Royal_Flight

People keep saying this as if it’s true. I enjoyed VR so much I sold my Rift at a loss to get rid of it. That’s not a particularly useful poll though. TF probably will add VR at some point, when resources allow. I don’t mind them spending the effort, even though I don’t care for VR myself. You’ve worded it in such a way that you’ll probably only get results from people who agree with your premise though, which makes it a bit of a pointless exercise. There are other things on the roadmap to come first. VR will get here when it’s ready.

If I could choose a current AI aircraft to be made flyable I’d pick the Defiant. Could be a lot of fun with a human gunner. I’d love to see the Sunderland become flyable too, but that’s a lot of work and it possibly isn’t worth the effort to include it, at least not right now. There are a few new types that would be cool too but honestly, I can’t think of any real gaps that need to be filled.

Strongly disagree.

I’m not fussed if VR happens or not but I would like to see 5.0 released, so I’m glad development isn’t being held up just for that. If they add it later on that’s cool for those who are interested, but hopefully it doesn’t slow down progress towards any future releases. I’d rather have a functional, high-quality 2D flight sim with periodic updates and a future roadmap with an active playerbase, before anything extra like VR gets added.

I’ve been following the development of TF5.0 over the last couple of months with increasing interest, and I now can’t wait for the release. I was all set to take the Tomahawk up for a spin first, and it’s still probably the aircraft I’m most looking forward to flying. But the video reminded me how many cool things are on the way... the CR.42 and Gladiator combo look like great fun for a dogfight, and the Wellington is easily the most ambitious bomber in any modern flight sim and I’m dead keen to give it a go, especially if I can have other human crew in it. And I wasn’t exp

I think it was Ugra Media. And they have a bit of a track record of questionable performance so far. They were behind the notoriously poor Normandy map for DCS. They were also tasked to create the Po-2 model, which we were told was a test to see if they could work on new aircraft for release as collector planes to add more types between releases. The Po-2 took well over a year from announcement to delivery, and since its release we’ve seen no more Ugra-built collector planes which would suggest they didn’t pass the test. They then had FC vol.1 to work on, and t

Why make an La-7 when we could just reskin a 190D? That would save even more time.

Also, gunners can and do die. I’ve brought home enough dead gunners in my time to confirm that. And human players in the gunner position can be injured in the same way as pilots (red screen and blurred vision) so AI gunners likely can be injured too, although what effect this has on them I don’t know.

Cant decide if that’s beautiful or hideous.

I think this is why these discussions keep coming up. Everyone remembers the negatives. Fighter pilots all recall the three times they get shot down out of ten attacks on the Pe-2, and assume the gunners are OP. Then the bomber pilots remember the seven times out of ten they got shot down in a Pe-2, and assume the fighter pilots are being unreasonable. In practice it’s probably just about even. As a bomber pilot maybe I’m biased but it’s far from being a game-breaking issue.

Something like ARMA’s ACRE (Advanced Combat Radio Environment), suitably adjusted, would be a great addition. It uses different types of radios for different purposes as physical inventory items, that are limited by range and reception. That could be a creative way to simulate different types and quality of radios between aircraft - the P-39 isn’t the best fighter in game but has a better radio than a La-5, so there’s a historical benefit to using it. Maybe add an option to remove the radio gear to save weight, so if you know you’re going to be lone-wolfing it but it giv

There’s an unsubstantiated but likely story about the Tu-144, the thinly-veiled Soviet ripoff of Concorde, stating that the designers knew the Soviets were trying to steal blueprints to reverse-engineer the aircraft so they included deliberate mistakes. The Soviet designers replicated the errors which contributed to the notorious unreliability of the finished aircraft.

I would find it hugely entertaining. It wouldn’t take too much effort to create a fairly deep ‘Battle of the Atlantic’ simulation with existing assets, with merchant ships and escorts facing commerce raiders. Maybe U-boats. With a flyable Sunderland and Fw 200 there are quite a lot of options for gameplay - locate the convoy, attack/defend it, hunting submarines, engaging enemy aircraft; if the aircraft are multi-crewable then there are more options for people to navigate, observe or spot targets, maning gunner positions and aiming ordinance. All of which coul

Meanwhile the F-35 first flew nearly two decades ago and it’s still not finished...

Option 3 seems a no-brainer, but I doubt we’ll see it. The devs aren’t capable of making this work and the engine isn’t sophisticated enough to pull it off. Even if research could be done and there was a big enough potential customer base, having player-controlled, complex FM four-engined bombers with detailed crew positions and interiors is too much for the Great Battles series to manage, so it won’t ever happen. This isn’t even taking other considerations into account; whether flying for five hours on a constant heading at 30,000ft only to be hit by flak and di