Would you rather have a new Battle of X that follows BOM and BOS(plane capabilities) or would you like something new?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Who said something about eating, cant you see this wabbit is taking a bath ? 

[unlikely_spider]

I'm curious - if hypothetically we got a Pacific Theater map, with carriers, how would navigation work in the middle of the ocean? Did everyone just use dead reckoning at the time? How would you know where you were after a long dogfight?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I thought they just look at GPS on minimap  

 

But seriously, all Japanese dive bombers or torpedo-bombers had air navigation compass (mostly a reflector type). Fighters had normal compass. Plus there was a Homing Direction Finder or Radio Compass depending on type of aircraft. Japanese also put a lot of emphasis on navigation training for all the pilots intended to serve on aircraft carriers. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

If you get lost and have no clue on where you are, you will probably run out of fuel and die a cold death.

 

That being said, if you at least know your general position relative to the carrier (e.g. "a great deal of time eastwards), it would be possible to head the opposite way and eventually make use of radio navigation.

 

That being said, it's a bit of a dire situation to be in.

[CF-105]

I think that a more recognizable theater or two would be good next, somewhere in Italy/North Afrika/Mediterranean or France, (PTO iffy at this point in development), return to the eastern front for something good like Cuban or Crimea, then maybe try something experimental like an interwar theater.  Poland I see being like shooting dead dodos in a barrel, but France is much more balanced.

( I also wouldn't mind a certain postwar theater that started 5 years after ww2    A theater that involves carrier operations, multiple warring nations per faction, cool jets, good stuff )

[Skoop]

I say Kuban/ Crimea or Kursk should be next, I want to see that plane set added to the game.  Then I'd like to see them go PTO 1943, It would be great and it would attract more US players.

[Sokol1]

I'm curious - if hypothetically we got a Pacific Theater map, with carriers, how would navigation work in the middle of the ocean? Did everyone just use dead reckoning at the time? How would you know where you were after a long dogfight?

 

 

Like in il-2'46, Mission Makers set a group of carrier West for Japanese other East for Allies (or a North-South variation), usually ~50 miles away, they know the usual: "I don't have time to looong boriiing  flights"...

 

So, you just need remember the initial direction off your flight and do the inverse route for RTB. Piece of Cake!.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Sokol1

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Yeah, I don't see distance as a problem, if it is, mission makers can bring back the trusty floating steel runways.

[Feathered_IV]

It seems to me game designers should try to think of ways to make transit times less "boring" for average players. It would help their business enormously.

When 80% of a player's time in-game is taken up with travelling to and from a target area, its bonkers to just leave it as an empty, unengaging experience.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Feathered_IV

[II./JG77_Manu*]

The distances flown in BoS (distance between airfields) are nowhere near realistic, so i really don't get this persistent "long distance PTO" twaddle

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Air Quake is still the most popular mode in Air Sims, either ACG server in DCS or a few here just ask to be played that way. 
 

[Brano]

Well,in 1:1 map one would say that distance from airfield to airfield is as realistic as it gets.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I am talking about used airfields at a time. Or do you think a 111 could barely reach 3500m before getting over their target? Also the fighter's didn't take off some 10km of the frontline (in 99% of the cases). Normal flight for fighters to the frontline was about 100-200km in most cases

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I am aware of that. The point is that not many are eager to fly those distances. Hence why missions are so designed. 

And other issue is that on Pacific airfields were a lot more spread so its not exactly possible to always set some very close to the frontline. Unless of course someone will go with fictional airfields, 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I am aware of that. The point is that not many are eager to fly those distances. Hence why missions are so designed. 

And other issue is that on Pacific airfields were a lot more spread so its not exactly possible to always set some very close to the frontline. Unless of course someone will go with fictional airfields, 

 

My point is, that there are no realistic distances flown in BoS, so why should we start doing it in PTO campaigns? Apart from that, you can place carriers as close as you want. As for airfields..there are multiple locations with airfields close to another, Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Phillipines. That's really no reason to speak against a PTO campaign.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

That's true. I agree with that mate. And still if someone complains, than there is a Burma with distances no different than in Eastern front or Italy ...

[II./JG77_Manu*]

That's true. I agree with that mate. And still if someone complains, than there is a Burma with distances no different than in Eastern front or Italy ...

 

Funny that you mention Italy..our squadron is flying Italy campaign in SeoW currently, and we are mostly taking off from Bologna, flying all the way down to Rome, if not Napoli for the battles. Those are some 400km..btw i love that campaign. Italy is my favourite tactical scenario in terms of flight sim.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Some more geography, Il-2 attacking a German position in Kerch, flying from Kuban

 

[Dakpilot]

Forcing historical distances introduces actual fuel considerations which was a huge tactical part of combat, fuel consumption at full throttle/boost is considerably more than one would expect, I am all for it

 

In Stalingrad 'theater' many flight distances (fighters) were historically extremely short in many circumstances, so it is possible to have 'dogfight' server experience without having to 'stretch the imagination too much in those instances for reasonable realism, forcing Bombers to fly realistic distances is good, but then the amount of users would be limited further

 

Obviously more realistic servers/events can be made if there is the demand, which thankfully seems to be growing a little, or at least showing it's face 

 

There is no question that the (historical) distances in many Pacific/CBI situations/missions/campaigns did put off a lot of people in original IL-2, a trend shown by the greater success of 'instant action' less sim type games today

 

However I think it is not hard to cater for both scenarios in a Pacific expansion, 'hardercore' historical demand sadly seems to be shrinking in today's world 

 

I do think it is a bit polarizing to state that no "historical distances are flown in BoS" and fair to say that in general the distances in the Pacific pretty much in all regions were longer

 

I see great potential for 'Cactus Airforce' Slot Campaign in BoS engine (need to address AI Bomber recourse hog issue tho)   for a starter in the pacific 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Forcing historical distances introduces actual fuel considerations which was a huge tactical part of combat, fuel consumption at full throttle/boost is considerably more than one would expect, I am all for it

Proper fuel and engine management adds a lot to the realism.  

 

 

 

Some more geography, Il-2 attacking a German position in Kerch, flying from Kuban 

Burma can be nice as well, from any perspective you look at it  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brano]

I remember from old Sturm one of our "special events".We flew a mission over Korea in several Tu-2s with US airfield somewhere around Inchon as target. 3 hours in the air. Without constant chatting thru TS with friends and few cans of beer I would fell asleep. And when finally over target,it was covered by big cloud.I dropped the bombs almost blindly and prayed that I hit smtg. We were lucky,after landing we watched the track and eventually managed to plow the runway quite well.

But frankly speaking,this is smtg for real hardcores and we did not do such missions very often.

[CZEforzamike]

ENYWHERE - but it must be different terrain - NO FLAT FIELDS as now PLEASE!!!!!

[JG13_opcode]

PTO

Please no. Few things are as boring as PTO scenarios.

Edited February 26, 2016 by 13GIAP_opcode

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Please no. Few things are as boring as PTO scenarios.

Few places are as flat as Russian steppe  

[Saurer]

Few places are as flat as Russian steppe

 

The pacific ocean being one of them

[II./JG77_Manu*]

The pacific ocean being one of them

 

The islands in the pacific ocean not being one of them. Hence even a Tsunami has more elevation difference then Russian steppe.

[Saurer]

I didn't met that to serious, I wouldn't mid a Pacific Theatre at all recently

Edited February 26, 2016 by Saurer

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

The pacific ocean being one of them

Not true. Or well, true if you have a decent day. If you've ever sailed or even had a trip on a cruise ship, you'd know how rough sea can be. 

There are days as nice as this one :

 

And there are those which you dont want to see ...

 

But anyway, I dont get it why PTO is like ... carriers, sea, nothing else. The actual fighting took place on islands, smaller or bigger but still islands. New Guinea, New Britain, Timor, Sumatra, plenty of big islands. And they are not flat. 

[Brano]

Lots of landscape looks flat from high above. Drive a tank a bit around on Stalingrad map and you will discover that it's not that flat at all.

[Jade_Monkey]

Lots of landscape looks flat from high above. Drive a tank a bit around on Stalingrad map and you will discover that it's not that flat at all.

Very true

[Saurer]

Not true. Or well, true if you have a decent day. If you've ever sailed or even had a trip on a cruise ship, you'd know how rough sea can be. 

There are days as nice as this one :

 

 

And there are those which you dont want to see ...

 

But anyway, I dont get it why PTO is like ... carriers, sea, nothing else. The actual fighting took place on islands, smaller or bigger but still islands. New Guinea, New Britain, Timor, Sumatra, plenty of big islands. And they are not flat. 

 

This is actually a good point, is the engine capable to model bad sea weather?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Lots of landscape looks flat from high above. Drive a tank a bit around on Stalingrad map and you will discover that it's not that flat at all.

I spent hours driving around eastern Ukraine few years ago. Those are beautiful places but they are flat. Not as flat as table, but flat like normal steppe. 

Still can recall memoirs of some Wehrmacht soldier who participated in Barbarossa campaign and after few weeks he was really overwhelmed with Russia, big flat territories with occasional forests and rivers. Fighting from one river to the other, from one village to the next.

 

I dont spend half of the time in the air to look at the things below, but switching the background is something I'm looking for. 

This is actually a good point, is the engine capable to model bad sea weather?

That is a good question. I know Nvidia has outstanding tools for anyone trying recreate the ocean. I hoped Ubisoft would take advantage of those one day and make next Silent Hunter. 

 

But how would that work in BoS ? 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Lots of landscape looks flat from high above. Drive a tank a bit around on Stalingrad map and you will discover that it's not that flat at all.

 

Nothing against Russian steppe, but we have already 2 theatres covering that type of landscape now. A third one would really be a little bit repetitive. Just a change of scenery would be something nice. If ocean, pacific isles, Italy, Sahara, Black sea and Caucasus outskirts, or northern Germany with North Sea, i really don't mind. As long as it's a change from Russian steppe

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

I spent hours driving around eastern Ukraine few years ago. Those are beautiful places but they are flat. Not as flat as table, but flat like normal steppe. 

Still can recall memoirs of some Wehrmacht soldier who participated in Barbarossa campaign and after few weeks he was really overwhelmed with Russia, big flat territories with occasional forests and rivers. Fighting from one river to the other, from one village to the next.

 

I dont spend half of the time in the air to look at the things below, but switching the background is something I'm looking for. 

That is a good question. I know Nvidia has outstanding tools for anyone trying recreate the ocean. I hoped Ubisoft would take advantage of those one day and make next Silent Hunter. 

 

But how would that work in BoS ? 

Except anything from Nvidia's "Gameworks" will [Edited] over AMD cards.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Bearcat
Profanity

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Except anything from Nvidia's "Gameworks" will fuck over AMD cards.

It's been a decade since I had ATI in my setup. Almost forgot about that stuff. True, that would be a big trouble for AMD cards. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

But how would that work in BoS ?

 

There is a pretty new game, still in Beta, called Naval Action. It simulates waves, weather effects etc in a very realistic way, and the ships also behave physically plausible. It has also Russian developers, so maybe "our" Devs could ask them politely about some lines of code there

[senseispcc]

Any World War two air battle should or could be interesting but to follow up with the Kuban or Kursk fronts or battles should be the logical choices the follow up from Stalingrad! And later the Extreme North campaign around Murmansk or the Leningrad one operation Bagration or the liberation of Kiev and in 1944 or the south campaigns in Romania or Austria, Hungarian...why not?! But not to forget the taking of Berlin where it is possible to make a game where West and East can meet and plane of the 4 major air forces could be present (Soviet air force, German air force, Royal air force and the US air force)!

 

There are many plane of different type and models to depict this battles or campaigns so many follow up possible.

 

Each one of us as is own love for some plane(s) or period and finding one that all like is a impossible task! We are all individuals so are our choices.

 

So indicate your choices and why that is all folks! 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2016 by senseispcc

[Jade_Monkey]

I think a change in theatre would peak interest while staying in the East wont. If the next installment was on the eastern front, i would only buy depending on the planes included. More 109 and 190 variants would be a pass for me.

[Brano]

Nothing against Russian steppe, but we have already 2 theatres covering that type of landscape now. A third one would really be a little bit repetitive. Just a change of scenery would be something nice. If ocean, pacific isles, Italy, Sahara, Black sea and Caucasus outskirts, or northern Germany with North Sea, i really don't mind. As long as it's a change from Russian steppe

That's why I want to see Kuban next. It has everything from sunflower fields,seashores up to the foothills of Caucasus

[URUAker]

Will love to see an early continuation war in Finland, Love the planeset.