Royal_Flight

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 gives you an extra few miles per hour it would be worth doing.

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 could make for a really deep and interesting way to fly, in both single- and multi-player. Add a few extra game mechanics as well, like torpedos, or the ability to launch Sea Hurricanes from Catapult Aircraft Merchantmen, and this would be a really unique experience that no other flight sim could offer.

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 die before reaching the target would make for compelling gameplay; what the impact of low-level divebombing B-17 gunships with AI gunners might do to multiplayer balance; or whether flying a single B-17 with a fully-human crew of eleven over the village in the Tank Crew map would set anyone’s processor on fire. It’s a shame as heavy bombers could be cool, but not now, and definitely not here.

This is the pushback, though. This is the carefully-worded, measured and considered pushback from people who don’t want to see the game fail, but are concerned about this particular serious issue which is holding the whole series back. If the devs were switched on they’d see this as honest feedback and act on it, especially as we’re still in early access. If if it gets left until after a final release then it’ll be too late; there will be a proper bit of pushback against it and that’ll result in negative coverage and lost sales, and then the people who don’t want any European theatres will claim it’s because the setting is unpopular and the series will be stuck in the east until it dies from inertia. I had had a brief skim of youtube and you’re right, most of the P-47 content isn’t recent. As for P-39... you seldom see people flying the Airacobra online and the only time it gets discussed on here is in the context of engine timers. Remember the pages and pages of enthusiastic discussion before it was released, and how eagerly anticipated it was? Hopefully this gets some attention before the serious pushback happens.

Well he’s welcome then to join me in a Ju 88. Similar experience but even more of an eye-opener on how the perception of gunners is about as inaccurate as the gunners themselves generally are.

Assuming we’re not all being sarcastic... The U-2 is great fun in MP in tank servers. Adding a similar recon/light ground attack aircraft for Luftwaffe (Hs 123, Fw 189?) would add another layer to tank battles. If TC ever ends up with a second expansion in Europe then the L-4 has a space as well. It would fit the setting, plays a useful role in spotting enemy forces and attacking light vehicles, which could be fun. Also unlikely to do much serious damage to tanks, which would stop the tank crews from complaining when they get repeatedly wiped out by Il-2s.

You're welcome to wing up with me the next time I take a Pe-2 on a 90+ km round trip to hit a target way behind the lines and try to get home without being intercepted.

F8. Fairly tough, good ordinance options and more survivable for strike missions than a Stuka or 110. It feels safer to fly so allows you the confidence for more aggressive ground-attack missions and when the bombs are gone you can strafe targets of opportunity on the way home. Keen to try the Dora for strike, never flown a 109 other than the E7.

I tried it, didn’t like it; went back to 2D and don’t regret anything. VR is not the be-all and end-all of everything, and even when the technology is mature enough to do an acceptable job it will remain a very niche thing. Rumours of the demise of 2D computing are greatly exaggerated.

At the risk of encouraging feature creep, I would have a lot of time for this.