Jump to content

Enceladus

Members
  • Content Count

    651
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

412 Excellent

2 Followers

About Enceladus

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada
  • Interests
    Astronomy, UFOs, History, Aviation, History of Ancient Egypt and South America is Wrong. Atlantis is under Antarctica.

Recent Profile Visitors

3408 profile views
  1. They also need French voices for Desert Wings - Tobruk. In particular, the Dewoitine D.520
  2. I think where the devs want to start is the early war PTO with Midway, Guadalcanal, that kind of stuff. While yes, the Illustrious class was used in the Pacific, the HMS Victorious, and later in 1945 the HMS Illustrious and the British Pacific Fleet, I think the devs want to focus their attention on American and Japanese carriers before they start doing British Carriers for the Pacific. The Avenger class did not see any action in the Pacific, so wouldn't really be worth making. Several of the Bogue class carriers saw action in the Pacific, but the devs would likely make the Casablanca class over the Bogue. Get real here. The Graf Zeppelin was never completed and never saw any action in WW2, nor did any of these proposed carrier versions of the Bf-109 and Ju-87. The kind of Aircraft Carriers the devs are wanting to build are Fleet Carriers: USS Enterprise, USS Saratoga, USS Essex, USS Hornet, etc.; and then the Japanese ones as well. If any of those carriers saw action elsewhere than the Pacific, then it makes sense to build them for another theatre, if they didn't, then it seems to make much more sense to build them when ready for the PTO. So, if you build an Aircraft Carrier that didn't see action in the PTO, while yes Carrier tech is introduced into the game, but doesn't it also eat up a lot of the devs resources, and after building those, they still have to build the American and Japanese Fleet Carriers that they need for the Pacific?
  3. I enjoyed the FTP option; in fact, that was the main reason I decided to get Rise of Flight. While I greatly enjoyed this... somewhat, demo version of IL-2 GBs, I feel that financially it wasn't worth having the FTP option as there are many freeloaders who give a negative review about the game after a very small amount of time played, and probably never even gave a cent to 1C/777. Therefore, I strongly feel that they should just remove the FTP option and integrate the 3 planes into DLCs Cheers.
  4. This feature needs to be available for aircraft in IL-2 GBs after a crash landing. Especially when the plane has ditched into the water, or is on fire.
  5. While I don't really agree with this notion about the G-6 Late, I do agree with your notion about some other planes: Fw-190A-3: Now that we're going to get Normandy and the Channel map, I guess a scenario involving it in 1941-42 over the Channel map can work; and if the devs decide to do Finland, but this aircraft seems completely out of place for Battle of Stalingrad. And there's the Fw-190A-5, A-8, and soon to be A-6 in the game. To be honest, the devs should have made the Ju-52 flyable, or the IAR 80/81 instead. Macchi 202: Wasn't even at Moscow, so why bother making it? Sure, if the devs were going to North Africa or the Mediterranean immediately after BoM, then yes, but considering the fact that it saw action in August 1942 at Stalingrad, and in small numbers, it doesn't really belong in Moscow, or in this game. Should have made the Macchi 200, which saw action in greater numbers, and was at Moscow. Bf-109F-2/F-4: Should have gone with just one. If they had, the long requested Ju-87B probably would have been added for BoM. Guys. I'm not trying to be antagonistic towards aircraft decisions that the devs have made, it's just if you're able to add like 40+ planes/variants/modifications like in Desert Wings - Tobruk, then sure, go ahead and make almost every single plane that saw action (ranging from limited to significant) at the particular battle, and planes people would be interested in flying. But, if you're limited to just 10 planes, then it all comes down to what planes were at the battle, what planes at this battle are less difficult to make than others that people would be greatly interested in flying, and what planes that saw action at this battle are missing from the game that were used in other places covered in the game. That's why I feel the 3 planes mentioned above were better to include in BoS/BoM than the ones chosen. However, if the devs cover Operation Barbarossa in this game, then I hope they can add the 2-3 planes mentioned above in it. Salute.
  6. Once released, I think Normandy will be the first module of this game that a new user will buy😃😃. Keep it up devs. You’re awesome.
  7. For those who don't know, the RMS (later HMHS) Britannic was the sister ship of the Titanic. After the sinking of the Titanic, the Britannic had to undergo modifications, if which had been implemented on the Titanic, she likely would have remained afloat, or afloat long enough for help to arrive. At the start of WW1 Britannic was converted into a Hospital ship to serve the Gallipoli Campaign. I have had this game for a while, and I really do enjoy exploring the exterior and interior of the ship, and experiencing the sinking. Next week is the 104th anniversary of the sinking of the Britannic, and it's currently on sale for 45% off. Does anyone else have this game? P.S. The people who made this game are currently working on a game called Titanic: Honor and Glory, a full, realistic recreation of the ship, every single room, and the sinking of the Titanic. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1259560/Britannic_Patroness_of_the_Mediterranean/?fbclid=IwAR3DZx7N3S4ecsV1Q03MSq37cJxOuNDuwwGWUa39U9niHzT5lYj9jgWVP8c
  8. A Tribal class destroyer on a Collision course with a Leander cruiser (that I torpedoed). Impact! A strange anomaly afterwards; just stuck like that for a while, sped it up, but nothing changed.
  9. I really enjoyed from IL-2 1946: " Hello Good friends, good to see you guys. Somebody decided to join us, over", " Attention. Beginning our attack run. Enemy... Commence the Attack.", " Stay with your leader, stay on course!" (my favourite quote as a child playing the original Sturmovik), " Go around. Go around.", " I'm on fire, bailing out!", and all these other quotes. I like from IL-2 1946 and CloD that you can request help from your wingman, vectors to home base, less helpful when over water and no landmarks for a position reference; turning on runway lights, and a lot of other Radio Comm/Command related from the 2 games that I like and should be added to IL-2 GBs... hopefully for Normandy. And yes, landing priority is something I think should be hopefully implemented. I found it annoying when a twin engine plane was damaged and down to one engine and was denied landing clearance due to another plane in working condition ahead of being cleared to land first, and the twin engine plane went around and crashed/crash landed☹️ Cheers.
  10. I hope at some time cockpits in IL-2 GBs can become clickable. Most people say it's unnecessary due to lesser switches/systems than a modern plane, but I'm starting to find that some non-Garmin planes in MSFS 2020 have fewer switches/systems than in a WW2 plane, and yet the former planes have clickable cockpits. For all of these basic things like Fuel cocks/Fuel Selector valve, Magnetos, and switches that are right in front of you, it's simpler to just click them instead of assigning a key command like Ctrl + X, etc. I mean you could; but I just prefer to simply click them. Regarding the subject in this thread, I even suggested it a few months ago for IL-2 GBs.
  11. This is what Buzzsaw states: " At earliest, it will be added in early 2021... and it is more than likely it will be some time into the new year." I think what Pattle was getting at is that VR is likely to slip past early 2021, and Buzzsaw was stating that it's still planned for sometime in 2021... like middle of the year.
  12. Enceladus

    I.A.R 80 c

    The I.A.R. 80/81 is a must need aircraft for this game.
  13. I think after Normandy they'll perhaps go back to the Eastern Front for a 1941/43-44 battle, or Berlin, or the early Pacific War. Doubt we'll get North Africa, Mediterranean, or France anytime soon, unless they've done everything in Europe or Pacific that they want to do and those are the only places left. IMO, when it gets to that point, I'd prefer if they made ships already in the game playable if they haven't already done that, add ships and planes not in the game that people have expressed interest in. And NOT 1946 planes! Cheers.
  14. No! You have to realize that: 1. AFAIK, unlike WW1 and WW2 planes, playable tanks with realistic cockpits has never been done before, so 1CGS are essentially the pioneers of this product they want to expand upon in the future. I hope that they do Falaise, Battle of the Bulge and another Eastern Front Tank battle after. 2. This is being done by a 3rd-party team. 3. Tank Crew - Clash at Prokhorovka was being made while Flying Circus Vol.1 and Battle of Bodenplatte were also simultaneously being made. Jason later stated once the 3 were pretty much done, save for TC1, that the team didn't want to do 3 products at same time again as it slows down their overall progress; bit rusty with the last statement. Currently they're working on Battle of Normandy, 2 collector vehicles, and the final things before releasing TC1 on Steam.
×
×
  • Create New...