US planes in the future?

[Heywooood]

From a historic perspective I have to disagree with you. There were clearly good guys and bad guys in WWII. While both sides also had good guys and bad guys in their ranks and criminal acts were committed by both sides.. One side had an edge in the "evil deeds" dept.. clearly.. Now having said that .. that was then and this is now.. and that historic fact has nothing whatsoever to do with the simmer side of things as in determining a person's character based on which type of machine he prefers.. I think that people choose the machines they choose in sims because they either like the performance or there may be a sense of national pride.. and there is nothing wrong with that ..  because let's face it.. the term "German engineering"  did not just pop up out of thin air.. Germany has always been very innovative and just because a small group of men manipulated a nation into going along with unspeakable acts does not stain the entire nation for ever... For every Reinhart Heidrich I am certain there were thousands who just wanted to do their duty and go home back to their families.. That is one reason why I can have such respect for the Galland and Hartman and Sakai and the rest of the soldiers who handled themselves with dignity in war.. regardless to what side they were on . I understood this even better once I read "I Flew for the Furher".. so while nationalism in the most optimistic sense certainly plays a role in this kind of gaming, politics does not.. outside of discussing the political facts of the day as they were.. and sometimes the lines get blurry but it is up to us to bring it back to focus on what really matters.. which is the simming and the enjoyment of this hobby of ours that has brought the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of the participants of WWII together in a virtual world that our ancestors never imagined.

 

My comments to you were specifically directed at the things I quoted and the well documented negativity directed towards just about anything American on many flight sim boards from folks across the pond.. and I just don't want to see that kind of stuff take root here because it detracts from the overall enjoyment of this thing we do.

great post - should be a stickie

maybe edit it only in such a way as to make it our 'mission statement' or primary must read for all new forum members

Edited September 3, 2013 by Heywooood

[gavagai]

 

One side had an edge in the "evil deeds" dept.. clearly..

 

With the USSR being on the side of the Allies, I'm not sure that statement can be supported, unless you exclude the USSR by fiat.

[VeryOldMan]

No no he meant the Finish have a clear edge.. not the allies

[Freycinet]

The 'cold war following it' is a statement I agree with, but not 'US and the UK won the war'.  I'm a US citizen, and of course had the same US-centric history of WWII tought to me as most of us here in the states did, but our participation has always seemed somewhat overblown.  Very important in sooooo many ways, of course, and absolutely pivotal in key areas, but from my study of the era WWII was fought and won on the cold, mercilless grounds of the Eastern Front.  The greatest clashes of men and machines in the history of the human race occured there, and hopefully they will always be the greatest and we will never witness anything like it again.

 

Yes, the USSR played the biggest part in defeating Nazi-Germany in the European theatre, that's for sure. I agree with that.

 

BUT: the USSR allied itself with Germany when Poland was carved up and did not want a war with Germany until it was thrust upon the Soviet state. And the USSR didn't play part in the war at sea and in the Pacific Theatre. So it wasn't part of the global war to the same extent as the US and UK, and it wasn't "on the good side" unequivocally... 

[Heywooood]

maybe we can agree on just the part about the historical alignments and ideology taking a distant back seat to the primary essence of the flight simulator - which is simply to provide an interesting distraction from our busy lives

[VeryOldMan]

Even  that topic is hard to make peopel agree. I do not liek enterign on those discussions. But for example,  UK and France deliberately allowed germany to rearm,   because it bennefited their interests in keepign URSS in check, therefore  there was  evil in their  intentions in the start of war.

I   sustain the view that there is no good side, governments are always selfish, specially back then, and  nothing altruistic  on any of their decisions. Just one side or the other might have been more  brutal  than the others, but good.. I cannot see good on ANY of the powers back then.

[Rama]

UK and France deliberately allowed germany to rearm  because it bennefited their interests in keepign URSS in check

This is a completelly wrong statement. Either in World disarmament Conference in Geneva or at the the League of Nations, France refused to accept Germany rearmament. That's why Hitler left both in 1933, and started the secret rearmament programm. When UK and France discovered this programm, the fear of their own public opinions disallowed strong reaction to it... but they never "allowed" it, by no mean.

[TheBlackPenguin]

This is a completelly wrong statement. Either in World disarmament Conference in Geneva or at the the League of Nations, France refused to accept Germany rearmament. That's why Hitler left both in 1933, and started the secret rearmament programm. When UK and France discovered this programm, the fear of their own public opinions disallowed strong reaction to it... but they never "allowed" it, by no mean.

 

This, and it is well explained in numerous sources, including Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. There were a number of opportunities where WW2 could have been avoided if they'd stood up to Hitler, but they didn't for fear of being accused a war monger (and those who did voice their concerns did get that label, including Churchill) by other politicians, press and others at the time, which could have been a costly domestic political mistake

 

Forgiveness can be the most powerful disarming weapon and if it had occurred after WW1, who knows .

[Lord_Haw-Haw]

Well if we do get any US aircraft, I do hope the crew will be properly dressed not like this PBY gunner.....

Edited September 5, 2013 by Lord_Haw-Haw

[Wind]

Well if we do get any US aircraft, I do hope the crew will be properly dressed not like this PBY gunner.....

 

 

Hahhha!

Well, that dresscode might not be optimal to the -25c steppes...

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

that was what IL2 did for me... Before IL2 .. I knew about the Eastern front .. but after IL2 I actually did research and studied .. and gained an appreciation for the Russian contribution that was not as crystalized in my mind as before I got into IL2.

 

+1

 

That goes not only for the US, but for me here in Europe as well. I had seen the loss figures, but somehow envisioned huge, drab armies clashing in huge drab battles. IL2 has really thought me the main war was in Russia, the ETO and PTO were really side-shows, at least if we count losses.

 

As for the variation in missions, Id' say the scopes for variation are greater with an Eastern front perspective, as much of the flying was tied to the ground operations rather that as strategic bombing.

[Vig]

+1

 

That goes not only for the US, but for me here in Europe as well. I had seen the loss figures, but somehow envisioned huge, drab armies clashing in huge drab battles. IL2 has really thought me the main war was in Russia, the ETO and PTO were really side-shows, at least if we count losses.

 

As for the variation in missions, Id' say the scopes for variation are greater with an Eastern front perspective, as much of the flying was tied to the ground operations rather that as strategic bombing.

Eastern front mission types are *more* varied because of the absence of strategic bombing (or carrier) missions?

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Eastern front mission types are *more* varied because of the absence of strategic bombing (or carrier) missions?

 

Why would there be carriers in a game called "Battle of Stalingrad"?

[Bearcat]

Even  that topic is hard to make peopel agree. I do not liek enterign on those discussions. But for example,  UK and France deliberately allowed germany to rearm,   because it bennefited their interests in keepign URSS in check, therefore  there was  evil in their  intentions in the start of war.

 

I   sustain the view that there is no good side, governments are always selfish, specially back then, and  nothing altruistic  on any of their decisions. Just one side or the other might have been more  brutal  than the others, but good.. I cannot see good on ANY of the powers back then.

 

 

Seriously? You need to do some reading.

 

 

This is a completelly wrong statement. Either in World disarmament Conference in Geneva or at the the League of Nations, France refused to accept Germany rearmament. That's why Hitler left both in 1933, and started the secret rearmament programm. When UK and France discovered this programm, the fear of their own public opinions disallowed strong reaction to it... but they never "allowed" it, by no mean.

The history is there for all to read. I agree 100%.

[Frequent_Flyer]

+1

 

That goes not only for the US, but for me here in Europe as well. I had seen the loss figures, but somehow envisioned huge, drab armies clashing in huge drab battles. IL2 has really thought me the main war was in Russia, the ETO and PTO were really side-shows, at least if we count losses.

 

As for the variation in missions, Id' say the scopes for variation are greater with an Eastern front perspective, as much of the flying was tied to the ground operations rather that as strategic bombing.

Factually speaking the Luftwaffe lost numerically more aircraft to West vs. East. The Soviets lost more men and equipment because  of bad politics , incompetent leadership , and like any dictatorship Stalin like Hitler surrounded themselves with friends and cronies not qualified individuals. Neither Stalin nor Hitler had an engineering background  nor any experience prosecuting a war, yet they both had the final word on weapons development ,how they were to be deployed and tactics etc. The eastern front was a comedy of errors from both leadership camps. Its no surprise the losses were staggering. From Stalingrad to Berlin is approximately 2,500 miles . It took the Soviets 3 years to travel the distance, the front was relatively static and your airbase was probably 50 miles from the front at most times. Not really a navigational challenge, bailing out or bellying in meant you could walk back or hitch a ride with friendly forces or in some cases have your wingman land and sit on his lap for the 50 miles back to base. You rarely had to concern yourself with weather impacting your way home, missions were short distances ,they had to be neither side had a fighter with any range. Imagine if either the VVS of the Luftwaffe had to get their crafts to 28,000 ft. and them fly a 5 hour round trip, engage a fighter hundreds of miles behind enemy territory and return to base. No the East did not challenge the pilot nor the aircraft like the PTO nor the Western Europe.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Factually speaking the Luftwaffe lost numerically more aircraft to West vs. East. The Soviets lost more men and equipment because  of bad politics , incompetent leadership , and like any dictatorship Stalin like Hitler surrounded themselves with friends and cronies not qualified individuals. Neither Stalin nor Hitler had an engineering background  nor any experience prosecuting a war, yet they both had the final word on weapons development ,how they were to be deployed and tactics etc. The eastern front was a comedy of errors from both leadership camps. Its no surprise the losses were staggering. From Stalingrad to Berlin is approximately 2,500 miles . It took the Soviets 3 years to travel the distance, the front was relatively static and your airbase was probably 50 miles from the front at most times. Not really a navigational challenge, bailing out or bellying in meant you could walk back or hitch a ride with friendly forces or in some cases have your wingman land and sit on his lap for the 50 miles back to base. You rarely had to concern yourself with weather impacting your way home, missions were short distances ,they had to be neither side had a fighter with any range. Imagine if either the VVS of the Luftwaffe had to get their crafts to 28,000 ft. and them fly a 5 hour round trip, engage a fighter hundreds of miles behind enemy territory and return to base. No the East did not challenge the pilot nor the aircraft like the PTO nor the Western Europe.

 

[hiro]

I think the reason of the naked PBY gunner . . .  good chance that's in tropical pacific. I spend a summer working with a group of guys (and two gals)  that had sea planes and flew surfers out to distant reefs (that had good waves). It gets really hot and even thought some the airplanes are white, the sun just bakes them (all metal).  

 

I wore just board shorts the whole time . . .

 

 

On the war discussion, what I learned from history is that many factors play a role into how WW 2 was shaped and events leading up to  that conflict. 

 

I'm sure US planes will make it into this sim. And legal stuff aside . . . I just wish it was like the old days . . . 

 

I remember growing up in the 80's and 90's and tons of songs had samples from good music of prior eras . . . nothing was ever said, not until the 2000's. There were some few cases . . . but after the millennium started, then all the law suits and things started becoming norm. 

 

Now my statement isn't 100% true but a general feeling. I remember if someone sampled your song, it was a compliment. 

 

I remember if someone had your product, item, or model in a movie or TV or radio . . . or even a poster or a model airplane the company would jumped at to do it and even help them have it in there.  It was considered idiotic not to turn down free advertising. Product placement . . .

 

 

 

 

I remember as a kid, seeing all the model airplanes at the hobby store. Even the Gr******* H***at  and the Lo****** SR-7* Bla*****d . Heck they I remember they had a Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 and Il-2 in the shelves because I told myself, "Whoa those are planes I didn't even know about!" 

 

 

Now most hobbys are diablo 3, borderlands 2 or modern warfare 8 , or texting and going to the mall, checking if allowance will get the Michael Jordan reissues . . . 

 

 

 

But I do know once the sim takes off here, US planes and pacific will be added on

 

 

 

 

But More US planes

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2013 by hiro

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I think it was pretty outrageous really, those aircraft were funded, paid for and piloted by the tax payer (or sons of the tax payer) for a war that would protect our way of life and allow those companies to reap the profits.

 

It's a sign of the times saddly

[Lord_Haw-Haw]

I think the reason of the naked PBY gunner . . .  good chance that's in tropical pacific. I spend a summer working with a group of guys (and two gals)  that had sea planes and flew surfers out to distant reefs (that had good waves). It gets really hot and even thought some the airplanes are white, the sun just bakes them (all metal).  

 

I wore just board shorts the whole time . . .

 

 

On the war discussion, what I learned from history is that many factors play a role into how WW 2 was shaped and events leading up to  that conflict. 

 

I'm sure US planes will make it into this sim. And legal stuff aside . . . I just wish it was like the old days . . . 

 

I remember growing up in the 80's and 90's and tons of songs had samples from good music of prior eras . . . nothing was ever said, not until the 2000's. There were some few cases . . . but after the millennium started, then all the law suits and things started becoming norm. 

 

Now my statement isn't 100% true but a general feeling. I remember if someone sampled your song, it was a compliment. 

 

I remember if someone had your product, item, or model in a movie or TV or radio . . . or even a poster or a model airplane the company would jumped at to do it and even help them have it in there.  It was considered idiotic not to turn down free advertising. Product placement . . .

 

 

 

 

I remember as a kid, seeing all the model airplanes at the hobby store. Even the Gr******* H***at  and the Lo****** SR-7* Bla*****d . Heck they I remember they had a Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 and Il-2 in the shelves because I told myself, "Whoa those are planes I didn't even know about!" 

 

 

Now most hobbys are diablo 3, borderlands 2 or modern warfare 8 , or texting and going to the mall, checking if allowance will get the Michael Jordan reissues . . . 

 

 

 

But I do know once the sim takes off here, US planes and pacific will be added on

 

 

 

 

But More US planes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes you are right the PBY fellow is from the Pacific. Although there are also simular pictures from almost all sides, where the dress was very

leisurely. Have to think of a German flak crew on a railcar wearing nothing but underpants and helmets.

[Vig]

Why would there be carriers in a game called "Battle of Stalingrad"?

LOL no good reason at all but if there were the operation types would be *more* varied rather than less! :D

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

LOL no good reason at all but if there were the operation types would be *more* varied rather than less! :D

 

If there were, I would suspect the developers didn't know enough about the topic to make a realistic game.  If we didn't care about realism, we might add dragons carrying fireball chucking wizards and air strikes against ogres who use trees as weapons to smash tanks.

 

Just having diversity doesn't make a game good or even great.  Mostly I think the folks buying RoF or BoS are looking for realism or else they would be playing War Thuinder oor something.

[Frequent_Flyer]

If there were, I would suspect the developers didn't know enough about the topic to make a realistic game.  If we didn't care about realism, we might add dragons carrying fireball chucking wizards and air strikes against ogres who use trees as weapons to smash tanks.

 

Just having diversity doesn't make a game good or even great.  Mostly I think the folks buying RoF or BoS are looking for realism or else they would be playing War Thuinder oor something.

Diversity( as in a more diverse theater of operation ) and mission variation within the historical context of WW II aviation would certainly make it a better game. In addition it would appeal to a more diverse, thus larger customer base ( the original IL-2 is a prime example) Had Oleg stuck to his original idea simply, a sim incorporating the IL-2 only it would not have had near the success.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

Eastern front mission types are *more* varied because of the absence of strategic bombing (or carrier) missions?

 

 

They are more varied because the missions are often so directly tied to ground objectives. It's not the "get bombers to point A, get them back, rinse, repeat" or the opposite side trying to stop them type of the typical 1943-45 ETO fighter campaign. Yes, I know there were fighters doing rhubarb missions in Europe, but most sims and campaigns seem focused on the escort/interceptor aspects. What I meant to convey (apparently not very successfully) is that it is these missions that the peculiarities of the Eastern Front spruce up a bit.

 

Carrier opperations are all fine and dandy, but if it is the only offer on the table, they can hardly be said to be more variable than overland opperations in and off themselves

Edited September 7, 2013 by 79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Diversity( as in a more diverse theater of operation ) and mission variation within the historical context of WW II aviation would certainly make it a better game. In addition it would appeal to a more diverse, thus larger customer base ( the original IL-2 is a prime example) Had Oleg stuck to his original idea simply, a sim incorporating the IL-2 only it would not have had near the success.

 

The key phrase there being "within the historical context".  If people are buying Battle of Stalingrad and dreaming of the awesome carrier battles on the Volga they are deeply confused.

[Frequent_Flyer]

The key phrase there being "within the historical context".  If people are buying Battle of Stalingrad and dreaming of the awesome carrier battles on the Volga they are deeply confused.

Silent Hunter 7 is set on the Volga, I have been told. However, I do not think folks around here anticipate Carrier warfare , But maybe some Vietnam river boat action.

[II./JG27_Rich]

Im remembering some pretty harsh posts by mostly US players that didn't understand the Forgotten Battles or the Great Patriotic War...all they wanted was to fly P51's  and why the hell werent there any in this boring ass broken down euro sim...of course the language was much worse than my example - but the gist is there...and it was relentless !

Brits were as adamant if less rude - about their rides and areas of conflict...

 

There was quite a bit of Nationalism on those boards...already seeing some here too and this bad boy is still in the can.

so whether you say please the west or appease the west - the outcome was the same. A perfectly good simulation of an entire war albeit unknown to US - was essentialy hijacked.

and say what you like about the software code being able to handle it - it was...as long as you flew innacurately low altitude and didn't care if any systems worked.

the third parties that hacked the code made it better...but it was still never designed to handle all the inflation.

 

so here is BoS - planned to be run like RoF with developer run servers and tight control over the content (as it should be) and with a much broader based core to handle more of the entire scope of WWII style combat - from the aircraft variety to armament variety to mission profiles to theaters of operation. (hopefully)

Also I hope these people are more prepared to delineate what can and cannot be done to preserve accuracy and fidelity of their software  - better anyway than 1c Maddox was able to do.

agreed - nothing really good about war, the same kinds of things that brought the world to war the last two times (and every other time before) are present today...in bulk

war doesn't make people understand anything...understanding does

We should all listen to this lecture. The best one I've ever heard on the Eastern Front. I guarante it will make all of us Westerner's jaws hit the floor.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Clz27nghIg&feature=player_embedded#t=1

[CUJO_1970]

 No the East did not challenge the pilot nor the aircraft like the PTO nor the Western Europe.

 

Wow

 

I don't even know where to start.

[wtornado]

When they do map the Kuban map expansion pack I hope

they don't forget the beloved and shiny and readily available

Spitfire Vb flown by 57 GIAP 

[Bf-110]

I probably said this a hundred times,but I'm kinda fed of post 1944 western front.It probably was the backstage of 80% of all WWII related movies and games.Dunno why some parts of WWII are greatly forgotten,like early war (Fall Weiss and Fall Gelb),Mediterranean campaign and somewhat even the Pacific front.

[Vig]

The key phrase there being "within the historical context".  If people are buying Battle of Stalingrad and dreaming of the awesome carrier battles on the Volga they are deeply confused.

I bet you didn't read the whole thread.

[Rjel]

I probably said this a hundred times,but I'm kinda fed of post 1944 western front.It probably was the backstage of 80% of all WWII related movies and games.Dunno why some parts of WWII are greatly forgotten,like early war (Fall Weiss and Fall Gelb),Mediterranean campaign and somewhat even the Pacific front.

 

I don't think it's that hard to figure out, movie wise anyway. Through the mid to later 20th century, where do you suppose most Americans drew their ancestry from? Europe. Where were most of the Western front movies made? Obviously Hollywood for the same European descendants. It really isn't such a mystery when you think about it, just simple economics.

[Vig]

I probably said this a hundred times,but I'm kinda fed of post 1944 western front. It probably was the backstage of 80% of all WWII related movies and games.Dunno why some parts of WWII are greatly forgotten,like early war (Fall Weiss and Fall Gelb),Mediterranean campaign and somewhat even the Pacific front.

No kidding! The Eastern Front in the original IL2 was a refreshing departure from that. But starting at the turning point in the Eastern Front, at Stalingrad, is not nearly as interesting to me as would be a game that starts at the beginning in Poland, or even with Barbarossa. How cool would it be to start a career as a Polish pilot in 1939, with the tremendous diversity of aircraft types that have never been included in any sim? Sure, the best your pilot could reasonably expect would be to survive, but in a chronological campaign that would be a goal well worth fighting for if your Polish pilot might find himself flying Hurricanes over the Channel in the next expansion. In the context of immersion, there is a lot to be said for continuity.

 

That lack of historical context resulting from "starting in the middle" is, to me, the only serious flaw in Rise of Flight. Four years after the game was launched, there is still no convincing early-war gameplay in RoF. I like the idea of flying over Stalingrad, but it would be sort of depressing to be stuck there forever.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Vig

[FuriousMeow]

RoF was never intended to be an early war representation. The original box itself says "1917" on it.

 

The biggest thing is that we are all interested in different theaters, ask anyone and someone will say Med or early Pacific or 1943 8th bombing campaign or.. etc. There is no consensus for the best optimal part. Additionally, they have to sell to other people that aren't so knowledgeable so when the SCW comes up as the starting point of a release game that isn't associated with other planes people are more familiar with? Flop. Or BoF, flop because it has a few familiar planes to some but for the most part they are unheard of. Dewoitine? Even the majority of flight simmers have no idea who or what that is.

 

Even Battle of Stalingrad, luckily the Il-2 series already occured and covered a lot of VVS aircraft and Eastern front campaigns otherwise this could be an uphill battle. Anyone here from the Confirmed Kill v.8x/.9x days? The early days of actual simming using complex flight models and damage models? AoE/AoTP/PAW not sims - CK and WB (required FPU for FM calcs) were the first real attempts at sims, even Air Warrior was an air combat simulator but not the flight side, still just a game like AoE/AoTP/RB with the FM and DM since it still ran on table based. Neither CK or WB in it's early days had Russian aircraft, not until like WB 3.x I believe (CK obviously died after .94, maybe .95? due to DoMark and EiDOS issues).

 

In any event, we all want these lesser known theaters and aircrafts but in order to start getting that way - we have to start with the well known ones as that draws more attention and more funds and then the lesser known can be created.

Edited September 8, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Vig]

Silent Hunter 7 is set on the Volga, I have been told. However, I do not think folks around here anticipate Carrier warfare , But maybe some Vietnam river boat action.

I was hoping that with Silent Hunter 7 they would *finally* get to the Royal Navy submarine campaign in the Med! Very interesting and dramatic episode that apparently will be overlooked forever.

RoF was never intended to be an early war representation. The original box itself says "1917" on it.

 

The biggest thing is that we are all interested in different theaters, ask anyone and someone will say Med or early Pacific or 1943 8th bombing campaign or.. etc. There is no consensus for the best optimal part. Additionally, they have to sell to other people that aren't so knowledgeable so when the SCW comes up as the starting point of a release game that isn't associated with other planes people are more familiar with? Flop. Or BoF, flop because it has a few familiar planes to some but for the most part they are unheard of. Dewoitine? Even the majority of flight simmers have no idea who or what that is.

 

Even Battle of Stalingrad, luckily the Il-2 series already occured and covered a lot of VVS aircraft and Eastern front campaigns otherwise this could be an uphill battle. Anyone here from the Confirmed Kill v.8x/.9x days? The early days of actual simming using complex flight models and damage models? AoE/AoTP/PAW not sims - CK and WB (required FPU for FM calcs) were the first real attempts at sims, even Air Warrior was an air combat simulator but not the flight side, still just a game like AoE/AoTP/RB with the FM and DM since it still ran on table based. Neither CK or WB in it's early days had Russian aircraft, not until like WB 3.x I believe (CK obviously died after .94, maybe .95? due to DoMark and EiDOS issues).

 

In any event, we all want these lesser known theaters and aircrafts but in order to start getting that way - we have to start with the well known ones.

You may be right but the original IL2 broke all of those rules and was an amazing success!

[FuriousMeow]

What rules? It had known aircraft in it. The P39 is much more well known than the I-16, and it had the 109. Then the 190 shortly after relase. Both well known. You start going with battles where one side is totally outclassed and only one side's aircraft, for the most part, are well known (BoF) or is full of planes very few know (SCW) then a flop is en route.

Edited September 8, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Sokol1]

 Neither CK or WB in it's early days had Russian aircraft, not until like WB 3.x I believe (CK obviously died after .94, maybe .95? due to DoMark and EiDOS issues).

 

 

WB 2.7x have YAK 9d1 and d3 in ~98.

 

Sokol1

[FuriousMeow]

Sokol1, so that's 6 years after initial release. Pretty much proves the point. Go with more well known world wide aircraft for the "unclean" masses then add in the more particulars for those who know.

 

Not that the Yak is unheard of, but back then it was a time of pay per hour to play which only the more monetarily capable could afford.

 

Vig, I've been doing this for over 20 years. I'm not arguing, I'm pointing out a fact. In order to gain attraction and be profiable - they have to target the widest audience possible.

 

In this case, the audience is an amphitheater that seats a couple hundred. Other games are stadiums that seat tens of thousands and our sport has to gain their attention to.

 

There's been TWO WW2 aviation film in the past few years (since the Tuskegee Airmen by HBO) and that is Red Tails and Pearl Harbor (more of a sh!t film with planes in it). They were "successful," but we aren't seeing another Midway following it up anytime soon - which would be freaking awesome.

 

And to prove a point, we need new blood. War Thunder may actually provide it eventually - I hope. Then it may actually be worth something. BUT - ask anyone randomly under 30 (of any nationality) what a P51 is, P47, P38 , then a 109, Spitfire, TBF, PBY, I16, and keep going. Also try their military monikers rather than nicknames like A6M and N1K2, or even the A5M. Bet .000001% might guess.

 

I'll bet 0 on average are known. Maybe 30% will know one. MAYBE.

Edited September 8, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Vig]

What rules? It had known aircraft in it. The P39 is much more well known than the I-16, and it had the 109. Then the 190 shortly after relase. Both well known. You start going with battles where one side is totally outclassed and only one side's aircraft, for the most part, are well known (BoF) or is full of planes very few know (SCW) then a flop is en route.

But Poland would have the 109 and the Stuka! And the He-111 and soon after that the __________.

 

I don't want to be disagreeable, yours is the very reaction that I expected and, like I said, you may be right. But I don't think flight simmers are dolts who would shy away from a sim with unfamiliar aircraft; I think that would be a positive attraction to most of us.

 

My point is that asymmetrical campaigns, where one side has an enormous advantage, can be as much fun or more than a game set at the precise tipping point. It's just a matter of redefining success, which is absolutely possible in a game context even if it isn't in real life. It seems to me that, if there had been as much effort put into the "game" aspect of flight sims as there has been into the "simulation" aspect, the genre might not have declined to the extent it has.

[Vig]

Back then it was a time of pay per hour to play which only the more monetarily solvent could afford.

I am guilt of having been an AirWarrior addict at $5.00 per hour so I know exactly what you're talking about! Edited September 8, 2013 by Vig

[FuriousMeow]

I was a CKer, and at that time it was free because it was beta.. BUT I had to pay for dial up at $2/hr! CK v.91 was when I started playing online. CompuServe at $2/hr, man that was ridiculous!

 

I want nothing more than this genre, particularly this series, to succeed - but I think targetting the more well known theaters and then creating the almost unknown is the best approach to ensure initial success that can fund further success.

 

Hopefully the HBO series coming up focusing on The Mighty 8th can stir up some interest in the generation below mine and hopefully more of my generation.

Edited September 8, 2013 by FuriousMeow