DD today?

[Blitzen]

2 hours ago, kestrel79 said:

Nice little update today. Thanks for the info I'll take it.

Where is the gen on this update?

[Trooper117]

5 hours ago, Blitzen said:

Where is the gen on this update?

 

Look in Announcements...

[Jade_Monkey]

6 hours ago, Blitzen said:

Where is the gen on this update?

 

 

 

 

[sevenless]

Good News in the Podcast. So then it will be Sicily 43 or Eastfront 44/45. I would gladly take both.

[Feldgrun]

2 hours ago, sevenless said:

Good News in the Podcast. So then it will be Sicily 43 or Eastfront 44/45. I would gladly take both.

I'd love to see Sicily or mainland Italy, with new Italian aircraft. I could also go for Berlin 1945 but would hope for AI heavy bombers. 

 

I strongly disagree that the only way to do any Pacific air battle is with carriers. It's the only way to do Midway, or many other battles, but they could have done a Guadalcanal (Henderson Airfield) to Bougainville (Kahili Airfield), and all of the little airfields in-between without carriers. With BoX releases every two or so years, they could whet our appetites with a little PTO in 2024, throw in some Eastern or Italian battles in 2026 & 2028, and have up to 8 years to work on a carrier battle for release in 2030 (which does seem like an eternity). Actually, I'd probably just be happy with an A6M variant as a collector plane, and pretend I was flying in the Pacific. The Kuban map was long used for the English Channel well before the Normandy map was released, why couldn't we pretend on some other map?

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by Feldgrun

[Trooper117]

I wish all these people who keep stating you can't have a PTO theatre without carriers would study history a little more... there is a wealth of land based PTO action to be had.

[Guest deleted@83466]

8 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

I wish all these people who keep stating you can't have a PTO theatre without carriers would study history a little more... there is a wealth of land based PTO action to be had.

Yes, strict interpretation that PTO=CV means no 5th AF Havocs and Mitchells skip bombing marus, no RAAF P-40e kicking butt on close air support, no Nishizawa, Sakai, Bong, Pappy, or McGuire, and so much more.  Battles that were resolved in 4 minutes, with carriers, imo wouldn’t even be my first preference even if they could do carriers.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by SeaSerpent

[DBFlyguy]

17 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

I wish all these people who keep stating you can't have a PTO theatre without carriers would study history a little more... there is a wealth of land based PTO action to be had.

 

Apparently that's a bridge too far for some...  Much easier to just default to,  PTO = carriers. 

 

It's almost like the Flying Tigers...Pappy Boyington... Jolly Rogers... New Guinea...77 Squadron (RAAF)... Guadalcanal... Rabaul... "The Hump"... Richard Bong are figments of the imagination in some parts of the world ?

[Luftschiff]

Just give me torps

[BladeMeister]

So the people who want Carrier ops ruined it for everyone else? Cry me a river of tears. What a joke. Really???  LMAO.

 

S!Blade<><

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

I wish all these people who keep stating you can't have a PTO theatre without carriers would study history a little more... there is a wealth of land based PTO action to be had.

It would be great if everyone who thinks that PTO is just carriers would read a few more books.  But they won’t.  And the devs still need the ones that won’t read to buy the game.  That’s the problem with PTO with no carriers.  You’d buy it.  I’d buy it.  But the guy who just wants to spend a few hours crashing his Wildcat into a carrier until he finally catches a wire with what’s left of his aircraft might not buy it.

[BladeMeister]

Seriously, do people not think that 1C knows they can do a Pacific Theater without carriers? Maybe the 1C team believes that in order to produce a Pacific Theater module successfully that they would need to include carriers? Ever thought of it that way? Obviously 1C can do successfull land based modules no matter the geographical location. I don't know what the few of you are on about, but you are totally making me ROFLMAO! Thanks for that, I needed it.

 

S!Blade<><

[Denum]

What I find somewhat irritating is the North American players acting like it's only their interests that matter.

 

They have a Russian player base and the Developers are also Russian. 

 

They just did two Western modules. 

 

It's safe to assume they are likely heading East or somewhere that interests them also. 

 

 

[Trooper117]

Just now, BladeMeister said:

you are totally making me ROFLMAO! Thanks for that, I needed it.

 

It's always good to have a laugh BM... we all need to stretch those laughter lines periodically.  

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Denum said:

What I find somewhat irritating is the North American players acting like it's only their interests that matter.

 

They have a Russian player base and the Developers are also Russian. 

 

They just did two Western modules. 

 

It's safe to assume they are likely heading East or somewhere that interests them also. 

 

 

Does that player base currently have disposable income for big boy toys?  I don't know personally, but I think if your going to cater to a potential market, it would make sense to cater to a market that has money to spend on your products.   

Edited September 28, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[MisterSmith]

We are inching closer to prohibited political topics. Please tread lightly.

 

Smith

[firdimigdi]

[IckyATLAS]

1 minute ago, MisterSmith said:

We are inching closer to prohibited political topics. Please tread lightly.

 

Smith

You are right, but it is legitimate for us to have some "fears" about the future of our highly respected dev team. ?

[Avimimus]

5 hours ago, Denum said:

What I find somewhat irritating is the North American players acting like it's only their interests that matter.

 

They have a Russian player base and the Developers are also Russian. 

 

They just did two Western modules. 

 

It's safe to assume they are likely heading East or somewhere that interests them also. 

 

Yeah. I agree with this. It gets frustrating.

 

I wasn't originally keen on BoBP or the Pacific... but I didn't complain constantly as if my preferences should determine the entire future of what parts of history are or are not represented...

On 9/27/2022 at 9:39 AM, LuseKofte said:

Smart choice to wait on the announcement of PTO is off.

Any sain person knew it by now.

But I was hoping for New Guinea

 

Didn't they say it years ago?

 

9 hours ago, Feldgrun said:

I'd love to see Sicily or mainland Italy, with new Italian aircraft. I could also go for Berlin 1945 but would hope for AI heavy bombers. 

 

I strongly disagree that the only way to do any Pacific air battle is with carriers. It's the only way to do Midway, or many other battles, but they could have done a Guadalcanal (Henderson Airfield) to Bougainville (Kahili Airfield), and all of the little airfields in-between without carriers. With BoX releases every two or so years, they could whet our appetites with a little PTO in 2024, throw in some Eastern or Italian battles in 2026 & 2028, and have up to 8 years to work on a carrier battle for release in 2030 (which does seem like an eternity). Actually, I'd probably just be happy with an A6M variant as a collector plane, and pretend I was flying in the Pacific. The Kuban map was long used for the English Channel well before the Normandy map was released, why couldn't we pretend on some other map?

 

 

This is closer to my overall approach to these topics.

[Old49r]

9 hours ago, Feldgrun said:

I'd love to see Sicily or mainland Italy, with new Italian aircraft. I could also go for Berlin 1945 but would hope for AI heavy bombers. 

 

I strongly disagree that the only way to do any Pacific air battle is with carriers. It's the only way to do Midway, or many other battles, but they could have done a Guadalcanal (Henderson Airfield) to Bougainville (Kahili Airfield), and all of the little airfields in-between without carriers. With BoX releases every two or so years, they could whet our appetites with a little PTO in 2024, throw in some Eastern or Italian battles in 2026 & 2028, and have up to 8 years to work on a carrier battle for release in 2030 (which does seem like an eternity). Actually, I'd probably just be happy with an A6M variant as a collector plane, and pretend I was flying in the Pacific. The Kuban map was long used for the English Channel well before the Normandy map was released, why couldn't we pretend on some other map?

 

I strongly agree. In fact when "developers" (in the podcast) say the only way to create the PTO is with carriers, you completely disregard the United States Army Air Corps. I think there is a real misunderstanding of the pacific war by IL-2 GB developers who probably have no historic interest in the subject. Otherwise, a statement like the one given in the podcast would not have been made. Yes, carriers were massively important and probably the most important factor in that theater, but that's not the whole story, not even close. Could the Allies have won without the Army's P-38 and B-29 (high tech fighter and bomber of the day), and of course General MacArthur? Even Pappy Boyington flew from air strips, not carries. Flying Tigers anyone?

So, If IL-2 folks don't want to make money on a real opportunity then I say fine. Are you listening Microsoft?? You know it was 9-11 that stopped Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator development, I think they are probably over it by now. Who knows?

Again - who ever is the first to do a realistic combat flight sim of the pacific theater will make a fortune. If you think about it, the market for that theater is most of the pacific rim including the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Japan, Philippines, India, Indochina, and many more - o yea - don't forget that sparsely populated country of China.

Good luck in the future IL-2.

[CountZero]

16 minutes ago, Old49r said:

I strongly agree. In fact when "developers" (in the podcast) say the only way to create the PTO is with carriers, you completely disregard the United States Army Air Corps. I think there is a real misunderstanding of the pacific war by IL-2 GB developers who probably have no historic interest in the subject. Otherwise, a statement like the one given in the podcast would not have been made. Yes, carriers were massively important and probably the most important factor in that theater, but that's not the whole story, not even close. Could the Allies have won without the Army's P-38 and B-29 (high tech fighter and bomber of the day), and of course General MacArthur? Even Pappy Boyington flew from air strips, not carries. Flying Tigers anyone?

So, If IL-2 folks don't want to make money on a real opportunity then I say fine. Are you listening Microsoft?? You know it was 9-11 that stopped Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator development, I think they are probably over it by now. Who knows?

Again - who ever is the first to do a realistic combat flight sim of the pacific theater will make a fortune. If you think about it, the market for that theater is most of the pacific rim including the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Japan, Philippines, India, Indochina, and many more - o yea - don't forget that sparsely populated country of China.

Good luck in the future IL-2.

Its not ignorance, its does it pay off to do it or not in time they can do it, and it seams they got to conclusion that it does not pay of to do PTO without carriers.

Also this fantasy that there is game developers just waiting to join in on this neache market is crazy, MSFS is not gona be doing combat ww2 stuff, its what you have now and because of that they dont have to push boundries harder as other competitors are not doing anything more. And if GB is not doing any more DLCs, there aint gona be some other dev team that is just waiting to jump in and revolutionaise the combat sim market.

Edited September 29, 2022 by CountZero

[Guest deleted@191198]

DD not today)

[Feldgrun]

2 hours ago, Old49r said:

 In fact when "developers" (in the podcast) say the only way to create the PTO is with carriers, you completely disregard the United States Army Air Corps.

You could also say that the only way to create Western ETO (correctly) is with heavy bombers. The Luftwaffe's mid-late war designs were frequently made to counter heavy bombers which were targeting Axis industry and cities. It makes no sense to have high altitude interceptors (Bf 109 K-4, FW 109 D) if you're turn fighting Yaks at 1,500 meters.

[BraveSirRobin]

15 minutes ago, Feldgrun said:

It makes no sense to have high altitude interceptors (Bf 109 K-4, FW 109 D) if you're turn fighting Yaks at 1,500 meters

Lol.  If you’re turn fighting with a Yak at 1,500m you’ve made a terrible mistake.

[Feldgrun]

5 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Lol.  If you’re turn fighting with a Yak at 1,500m you’ve made a terrible mistake.

I agree, but that seems to be what happens on most multiplayer servers.

[DBFlyguy]

2 hours ago, A60HEHT said:

DD not today)

[BraveSirRobin]

14 minutes ago, Feldgrun said:

I agree, but that seems to be what happens on most multiplayer servers.

That’s up to the people who design the server missions.  Combat Box had a mission with B-25s where lots of people flew at higher altitudes.  But most missions have ground targets, so people fly low because that’s the best way to kill ground targets.

 

Fortunately, WW2 aircraft designers were prepared for future combat flight sims.  That’s why they attached rockets to pretty much anything that moved.

 

 

[stburr91]

Well, I guess the devs decided it was better to say you can't do the PTO without carriers, then to say they want a layup for there next project.

 

Who knows, maybe they'll surprise us, and do something new like Sicily/Italy, and not just more of the same with late east, or west front stuff with the same old terrains, and plane sets. 

[Robli]

I wonder what makes carriers impossible to do in the first place. The amount of AA guns and things like that? If they could not do perfect carriers, wouldn't less than perfect be good enough for players? Old IL2 had carriers, DCS has carriers, why are BoX carriers impossible to do?

Pacific could of be done without carriers, too, but I fully understand why having carriers would make it a lot more attractive to bigger public. Also, Pacific in general meant long distances and for combat players that means "long and boring flights without action" (I am sure that someone now points out how Battle of X or Battle of Y had close distances). From that perspective Italy/Mediterranean/Africa is a lot more attractive.

Anyway, with current situation in Europe, let's see if there will be any expansion at all.

[Barnacles]

26 minutes ago, Robli said:

I wonder what makes carriers impossible to do in the first place. The amount of AA guns and things like that? If they could not do perfect carriers, wouldn't less than perfect be good enough for players? Old IL2 had carriers, DCS has carriers, why are BoX carriers impossible to do?

Pacific could of be done without carriers, too, but I fully understand why having carriers would make it a lot more attractive to bigger public. Also, Pacific in general meant long distances and for combat players that means "long and boring flights without action" (I am sure that someone now points out how Battle of X or Battle of Y had close distances). From that perspective Italy/Mediterranean/Africa is a lot more attractive.

Anyway, with current situation in Europe, let's see if there will be any expansion at all.

They're not said to be "impossible", but implementing them is clearly more complex than not, so it's probably quite hard to predict how long it'll take to implement. And time is money, budgets are limited etc. 

[Robli]

16 minutes ago, Barnacles said:

They're not said to be "impossible", but implementing them is clearly more complex than not, so it's probably quite hard to predict how long it'll take to implement. And time is money, budgets are limited etc. 

 

Yes, that's what I am wondering, what makes carriers so difficult. Not saying that it would not be difficult, I don't know obviously, just wondering. Probably can't be the carrier itself or can it? We have floating vessels, Zebra has probably done videos of landing on such vessels. Is it related to AA guns? Something else? Desire to make the perfect carrier? Just wondering.

[migmadmarine]

Well, I read it as not strictly difficulty in producing the carrier itself, but to a level of quality that the majority of players would find acceptable without devoting the whole budget of a module to it, since for jumping to the pacific they would have to do 10 entirely new aircraft most likely. Like can they keep the same level of quality for the aircraft and all of the other new assets they would need to make, while making a carrier that functions, looks good, and all of the other new gameplay, AI considerations, UI considerations, career mode considerations etc in the manhours they can afford to devote to a single title. 

 

I doubt they would do a DCS Supercarrier type deal, as that would be a pretty radical change to their business model thus far, though if a lot of the manhours/money budget issues are to do with initial modeling and functionality, I wouldn't be super against a package as an addon to a Battle of Sicily or something to add a carrier and one-two aircraft separate to a core package...

Edited September 29, 2022 by migmadmarine

[Ribbon]

36 minutes ago, Robli said:

 

Yes, that's what I am wondering, what makes carriers so difficult. Not saying that it would not be difficult, I don't know obviously, just wondering. Probably can't be the carrier itself or can it? We have floating vessels, Zebra has probably done videos of landing on such vessels. Is it related to AA guns? Something else? Desire to make the perfect carrier? Just wondering.

Maybe collision model, it needs to act as mobile runway without plane getting stuck in it or exploding on touch as vehicles/planes act on colission now?‍♂️.

Performance also.

I hope reason is not they aim to do it very detailed, cos it doesn't have to be imo.

[Ala13_UnopaUno_VR]

On 9/23/2022 at 4:46 PM, A60HEHT said:

 

tomoDDrow

[DN308]

Ok, so no PTO…

Well, so now, devs can concentrate their efforts on making some improvements on the game and some planes flyable (B26 ?)

[Monty_Thrud]

Not sure either why no A/C carriers(unless it's too little Jap plane info), Aircraft already disappear when landed on Airfield so same wouldn't be a problem on A/C Carriers, although I would love to see A/C land and park individually and not disappear on Airfield, I have no problem on A/C Carriers as IL2 1946 Pacific did that, maps of Islands would be mostly trees and sea, so easier map building, the only other easier map building would be North Africa campaign which I would also love to see.

 

Normandy was hugh map, so unless they decided to do most of the Mediterranean, it should be easier than BoN. 

[=621=Samikatz]

My interpretation of the statement is they don't believe heavily simplified carriers would be acceptable, and implementing them in proper depth would be a long and uncertain amount of dev time

 

I understand where they're coming from, I think. People talk about being happy with 1946's level of depth, but I think if that were the case everyone would be still playing it. There's clearly an expectation for better

[Feldgrun]

43 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

People talk about being happy with 1946's level of depth, but I think if that were the case everyone would be still playing it. 

 

Some of us are still playing it, to get at least a degree of the experiences missing here. Until then, if I want to attack formations of heavy Allied bombers, or try my luck against A6Ms in a Corsair, it will have to be on 1946.

[Old49r]

17 hours ago, CountZero said:

Its not ignorance, its does it pay off to do it or not in time they can do it, and it seams they got to conclusion that it does not pay of to do PTO without carriers.

Also this fantasy that there is game developers just waiting to join in on this neache market is crazy, MSFS is not gona be doing combat ww2 stuff, its what you have now and because of that they dont have to push boundries harder as other competitors are not doing anything more. And if GB is not doing any more DLCs, there aint gona be some other dev team that is just waiting to jump in and revolutionaise the combat sim market.

That's my point, they just don't think it will pay off, carriers are just a weak excuse. I, obviously think they are very mistaken, possibly because it's outside their own regional history, therefor a lack of interest in the subject. So I ask, why do they think that the market is of such little interest?? Especially in a community of Combat Flight simmers centered exclusively on the European conflict, who overwhelmingly want a PTO. If you add PTO interested IL-2 GB folks here, with what I believe is a very large number of MSFS and DCS simmers interested in that history and especially those aircraft coupled with the ability for combat simulation it could be a substantial market much bigger than IL-2 GB. I just believe "if you build it, they will come". Just go to any air show in the US and you'll see what I mean. 

You're right, it may be a niche market, but it's not crazy nor is it small, if anything it's a missed opportunity. 

BTW - do you think IL-2 GB that is exclusively centered around the ETO is not a niche market? Hope you don't think it's crazy too.

 

[FuriousMeow]

Supposedly Pacific Fighters was the worst selling original Il-2 expansion/stand alone. The ones vocal on the forums are a terribly small minority by far of the purchasers/players.

 

There were lots of complaints about the various carriers that came with Pacific Fighters too, so the idea of some good-enough effort to get carriers is simply not going to fly with some. Air combat simmers are notorious rivet counters, to the point of exhaustion.

Edited September 29, 2022 by FuriousMeow
because