to escort a couple of Bettys or Helens to launch their bombs, only to get slaughtered by Hellcats along the way.

-Aki

javierlopez1
04-16-2004, 01:54 PM
Would be nice to see Me262s, Me163s and ohkas in PF. For the Me262 and Me163 you have the model done http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ASH at S-MART
04-16-2004, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
I am Not Even aware of Any JET'S oper'ating In THE! P'Acific ,so Dont Worry , you Will not g'et any http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - Luthier<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Did I mention rockets?

http://www.ijnafpics.com/JB&W3/J8M-17.jpg
http://www.ijnafpics.com/JB&W/J8M-1s.jpg
http://www.ijnafpics.com/JB&W4/J8M-21.jpg
http://www.ijnafpics.com/JB&W/J8M-7.jpg
http://www.ijnafpics.com/JB&W/J8M-2.jpg
http://www.ijnafpics.com/JB&W2/J8M-11.jpg
http://www.ijnafpics.com/JB&W/J8M-6.jpg

This one should be easy to do.. In that it is very similar to the existing Me163.. Just a little different nose and canopy

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

javierlopez1
04-16-2004, 01:58 PM
Mitsubishi J8M/Ki-200 Shusui -- rocket powered interceptor.
Japanese copy of German Me163 rocket powered interceptor fighter specially designed for use against B-29. The prototype flew on 7July45. The War ended before production.

Reppu. -- Specially designed kamikaze for use against B-29; the war ended before production.

Yokosuka Ohka. -- A piloted glide bomb, called "Baka" by the allies.
The Baka piloted glide bomb was carried to within 12 miles of the target by a medium bomber. It would glide towards the target then activate rockets (model 11) or jet engine (model 22) to dive into the target and explode its one ton warhead. The Baka was difficult to stop, but its mother plane was extremely vulnerable.
21Mar45. Japanese make first known operational use of Baka piloted bombs in unsuccessful air attack against TF-58.
12Apr45. Off Okinawa, destroyer Mannert L. Abele (DD-733) is sunk by Baka--she is the first U.S. Navy ship to be sunk by that type of weapon. Destroyer Stanly (DD-478) is damaged by Baka. High speed minesweeper Jeffers (DMS-27) is damaged by Baka and kamikaze.
4 May45. Light minelayer Shea (DM-30) is damaged by a Baka. Minesweeper Gayety (AM-239) is damaged by near-misses of kamikaze and Baka.
10May45 --In a crash program to counter the Japanese Baka (suicide) bomb, the Navy authorized development of Little Joe, a ship-to-air guided missile powered with a standard JATO unit.
11May45. Destroyer Hugh W. Hadley (DD-774) is damaged by Baka.

see more: http://www.ww2pacific.com/suicide.html

Interesitng info here too:
http://members.aol.com/pelzig/shusui.html

ASH at S-MART
04-16-2004, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
Jet planes have a place in IL2FB simply cus' the Germans actually used them. Nobody used jets in combat in the Pacific War, except the Japanese Ohka bomb. (P80 never saw combat)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes and No.. The US used the P80s in europe.. Granted.. they did see air to air combat.. but they did fly sorties.. Kind of like the Go229.. and Do335.. But nobodys on the Lw side complains about that.. The WHAT IF has allready been in the game.. Much like the PERSONAL CHOICE to use or not use them.

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Vortex_uk
04-16-2004, 02:14 PM
Mitsubishi J8M Shusui -

In late 1943 Japan acquired manufactoring rights to the Messerschimitt Me-163 rocket-powered interceptor, and despite the fact that one of the two submarines carrying the necessary technical data was sunk en route to Japan, Mitsubishi was given the task of desiging and building the aircraft.After tests with an un-powered glider, seven prototypes of the powered J8M1 Shusui (Sword Stroke) were built, and one was made ready for test on 7th July 1945. The one and only test flight ended in disaster when the rocket motor failed after take-off; the aircraft was destroyed and it's pilot killed.

Specification -

Type - Rocket powered interceptor.

Crew - 1.

Powerplant - One 1500kg (3307lb) thrust Toko Ro2 bi-fuel rocket motor.

Max speed - 900 km/h (559 mp/h) at 10,000m (32,810ft).

Service ceiling - 12,000m (39,370ft)

Powered endurance - 5mins 30seconds

Wing span - 9.50m (31ft 2in)

Length - 6.05m (19ft 10in)

Height - 2.70m (8ft 10in)

Weight - 3885kg (8565lb) loaded

Armament - One or two wing-mounted 30mm (1.19in) cannon.

So there were Jets/rockets in the pacific,but this one didn't make it to see combat.

}-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-{

~S~
from =97th=Vortex

http://www.gamefileworld.com/upimages/newbanner.jpg
www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas (http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas)

sugaki
04-16-2004, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Reppu. -- Specially designed kamikaze for use against B-29; the war ended before production.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's very wrong. The A7M2 Reppu was designed as the successor to the A6M Zero. With a 627 km/hr max speed, and poor high altittude performance due to the Homare engine, and its design as a dogfighter, they did not have kamikaze in mind.

Shusui never saw combat, never even went beyond prototypes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes and No.. The US used the P80s in europe.. Granted.. they did see air to air combat.. but they did fly sorties.. Kind of like the Go229.. and Do335.. But nobodys on the Lw side complains about that.. The WHAT IF has allready been in the game.. Much like the PERSONAL CHOICE to use or not use them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The issue isn't the freedom in personal choice, the issue is whether or not they belong in the game as a world war II simulator. The point of contention is that if a plane never saw combat in the war, it shouldn't be included.

If you're simply arguing personal choice, then it should be anyone's choice to fly a F-22 Raptor alongside La-7's. Personal choice is irrelevant. That line of argument holds no ground, you can also say "if you don't like cheating online, don't."

I'm more of a single player campaign kinda guy, so frankly it doesn't bug me too much to see '46 planes in the game.

But it really does bug me when major planes during the war aren't modelled, and the Ho229 is modelled, like CFS3 (which is missing a whole load of major planes, including the Ju-87). Frankly planes that never saw combat should be in the back of the list.

Or another thing that irks me is a lot of times you have crazy prototypes that would've never seen mass production being modelled, but leaving out planes that would've been mass produced. So it does end up turning into a freak-show circus, with Flying pancakes, and that Shinden-looking US plane.

If an expansion comes out with all of the planes that never saw combat in the PTO like the F8F Bearcat, great (please include the A7M Reppu too). But I'd want to first see a sim faithfully recreating all the major planes during the war.

ASH at S-MART
04-16-2004, 03:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
The issue isn't the freedom in personal choice, the issue is whether or not they belong in the game as a world war II simulator. The point of contention is that if a plane never saw combat in the war, it shouldn't be included.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. very Very VERY TRUE! If the goal was to write a history book.. But it isnt.. Therfore we have a game/simulator used for WHAT IF's! As in WHAT IF I were flying that plane that day againt that plane.. The 46 aircraft are just an extension of that WHAT IF!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
If you're simply arguing personal choice, then it should be anyone's choice to fly a F-22 Raptor alongside La-7's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. very Very VERY TRUE! If this was a total GAME.. But it isnt.. Therfore we have a game/simulator that has options to choose from.. Said options are within REASON.. That is to say if you took a poll where it asked if you think an aircraft designed and developed in the early 40's should be in a WWII sim instead of an aircraft designed and developed in the 90's... Well lets just say I think the poll would show yes on the P-80 and no on the F-22.. Put another way, you can use EXTREAME exaples to justify your reasoning.. but I dont think the masses will agree with you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
Personal choice is irrelevant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. very Very VERY TRUE! If the goal was to write a history book.. But it isnt..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
That line of argument holds no ground, you can also say "if you don't like cheating online, don't."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just as the extream example of including a F-22 into a WWII sim holds no ground.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
I'm more of a single player campaign kinda guy, so frankly it doesn't bug me too much to see '46 planes in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
But it really does bug me when major planes during the war aren't modelled, and the Ho229 is modelled, like CFS3 (which is missing a whole load of major planes, including the Ju-87). Frankly planes that never saw combat should be in the back of the list.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Valid point.. one that does not consider the economics of it all.. but valid.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
Or another thing that irks me is a lot of times you have crazy prototypes that would've never seen mass production being modelled, but leaving out planes that would've been mass produced. So it does end up turning into a freak-show circus, with Flying pancakes, and that Shinden-looking US plane.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Another valid point.. one that does not consider the economics of it all.. but valid. Yet, alot if not most of the 46 stuff came about from the efforts of 3rd party modelers like Gibb.. When someone does something for free.. I dont think one should feel they can dictate what they do... It is very simple.. The offline campain stuff you play does not make much use of the 46 stuff.. So unless you CHOOSE to play them in a single mission or add them to a mission you make.. You sound not even run across them.. Granted, adding in the FREE 3d models of the 3rd party stuff takes resorces away from other things.. but it also made the game/sim more profitable by targeting a wider audiance.. Thus improving it by taking in more money to ultimtly do those *other* things like adding more mass produced aircraft. Basically it is a win win when you consider the fact that the only way you will run into a 46 plane is if you choose to do so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
If an expansion comes out with all of the planes that never saw combat in the PTO like the F8F Bearcat, great (please include the A7M Reppu too). But I'd want to first see a sim faithfully recreating all the major planes during the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Problem is the definition of MAJOR PLANES is different between different people.. So, I say do what makes them money.. If adding a JET here or a prototype there brings in more moeny to contine making great sims.. ALL THE BETTER!

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Chuck_Older
04-16-2004, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fennec_P:
How about rocket planes? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

You could reskin the Bi-1 to be a piloted missile.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, and then you could call it the Ohka

*****************************
Get your car outta that gear ~ Clash

sugaki
04-16-2004, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>True.. very Very VERY TRUE! If the goal was to write a history book.. But it isnt.. Therfore we have a game/simulator used for WHAT IF's! As in WHAT IF I were flying that plane that day againt that plane.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does my point have to do with writing a history book? It has to do with seeing planes like Ho229 buzzing around en masse when historically they didn't. You're right, it's about WHAT IFs, but some people just don't like "What-ifs."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yet, alot if not most of the 46 stuff came about from the efforts of 3rd party modelers like Gibb.. When someone does something for free.. I dont think one should feel they can dictate what they do...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough, if somebody wants to model some obscure plane, that's great. But that's not what most of these threads are saying. You have all the F8F fans that are trying to argue that the plane MUST be in the game, because it was onboard a carrier right before the war ended. I'm saying, it's not a must. If it gets put in the game, great. I think the F8F's a great plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If adding a JET here or a prototype there brings in more moeny to contine making great sims.. ALL THE BETTER!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great point as well, as flight sims aren't a very lucrative market, especially compared to something like Call of Duty of Battlefield 1942.

People are basically arguing based on two different points - some people care about historacity more than variety of planes. I'd want em all too, but first I'd want the planes that were fighting in the war.

I'm all for Bearcats, Shindens n such. I mean, all you'd have to do to prevent a circus of them flying (that is, if you're against them) is to have servers that restrict those "what-if" planes. But I just don't want the planes that fought in the war getting short changed.

ASH at S-MART
04-16-2004, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
What does my point have to do with writing a history book?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Everything really.. Your point stems from the historical position that *IF* it didnt happen in WWII *IT* shouldnt happen in the game/sim. That *point* is very Very VERY valid if one is writing a history book..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
It has to do with seeing planes like Ho229 buzzing around en masse when historically they didn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So.. tell me.. just where is it that you run into MASSES of Go229s? Campain play in IL2? No.. not there Online play in IL2? No.. not there either.. Most if not all of the servers on Hyperlobby have the Go229 disabled.. Maybe once in a blue moon you might find a server that enalbes it.. At which point YOU have a CHOICE of staying and playing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
You're right, it's about WHAT IFs<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
but some people just don't like "What-ifs."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NEWS FLASH... Some people just do like "What-ifs." As in 46 stuff... NOW! If you had no choice in the mater.. and the Campin FORCED you to contine in a Go229.. THEN I would tend to agree with you.. But it doesnt.. So I dont agree with you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
Fair enough, if somebody wants to model some obscure plane, that's great.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im sure that Gibb will sleep better tonight knowing that you gave him permission to spend his spare time the way he chooses too! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
But that's not what most of these threads are saying. You have all the F8F fans that are trying to argue that the plane MUST be in the game, because it was onboard a carrier right before the war ended. I'm saying, it's not a must. If it gets put in the game, great. I think the F8F's a great plane.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would *agree* with the F8F crowd *IF* the inital release of PF does include *OTHER* 46 type of aircraft.. In that out of all the 46ish planes the F8F and the F7F were on the way if not there and had the war lasted a week or two longer they would have been in position and use... Unlike the Go229, 109Z, etc.. But if the inital PF release is like the inital FB release.. ie strickly saw combat stuff.. then I agree with you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
Great point as well, as flight sims aren't a very lucrative market, especially compared to something like Call of Duty of Battlefield 1942.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
People are basically arguing based on two different points - some people care about historacity more than variety of planes. I'd want em all too, but first I'd want the planes that were fighting in the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As would I.. but.. it has to sell.. Or we all loose! If adding a P80 or wizz bang airplane makes the game reach a bigger Quake type market.. Im all for it.. As long as they dont dumb down the orginal aspects like the FM's etc.. Keep in mind that Oleg is for realism.. But his product has to compete on the shelfs along side the likes of CFS3 and SWOTL II... Two very Quake types of games with very lame FM's!! That.. and I think there are alot of guys out there like me that do thing WHAT IF with regards to 46 stuff.. Kind of neat to pit a F8F againts a Ki43c.4

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sugaki:
I'm all for Bearcats, Shindens n such. I mean, all you'd have to do to prevent a circus of them flying (that is, if you're against them) is to have servers that restrict those "what-if" planes. But I just don't want the planes that fought in the war getting short changed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I hear yah.. And I agree, better for us more hard core minded folks to get the WORK HORSES of the war done.. But we have to consider the economics of it all... If adding a JET sells a 10000 more copys to some up and comming Quake kid making the transition to realistic flight sims.. It helps Oleg get more money to do what he wants to do.. Make realistic flight sims that focus on good flight models.. Unlike MOST sims out to date!!!!

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

zoomar2
04-16-2004, 05:08 PM
There are "jets" and then there are "jets". The Me262 and Me163 belong in any halfway basic simulation of WW2 in europe. So would the Gloster Meteor, but somehow we got the P-80, which never fired its guns in anger in the ETO. The He-162 is a stretch, and the BI-1 is just a curiosity as is the Go-229. The saving grace of all the WW2 jets in this game is that they basically perform like prop planes anyway, except with poorer acceleration and much more tempermental engines. Some, like the Go-229, seem to have very little to commend. So they are not at all like flying a simulated F-15 or Su-27!

In PF, it would make as much sense to include the Ohka as the Me-163 in AEP, but I'm not sure why anybody would want to fly it, since all you're doing is going strait at some target on a one-way-ride, hoping flak doesn't nail you first. But in an AI combination with the Betty, it would be quite cool.

If we ever get to odd-plane late-war add-ons with PF, The J8M and Kikka migh be reasonable since they did at least fly in prototype form, but I'd much rather have the Kyushu Shinden in a heartbeat. Oh and just use the P-80 as the US jet and have the P-82 as their Bf-109Z.

But I'm glad to see these planes are way down on Luthier's priorities!

zoomar2
04-16-2004, 05:16 PM
One other thing about jets talking about what ifs.

Actually, one of my favorite thing about the old game "Chuck Yeager's Air Combat" was that it did allow you to take an F-4 Phantom up against a hord of FW190s, Me-262,s and what not and see how many Nazis you could take out before you ran out of missles and cannon. ammunition. It would be a hoot if Luthier suprised us just for fun and had a SU-27 or F-16 hidden in the QMB!

ASH at S-MART
04-16-2004, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zoomar2:
but somehow we got the P-80, which never fired its guns in anger in the ETO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But at least it was in the ETO! And the PTO! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Longjocks
04-16-2004, 09:26 PM
Ash, I agree with 97.835% of what you say...

Actually, it's 97.382... I forgot to carry the 2 (or was it 3...?).

Anyway, seem as though I've less inclination for long arguments these days I think I'll just start sending you links to posts I want countered. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

At least until we disagree, then I'll be forced to eat your children.

http://users.tpg.com.au/mpdeans/misc/midgesign2.gif "Thanks for the inspiration to rise above you all."

heywooood
04-16-2004, 09:29 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Longjocks:
Ash, I agree with 97.835% of what you say...

At least until we disagree, then I'll be forced to eat your children.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I'll swallow yer soul!!hahaha

Ash Does know the argueing thing fer sure!

Owl_NZ
04-17-2004, 12:01 AM
Sorry if this is late or restating the obvious:

For my POV, I'd only understand (given Luthier said only main types that were important), that this would rule out any use of jets or rockets, with the one feasibile exception of the Baka.

Having said that, I will not be sorry if there are no whoosh-mobiles in PF. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif There are significantly diverse numbers of propellor-driven planes worthy of inclusion without pandering to those who consider piston power passe. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Or, put simpler: No way should a jet get in if major types like Dinah's cannot. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Longjocks
04-17-2004, 01:31 AM
I think one of the most important things missed on both sides is that it's not just about a plane's role. Let me put it like this;

Plane A is a famous plane that did its part in the war and is included in Simulation X.
Plane B is a lesser known plane that did its part in the war and is not included in Simulation X.
Plane C is a plane, famous or otherwise, that was a next-gen machine and just missed out on active service in the war.

Plane B has no real destinction from Plane A except its look or affiliation. Performance-wise it is almost identical to Plane A. Plane B offers no distinct gameplay difference/advantage except historical accuracy of which only one faction of the community partake.

So the designers decide that something a little different is in order and throw in Plane C. Considering there are already a billion historical representatives in Simulation X.

I can't be bothered right now, but I challenge anyone to work out the proportions between historically accurate planes and post war planes. If it reaches 4:1 I'll be surprised... and that's not including all the variants of each plane. Afterwards, tell me if there isn't enough work is going into historically accurate planes for everyone's liking.

http://users.tpg.com.au/mpdeans/misc/midgesign2.gif "Thanks for the inspiration to rise above you all."

PlaneEater
04-17-2004, 04:49 AM
XF5-U... Sweeeeet.

Hey, Gib! I call dibs on building the Flying Pancake! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You want the XB-35? If you want the XF5-U, I'll do the XB-35...

BlitzPig_DDT
04-17-2004, 05:41 AM
We should get jets. Specifically the planned Japanese versions of the 163 and 262. Hell, even the planned second generation rocket plane to follow their version of the 163.

What I find fascinating though is that so many people are more concerned with controlling other people, and their ability to have fun, than with simply enjoying the game itself.

Some people need to seek professional help.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

DuxCorvan
04-17-2004, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zoomar2:
It would be a hoot if Luthier suprised us just for fun and had a SU-27 or F-16 hidden in the QMB!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.abstractstrategy.com/indians-andc-owboys.jpg

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We should get jets. Specifically the planned Japanese versions of the 163 and 262. Hell, even the planned second generation rocket plane to follow their version of the 163.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what about German post-Komet version: The Me 263, a much lethal -and safe- version than the Komet...

But what I'd really like, is to have more EARLY planes, and be able to play Italian-Ethiope War, Spanish Civil War or Japanese operations in China...

WW2 started before September 1939... and nobody can argue against the 'historical' nature of the aircraft involved. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.