Jump to content
6./ZG26_McKvack

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

Recommended Posts

sounds like a 30 year old Opel with loose fan belt. nothing exciting about that 

Meh...I find it awesome!

 

Btw i love how it wobbles  :happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice!  :)

 

I do believe the Corsair would be a very good aircraft for "Bo?", it is very popular and there is a lot of available info on it, it is strange that no-one ever really mentions its roll rate as a standout feature as much as the FW190, because when tested they were pretty much identical 

 

It is iconic for many reasons but, probably would not be ideal as the first aircraft to start leaning Carrier operations with  ;) it is interesting to note that of the 64,000 combat missions flown, 54,000 were from landbases, some would say that as a (pure) Naval fighter it was a failure, but it certainly was not as a combat aircraft, and has bags of character 

 

Would love to see a 'Cactus Air Force' scenario but the historic 1800km round trip for the Japanese will always be challenge in a gameplay situation vs historical reality/accurate map

 

Cheers Dakpilot

I've actually seen it refered to as the Navy Dora by Lufties a couple of times over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like a 30 year old Opel with loose fan belt. nothing exciting about that 

The internal sound is really distorted. The external sound is pretty awesome though. Don't care too much about "The Whistling Death" part but that big PW R2800 has some brute force umph to it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was so much easier to do that back in the days of the Hyperlobby CoOps.

I know some disagree - but that's just the realty. Everyone boots up and takes off at the same time for the mission and you have an organized

flight of bombers with escorts.

Yeah, good old Hyperlobby. Had its flaws but was ok.

 

 

The Japanese guns/cannons were of comparatively poor efficacy compared to their counterparts -  Low rate of fire, poor muzzle velocity.

The toughness of the opposing Grummans just exacerbated this problem.

If you haven't read "Fire in the Sky" by Eric Bergerud I strongly suggest you do - it's a fantastic read.

 

Anyway if you read Begerud's book you will find references/bibliography, further you can look to Saburo Sakai for reference.

The A6m2 was still the class of the air in 1942.

I was hoping for some actual scientific study you know. Maybe USSBS or Aberdeen proving ground. But I guess I can't expect that and have to bring something myself. And no, I did not read the Eric Bergerund book, though I've read the popular "Samurai!" and original Saburo Sakai book "Zerosen no shinjitsu". However those are memories of the pilots, not exactly the thing one should be basing on.

 

I put it in spoiler since it will be a longer writing and not everyone might be interested in reading :

 

 

 

 

First, that's not entirely true. Rifle caliber machine guns were about the same as western ones, especially since Type 97 was modification of Vickers .303. The higher caliber machine guns (or in Japanese terminology machine cannons) like Army 12.7 mm Ho-103 or Navy 13.2 mm Type 3 were copies of Browning M2, first one was down-scaled so a Breda-SAFAT type of round (12.7x81SR) could be used - it achieved higher rate of fire than M2 and was much lighter but the muzzle velocity was lower (  767 m/s for Armor Piercing Tracer if compared to US M2 Armor Piercing 856 m/s or 887 m/s of M8 API round). Thus the penetrating capabilities were not as good and trajectory was more curved ( up to 300 meters they had practically the same flight pattern, but above that the difference started growing and at 500 m the difference was around 20 inches. Though as most common shooting distances in games are below 300 m that makes little difference).

Type 3 on contrary was a bit larger version and used as well larger 13.2 mm Hotchkiss type rounds which traveled at average of 800-810 m/s.

What Japanese machine cannons lacked in pure penetrating power, they complemented in explosive and incendiary capabilities since Japanese (both branches) used a lot in their belting High Explosive Incendiary ammunition. Army firstly adopted Italian rounds as basics but soon developed their own ammunition with 2-3 times larger explosive content and different incendiary material (yellow phosphorous) and named them Ma-102 (fuzeless) and Ma-103 (fuzed). Those proved to be effective and even Ki-43 armed with only two 12.7 mm machine cannons could attack B-24s and occasionally bring them down. Other example is  Neel E. Kearby whose P-47 was shot down by Oscar.

Here is what United States Strategic Bombing Survey had to say about the Ma rounds design :

Jdgfeo.png

It doesnt mention Ma-103 which was introduced late in 1943 but you get the idea how a fuzed round works. 

 

Development of 20 mm cannons somehow differed since Army relied on 12.7 mm machine canons from 1941 until 1943, and initially only Navy used 20 mm cannons in larger numbers. Those were Type 99-I and Type 99-II, first on being a modified version of Oerlikon FF F and latter of Oerlikon FF L. Both were ready for production by the end of 1939, though Type 99-I was initially favored and operationally used in earlier Zeros. Type 99-II was introduced by the end of 1942, firstly on A6M3 model 22s.  

Type 99-I Model 3 had average rate of fire of 535 with a muzzle velocity aprox. 600 m/s.

Type 99-I Model 4 had average rate of fire of 550 with a muzzle velocity aprox. 600 m/s.

Type 99-II Model 3 had average rate of fire of 480 with a muzzle velocity aprox. 750 m/s.

Type 99-II Model 4 had average rate of fire of 500 with a muzzle velocity aprox. 750 m/s.

They used the same type of bullets with different cartridge cases, as Type 99-II shells had twice as much powder.

There were four types of rounds with some variations introduced during the war. It was up to unit's commander to determine the ammunition mixture, depending on the target for each mission :

a) Sakuretsu-dan (High explosive) - those were similar to the basic Oerlikon High Explosive rounds which were redesigned to resemble the Minengeschoss rounds, though Japanese failed to produce thin enough wall and instead of reaching levels of 18 grams, the round carried 11.3 g of PETN.

 

b) Shōi-dan (Incendiary) - High explosive incendiary were usually made of 4-5 g of explosive filler (PETN, RDX, TNT in various combinations) and 2.5 g of Yellow phosphorous as incendiary material. Later versions like Modification 4 and 5 carried less than a gram of explosive, but the incendiary content was raised to 5.7 g. 

 

c) Eikō-dan (Tracer) - Standard High explosive tracer rounds were made of 4 grams of explosive filler and 7.5 g of tracer material. Later variants like Modification 4 and 5 carried 5.1 g of explosive charge and 4.4 g of tracer.

 

d) Tekkō-dan (Armor Piercing) - Contrary to most allied documents it was not Armor Piercing Incendiary round but Armor Piercing High Explosive, its purpose was to penetrate any armored plates, engines or bulkheads and detonate inside. Typical round was made of thick steel nose with core filled with 4 grams of explosive.  

 

Japanese Army adopted in 1942 a 20 mm Ho-5 cannon which was up-scaled Ho-103 machine cannon, if had much better ballistics and rate of fire, reaching 800 m/s muzzle velocity (though various rounds were found, some of them were not fully loaded with powder and average muzzle velocity could drop to 750 m/s) and rate of fire of 800 to 880 rounds per minute. 

Ammunition adopted for it was similar in functioning to Ho-103, and belts were primarily containing Ma-202 HEI and AP-T rounds with addition of standard and modified Type 2 HE rounds.

 

Ho-5 cannon was evaluated by Aberdeen Proving Ground and comparative trials with US AN Hispano 20 mm cannon where it proved to be superior. Both AP and HE rounds functioned better and overall conclusion from the report was following :

"Since the principle of operation of this weapon has been proven in the U.S. it is strongly recommended that this weapon be given further consideration and study for possible adoption of a comparable weapon by the U.S."

 

And here is what Americans found in regard to sturdiness of their aircraft at the end of the war, based on "Exploding fuel tanks (...)" by R. L. Dunn, page 140 :

Americans studied the vulnerability of their aircraft. In a USAAF study conducted late in the Pacific War it was reported that fire was involved in 59 % of the aircraft lost. Smoke was observed in an additional 13 %. In a US Navy study of 501 single engine aircraft damaged in air to air combat from September 1944 to August 1945 the most common form of damage was to the aircraft structure (215) but nearly 90 % of the aircraft suffering such damage returned to base. In contrast of 57 aircraft suffering damage to oil or fuel systems only 18 % survived. Strikes in the cockpit hitting the pilot or controls resulted in only about 25 % of the aircraft surviving. This was the second most common form of damage. Damage to the engine or hydraulic system resulted in losses about 60 % of the time but was less common. A variety of other forms of damage caused relatively few losses.

Data from the American studies suggest that, despite self-sealing fuel tanks and pilot armor, fuel tanks and the pilot remained the most vulnerable areas on American aircraft. The American studies also ten to confirm the Japanese report that American fuel tanks were vulnerable to Japanese incendiary fire. (...)

 

In the US Navy study about 38 % of all aircraft receiving damage were lost. About 30 % of the aircraft damaged received damage to the most vulnerable areas and accounted for 63 % of the losses. In contrast only 19% of the single engine Japanese aircraft damaged in 1941 Hawaii operation were lost. At least some of the Japanese aircraft returning to their carriers in a damaged condition had received hits in the fuel tank or cockpit area. During the Midway operation Japanese aircraft also survived similar damage. Losses among aircraft of the Japanese navy's 25th Air Flotilla from April to November 1942 amounted to 30% of all aircraft damaged, less than the loss ratio of aircraft in the US Navy study covering late 1944 and 1945. About twice as many Japanese aircraft were damaged in air combat compared to anti-aircraft fore (US Navy study was limited to damage in air-to-air combat). This data suggests American aircraft may have been about as vulnerable to Japanese aircraft fire at the end of the war as Japanese aircraft had been to Allied fire at the beginning of the war. This in turn suggests that the lethality of aircraft armament and ammunition eventually kept pace with and outstripped aircraft defenses.
 

 

 

 

Japanese ammunition did not base on high penetration values or pure chemical energy coming from explosion (even though a smaller version of Minengeschoss was developed) but on combination of explosive and incendiary effect. In this respect it was found to be very effective. And armament itself varied, but designs like Ho-5 prove something different than " poor efficacy ".

 

 

sounds like a 30 year old Opel with loose fan belt. nothing exciting about that 

Still better than than Volkswagen  :lol:

 

I prefer this one :

https://youtu.be/AjOcpzVVwwE?t=40s

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wish is to have a Fw-200 with this turret(MG 131 13mm) or a late model He-111 with the same turret. Would be awesome 

 

10649485_629357177218089_124312819133814

 

Btw anyone know if the Ju-52 had the same turret on later models? 

 

 

Or a He-177 with this(2x MG131 13mm): 

12651381_608184632668677_614559137331884

 

Or the Ju-288 with this :D

 

12004028_558209507666190_667133882126078

 

4x 13mm :D

Edited by 6./ZG26_McKvack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know Ju-52 only had either open (provisoric) gun lafettes with MG15/17s or no turret at all. The structure probably was too weak to house a fully enclosed and armoured turret and the payoff would probably have been minmal given the fragility of the whole airplane.

 

Ju 288 was more or less a failure due to complications witht the engines. By the time they were somewhat solved the need for a Schnellbomber was decreasing and thus only a few types were build. The expirieences however were used in developing the Ju 388, which was primarily designed as a high altitude and fast reconissence aircraft.

 

Late (H-16+) Heinkel would be nice but nothing spectacular. The increase in performence by the time was neglible and it was mostly used as a night bomber only.

 

If you're looking for ridiculous defensive armarment He-177 B might just be your thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fw-189 is the one to beat here - so tiny you can barely hit the bastard, and it turns nicely too. I have many fond memories of intercepting them on Il2-FB, the mission designers always assigned at least a pair of high-flying Messers near them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wishing death name was not known by Japanese pilots , all veteran pilots from Japan questioned that name, in fact most of them considered the F6 Hellcat a much more dangerous opponent , statistics tells the same story. But the Corsair might have been called that by people in the ground. It was a amazing multirole aircraft. Its ground pounder capabilities was not passed until the Skyraider entered service

Edited by EG14_LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

=LD=Hiromachi - thanks for posting that.

Interesting read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japanese ammunition did not base on high penetration values or pure chemical energy coming from explosion (even though a smaller version of Minengeschoss was developed) but on combination of explosive and incendiary effect. In this respect it was found to be very effective. And armament itself varied, but designs like Ho-5 prove something different than " poor efficacy ".

Except that a bomber is little different than a fighter and so a little different requirements would be made for the ammunition to be effective. 

 

Not to mention that your quote talks about the effectiveness of [Edited] ammo at the end of the war and that was probably 20mm guns. Not really relevant since for PTO people play pre 1944 scenarios most of the time, and that rarely involves 20mm equipped Zero`s.

 

In ETO by that time people already have 30/37mm.

 

Be advised. In the future please use either the term Japanese , IJA, IJN or even Nipponese but do not use the shortened pejorative term for anything or anyone Japanese. This is the only warning you will receive.

Edited by Bearcat
Language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not to mention that your quote talks about the effectiveness of Jap ammo at the end of the war and that was probably 20mm guns. Not really relevant since for PTO people play pre 1944 scenarios most of the time, and that rarely involves 20mm equipped Zero`s.

 

Ehh...what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that a bomber is little different than a fighter and so a little different requirements would be made for the ammunition to be effective. 

 

Not to mention that your quote talks about the effectiveness of Jap ammo at the end of the war and that was probably 20mm guns. Not really relevant since for PTO people play pre 1944 scenarios most of the time, and that rarely involves 20mm equipped Zero`s.

 

In ETO by that time people already have 30/37mm.

When did the A6M ever not have 20mm guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did the A6M ever not have 20mm guns?

Yea, my bad. Dem suxxed so bad I mistakened dem for 13mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You talk as if you realy read japanese balistic tests of those 20mm. Can we see those balistic tests? How "poor" are they compared to things like Hispano or MG151/20?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to have a Ju-52 to fly supplies in. It would be a lot of fun in the full real servers. I'd also like to see a Mediterranean or Africa map since most of the German planes are already done all they would need to make would be a Spitfire and a Hurricane since we have a (P-40) and a map of course but it's the desert there isn't that much there to detail.

Edited by II./JG53Lutzow_z06z33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok acknowledged I'm a bit late to this 'party' but I wanted to give my $0.02 worth:

 

- I'd prefer we move to another theatre rather than focus on a specific battle. Unlike the Battle of Britain, my understanding is that the air battles occurred almost daily...yes it increased in tempo during or before a major land battle but once the infantry stopped to consolidate, the air force(s) didn't just take 5...they kept going. Besides, I love variety :) The further West we do go in the Russian campaign would be more of the same you'd think (just improved a/c and new maps). Air battles will still be the same.

- I would LOVE for the devs to move west towards the ETO or MTO. The good thing is that they've developed most of the major Luftwaffe a/c that fought these battles (hell including a Macchi and P40!!) so a shift to the Med would be the perfect next step ie. Malta, North Africa. Yes that would mean developing a new range of british aircraft (Hurricane II, Beaufighter, Spit V, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a thought. Consider me - I am over 40 and I love the way principle of flight. Simming is the only way I can truly enjoy flight. Most importantly, I have lots of disposable income which I will spend readily if I can improve my experience and feel more joy of flight. Now here's my problem: I don't have the time to become very good at flying my Lagg-3 to make an impact playing MP. I don't have a man-cave to participate in teamspeak, which is a must to survive, as loanwolfing in Lagg-3 is suicidal. So I am resigned to a pretty crap SP campaign which is fast exceeding my abilities. Now I am limited to flying QMB missions to intercept bombers or attack ground targets. Forget Battle of X, make me enjoy lonewolfing in SP more and you will have my money...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

carve_gybe, have you tried PWCG? Check it out here: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/99-pwcg-bos/

 

About the TS thing, I was like that but recently I stopped caring. It's just fine to fly online even when discussing contacts while also debating what would be a good dinner for tonight. :biggrin:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's the discussing what's for dinner, the delivery guy at the door, the wife getting home, the cat running across the keyboard, the "hold on while I re-boot" etc that illustrate

the need for handcrafted, immersive single player missions where immersion in a WWII environment actually can occur. Not that all the above isn't fine,

It it what it is - we need both. Those things are a big reason why I scoff at those who think online flying is the end-all, be-all of simming though.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id be happy with any kind of expansion. Be it Finland with their funky fleet of brewsters and so many captured aircraft or another eastern front battle (with the addition of a p-39).

 

This has been said earlier in this thread, but I also feel the best direction for this series to go would be one that lures customers to it. I don't know for sure, but think that a p-51, corsair or spitfire would increase sales. And more people buying this game would translate to increased funding for the interesting aircraft/campaigns.

 

Though I'd love to fly an I-15, ju-52 and more yaks. Another eastern front battle would sort of make this game a niche in an already small niche.

Edited by aa_radek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we move to Med now, probably we get a new game by Christmas :)

 

But the war will be over by Christmas  :lol:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the Devs are making a small mistake by focusing on well know infantry battles like Moscow. Instead they could focus on where the large scale air battles were being fought...often they were the precursor to the Battle of X (Moscow in this case). I really think that with BOM they should have had a slightly longer/thinner map (like BOS) and not bothered with Kalinin and Moscow. On the far left should have been Smolensk and included Vyazma and on the far right Mozhaysk. That way we would have included the summer operations running up to Autumn. Also that map could be used for a 1943 campaign.

 

Most of the BOM campaign the Germans or Russians are squished up to one side of the map (we have) the German army went from one side to the other in a very short period of time (a few weeks) making it hard to create a lengthy campaign like can be done with Stalingrad. We cannot have airbattles close to the map boundaries in case of the U Turn warning you get which would spoil things. Also the weather was terrible which hampered operations for both sides and when it got really cold there was little air activity from the Germans from what I understand.

 

I think the Forgotten Battle concept was a good one, they were about the large air operations that were happening but less famous because there wasn't some famous Infantry battle going on at the same time. If you think about it Battle of Moscow (and Winter BOS) is more an infantry battle than an air battle.

Edited by 6./ZG26_Emil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think the Forgotten Battle concept was a good one, they were about the large air operations that were happening but less famous because there wasn't some famous Infantry battle going on at the same time. If you think about it Battle of Moscow (and Winter BOS) is more an infantry battle than an air battle.

 

That would speak to Crimea Spring '43, possibly Kiev '41 / '43, Kursk and Bagration for sheer number of aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean Kuban '43 (Malaya Zemlya)? Crimea fought on 1941/2 and from the winter of 43 into 1944.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean Kuban '43 (Malaya Zemlya)? Crimea fought on 1941/2 and from the winter of 43 into 1944.

+1; Kiew 1941/43, Crimea 1941/42 & 43/44, Kursk, Kuban & Caucasus (incl. Yak 7/9, P-39, La5(F/FN) & Bf 109 G6) would be excellent

Edited by Rabitzky
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would pobably tolerate (barely) one more expansion on the eastern front. After that i would really like to see something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the last decade we had only one simulation with an East Front scenario but many others with west front scenarios. Eastern Front is basically a cliffhanger (especially with modern graphic/physics) and does offer a lot of possibilities. West front = done to death except Mediterranean Air War (e.g. North Africa, Greece, Crete, Malta, Sicily; Pantelleria and complete Italy + Sardinia & Corsica). Pacific is just ok due to the huge distances.

 

Just my 2 cents...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the last decade we had only one simulation with an East Front scenario but many others with west front scenarios. Eastern Front is basically a cliffhanger (especially with modern graphic/physics) and does offer a lot of possibilities. West front = done to death except Mediterranean Air War (e.g. North Africa, Greece, Crete, Malta, Sicily; Pantelleria and complete Italy + Sardinia & Corsica). Pacific is just ok due to the huge distances.

 

Just my 2 cents...

What the hell you on about?

 

Last 10 years have seen 3rd Gen IL-2 represent the Eastern Front in 2 Games and Cliffs of Dover represent the Western Front and 1946, which was everything to some degree.

 

I don't count DCS as 3 singular planes with no actual correct map does not represent the Western Front (and even when Normandy gets added, I won't count it as K-4 and D-9 weren't present during the Normandy invasion (and neither the production block of Mustang currently in game), along with no dedicated ground attackers and bombers.)

Edited by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slowly "warming" up to a Africa scenario. Basically we have the axis aircraft but they will need a trop update? The Ju52 can still be made flyable. On the allies side relevant versions of the hurricane, spitfire, beaufighter (? Not certain abt this 1), a light bomber (i will really pray for the a20). The cherry on top as premium may just be a p38.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slowly "warming" up to a Africa scenario. Basically we have the axis aircraft but they will need a trop update? The Ju52 can still be made flyable. On the allies side relevant versions of the hurricane, spitfire, beaufighter (? Not certain abt this 1), a light bomber (i will really pray for the a20). The cherry on top as premium may just be a p38.

 

The beaufighter was a heavy twin that did mainly night intercepts and coastal attacks (anti shipping) from what I understand. Would be a good counter to the BF110, and packed a decent punch. I pulled this off wikipaedia:

 

General characteristics

Performance

Armament

Guns
  • 4 × 20 mm Hispano Mk II cannon (240 rpg) in nose
  • 1 × manually operated .303 in (7.7 mm) Browning for observer
External loads

mmmm...4 x 20mm hispano cannon. This bird was great at ground attack, plus it could carry a torpedo.

 

Should we get into the NA campaign, the allies will need a medium bomber to counter the H111/JU88 so its either this or the A20 or (preferably) a B25.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the last decade we had only one simulation with an East Front scenario but many others with west front scenarios. Eastern Front is basically a cliffhanger (especially with modern graphic/physics) and does offer a lot of possibilities. West front = done to death except Mediterranean Air War (e.g. North Africa, Greece, Crete, Malta, Sicily; Pantelleria and complete Italy + Sardinia & Corsica). Pacific is just ok due to the huge distances.

 

Just my 2 cents...

First....with respect, this whole "done to death" narrative always makes me laugh. No offense, on one hand I know what you mean, but I don't think people really think

this through when they type that. I've read this typed by many others over the years, so nothing here is directed at you personally.

 

That said - as if we've had ANY THEATER represented flawlessly, with full immersion, heavy levels of ground action, realistic levels of air activity, realistic bomber boxes, realistic base activity, etc with a current gen

game engine. Hmm...not so much as it turns out.

There's always room to come along and do it better than last time. No simulation has ever offered the whole package, including this current one.

 

Second...

To carry the logic to it's conclusion - we had the Western Front with Chuck Yeager's old flight sim right?, so I guess there was no reason for Oleg to come along and give it to us with the drastically updated engine.

We already have IL2 1946, so no reason for this team to be re-creating I guess? Turns out we're always hungry for improvement, be that graphics, physics, maps, or anything else

mentioned above. 

 

So let's let the whole disengenous, erroneous and utterly silly "Done to death" narrative die already. It doesn't apply

to combat flight sims unless you think a particular theater having been represented at some point with an older game engine somehow satisfies current needs.

 

"I had a version of this years ago, so I don't need a vastly improved and expanded version of it now or any time in the future"

Nobody with any sense thinks or says this - and I don't think you feel this way either Rabitsky, just to be clear.

 

 

Lastly, the Pacific.

No place in the war did you have what occurred almost daily over Guadalcanal.

Not in the ferocity of the daily fighting in the air, not with the uniqueness of aircraft involved, and certainly not with regard to the parity in forces that occurred.

The parity in forces is huge.

 

Long distances - Pfff! Flying from Bodney to Berlin isn't long?

A map doesn't have to be full scale, the player wouldn't know any better if it was scaled down - flight times can be long, but not LOOOONG.

Long distance flights are part of flying, and part of the immersion factor, just so long as there's a way to mitigate them. Time compression, scale.

 

That said I'm not sure this engine would handle even a half size slot map. It's a hurdle for sure.

Pacific is the money shot though IMHO. There's just nothing else like Zeke vs Wildcat - I get mad just thinking about it and realizing I might

never get to fly my beloved Zeke again. 'sniff'

 

The last time I was able to fly escort for, or attack a reasonably sized bomber box (still not approaching real life proportions) was European Air War.

Done to death? Not so much.

Edited by Gambit21
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree 100% with the above. Nothing has been 'done to death'. If you remember, Oleg kinda shy'ed away from the ETO and we ended up having to mod everything. Keep in mind also that the IL2 1946 game engine was like 20 years old (or something) at its peak.

 

I like what we have with BOS/BOM ie. the game engine. The graphics are quite beautiful esp when flying at dawn/dusk. Hell, I was flying formation on a mate in our IL2's and I could see him in his cockpit giving me hand signals!! how cool is that? No, this is 2016 and BOS is the way to go. One great thing is though, most people have very fond memories of '1946 and a lot of the guys who used to fly '46 a lot are just waiting on BOS moving towards the ETO or the MTO or PTO (ie. they don't have as much interest in the Russian front). We do have DCS but I can tell you, DCS is so sterile and the graphics are almost IL2 1946'ish esp with explosions, etc (that's my honest opinion only) compared to BOS (so kudos to the dev team).

 

No, fly around Stalingrad and you get a feeling that there is a war on...smoke, destruction, random explosions, tanks, trucks, trains, ships, etc etc. Its like a proper battlefield.

 

Re the Pacific, yes some of the battles were over long distance but you can easily overcome that through scale. Noone likes to fly longer than 10 mins on an MP server to get to the action, esp if the chance of you getting shot down quickly is high. It comes down to the period and the location eg. Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Philippines (for land based) and/or carrier based actions (so many).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noone likes to fly longer than 10 mins on an MP server to get to the action, esp if the chance of you getting shot down quickly is high.

Not strictly true. Dogfight servers, yes, but we did the Battle of Midway in SEOW, on the Midway Expanded map, and people were prepared to fly up to three hours in one aircraft. One life and DiD in a mission, but the immersion is key. I did almost the whole mission length in a Catalina searching for the Japanese fleet; saw nothing except for a friendly cruiser in all that time, but that was my role that day. It was worth it just to see the island appear on the horizon again and know that my navigation was good.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok I stand corrected. Most of my '46 time was spent in bombers but on smaller maps. I'm more talking about the average dogfight servers where you'll see so many pilots spawn at the airbase under attack rather than spawn further out and gain altitude. As I spend pretty much all of my time in bombers, I do my best to NOT see any enemy a/c so most of my flights are away from the action then back in in the hope of bypassing the defending CAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...