Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

432 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1370 profile views
  1. With an unarmed version we could have races without worrying about someone opening fire on the others It'd be interesting to organize a GAZ-M & Po-2 relay race!
  2. Say - Is there any chance that we will be given the option of removing/unbolting the gun? I would pay extra for the ability to just drive a supply column (it'd be great for campaign narratives too - if occasionally one had to relocate by driving across the map instead of flying!) I figure it wouldn't take the devs much extra work to just remove the gun (and it would be pretty cheap to even give us a couple of cargo options too)... but I think there would be enough people interested in exploring the maps by road that it'd make back the additional dev cost.
  3. I find it interesting just how much more attractive these are to me than tanks... I'd also like a driveable staff-car if I'm honest... fun to explore the map. Basically - we're getting a truck and a half-track - both of which have much better visibility than being buttoned-up in a tank. The GAZ also gives us the experience of driving wheeled vehicles in the sim... P.S. I'm kindof hoping that some of this might rub-off on other vehicles - the new damage model is good - but last I checked the drivers of trucks are invulnerable to fire through the windshield ...and we could really do with a separate hit-box for the radiator! I've driven tanks in Fighters Anthology and FS-WWI - and it was fun... not perfectly realistic landscapes, and the FA tanks actually floated slightly off the ground... but it was still fun... it is amazing how people's standards climb!
  4. I was thinking of writing up an introductory guide - very short - but enough to orient someone who hasn't spent years reading the history. It wouldn't compete with the existing detailed manuals people have produced.
  5. 20/1 actually isn't that bad for a 1930-1940s glider and under the right conditions thermal soaring is even possible. The absolute state-of-the-art record setting experimental designs did better. The Akaflieg Darmstadt D-30 Cirrus had a glide slope of 36/1, and the Horten VI purportedly achieved 43/1 (I'm a bit skeptical). But most competition gliders were closer to 25/1 and the performance of a lot of training or troop transport gliders was more like 15/1 or even 10/1 in some cases! This book has some wonderful tables near the end (although they also include post-war gliders): https://cevans.me/VINTAGE/Books/Krasilschikov_Gliders of USSR_eng.pdf
  6. It'll be interesting if the Air Marshall mode allows spawning AI aircraft (e.g. a couple of player aircraft leading an entire squadron of bombers or a flight of Sturmoviks).
  7. The larger HE charges in the UB and Mg-131 certainly have an effect. However, there is also the issue of convergence... with all 0.50 cals converging on one spot (which isn't historical in many cases). Whereas the UB and MG-131 are mounted in the fuselage... so less likely to miss entirely due to firing at the wrong range. It would be nice if there were hard-coded 'historical convergence' options in the menu. That way one wouldn't have to update the GUI much but would be able to offer the more complex convergence patterns used on American fighters and on the Fw-190...
  8. Definitely? I suppose he is asking about the UB and not the Breda? The German 13mm round has a larger bursting charge. The UB has a larger bursting charge and high rate of fire and ballistic performance. The Breda 12.7mm is much weaker due to a lower velocity round. These weapons are all quite different from each other. Maybe the issue being complained about is more to do with the vulnerability of fighter pilots and radiators? As opposed to the limited vulnerability of bombers (where the bullets are being fired into the back of the aircraft or nacelles and not penetrating to the vulnerable parts as often)? Not really: ...and that is before one gets into rate of fire
  9. IRL Il-2 and Pe-2 should sometimes be aggressive... and the He-111 was used as a very successful night fighter... but it shouldn't be the default.
  10. Some thoughts on where I would go if I were the devs (and concerned about financial viability): 1. 1945 East or Leningrad would be nice for their Russian base (as it has been a three modules since the last Russian one). 1945 East, with its high performance aircraft and the possibility to include the He-162 (if it is set on the Northern approaches to Berlin) would also sell reasonably well with the multiplayer and American crowds. If I were them I would do "1945 East". 2. Battle of France and Battle of Britain are also tempting as a natural extension of the current developments in Normandy... and one might be able to sell two modules (or a module and a DLC)... 3. Korea would be a very different path. It would require new assets and some engine updates. However, they could then do a 1950-1955 Fulda Gap scenario directly after Korea (with additional planes that were held-back, such as the Il-28)! Two battles using the same tech. They might even be able to get a third module out of it with an 'Operation Unthinkable" 1945-1950 scenario using a mixture of WW2 and early post-war aircraft... without needing additional German aircraft (as the combatants would be NATO and the Soviet Union). 4. My personal favourite would be an 'anniversary edition' package which would add a couple of missing aircraft to each of the existing modules (especially AI aircraft)! Sort of like a collector plane DLC, but with multiple aircraft and other improvements. P.S. I'd also personally like a full Battle of France module with the same number of aircraft as the Battle of Britain. It might be hard to be certain of the commercial success of such a module though. Even more-so for the Spanish Civil War - which might be my first pick if I had my way (combined with a 'what-if rearmament happened earlier' scenario for WWII set in 1937-1938)... but, we'd need a much larger user base to justify developing something like that I'm afraid.
  11. It'll be a huge challenge... people expect hedgerows... people expect English architecture to be different... people notice the exact model of 0-4-4T used... ...and the map is big... to capture the battle (pre-invasion and post-invasion) the map is quite big. So, I wish them luck. There will be complaints but... well... I've always appreciated the ambition with this team. Each map is a little bit better, new technologies, new scales... we do need to temper our expectations and be reasonable though!
  12. Stationed in England I think... hunting submarines... alongside Hudsons, Wellingtons and other coastal-command aircraft.
  13. Really nice! Reminds me of Tadoussac!
  14. Yeah! I started exploring blender... I was looking into making 3d cockpits for X-plane. I made one mesh which rendered but I realised I really should learn to 3d model properly if I were going to do it seriously. FYI - I reviewed drawings for ~1000 designs, built a model for ~80 and maybe found about 30 that I'd really like to finish! However, I'd have to get better at 3d modelling, and get appropriate instruments, and find cockpit references (which can be hard for some of these aircraft). It was quite a bit of effort to get the pipeline set up for generating correct airfoil tables (used ~4 pieces of software). But some civil aircraft designs have really odd characteristics, interesting histories, and are a lot of fun. P.S. All of the following are actually surprisingly easy to fly - recognise any?:
  • Create New...