What do you guys believe...

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It's a far cry from the cramped Pe-2 radio operator/gunner compartment

 

The first thing that came to mind when seeing this image is that someone should re-shoot The Adventures of Bill & John in this simulator, keeping the original audio. The detailed internals would make for great shots

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yeah, Betty was quite wide and was also often used as a transport - including the high ranking officers like Yammamoto. Though its still not nearly as epic as H8K Emily. That thing is a winner. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The Emily was up there with the Sunderland though, a whole different class!

 

You can clearly see the difference in design directions when comparing American/Japanese and Soviet/German military aircraft in terms of crew comfort. The former were built with endurance in mind, so crew comfort was high even in fighters, and interiors were very spacious. With the latter, the opposite was true - cramped cockpits with close to no comfort, including for long-range aircraft. Even when you look at the Pe-8, the crew was very much stuck at their 'on duty' positions and had little chance to go for a walk or take a leak until the aircraft was back.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

It depends, some of the Army bombers were very cramped (like Ki-48). But generally yes, crews had a bit of room. They needed it after all, for those very long flights.

Here is some quote I found on j-aircraft.com :

 

"I got off the pilot's seat and headed towards the rear of the plane. Once I'm past the dorsal 20mm gun position, the Type 96's fuselage was relatively roomy and I could walk through it upright by putting my head down just a little bit.

Although there was a urinal behind the waist 7.7mm gun blisters, we hardly ever used it. This is not only because the ceiling was very low around the area. The biggest reason was because the wind coming in from the waist blisters sprayed the urine all over your own self.
 

So we carried a few "pee bags". This was made of waterproof cellophane paper with a cardboard inlet which when unfolded, became a tube about 10cm long. Since most of our flights were overwater, we would then "bomb" the ocean with it from the waist gun position."

Nagaaki Yokoyama - Type 96 Attack Plane pilot, "Kaigun Chuko Kesshitai"

Edited June 12, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

We need that kind of 'bomb' as an unlock whenever a G3M comes along 

Speaking of seaplanes and crew comfort, here is some amazing footage of MBR-2s from the Northern Fleet. Note the poor spotter/nose gunner with the wind on his face.

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I thought most comfortable was TB-3  

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

You mean this? 

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Precisely 

[PantsPilot]

I think a genuinely fair way to look at any further games in this series would be for the devs to pick a theatre of war that hasn't been covered before in a combat flight sim. The Pacific has been absolutely saturated as far back as I can remember, and that's a ways back as I used to play Aces of the Pacific by Dynamix in the early 90's - and a good game it was too! if anyone remembers that far back. Since then there's been a steady stream of Pacific titles, far too many to list here.

 

As has been mentioned already ground targets are going to be very limited - you could fly a whole war without seeing a tiddly Japanese tank in the jungle, and trains even less so, of course ships would be plentiful. But the other problem for the Pacific is that many of the significant battles were very short affairs sometimes just lasting a day or two - would it be worth these guys putting all that cost and effort into building a perfect 3D replica of say Midway just for that?   

 

I think if the war with Japan was to be created here, then Burma would be a better option. Not only did the war there last virtually the entire period of the Japanese conflict, but Burma under British rule was a developed country with a road and rail network and Industrial centres too. Also the biggest Japanese land offensive, and their final hurrah, was in Burma and that's where most of the Japanese mechanised forces were throughout the war. Aside from 1 map in the old il-2 and a new arcade game, Burma has been ignored. 

 

Even MORE IGNORED has been the air battle for Malta. Beginning in 1940 when Mussolini began the air siege that would last through the end of 1942. Malta was, and still is, the most bombed place on earth. The RAF battled desperately to keep the important Island airbase open to interdict Rommel's supplies to Africa. It was much tougher than the BoB in many ways; for some time the RAF were restricted to worn out Hurricanes, and prior to that just a handful of Gladiators.

In 1942 when the first Spitfires began arriving, the Luftwaffe, with the RA, made a determined effort to destroy the Island and the RAF once and for all. We're talking multiple air raids in a day upwards of 70 + aircraft each, raids that for example dwarfed anything faced by the US air defence of Guadalcanal, both in terms of numbers and quality. The Luftwaffe experten had the latest Bf-109's and they always had height advantage. The Royal Navy almost lost the war to resupply the island as so many ships were lost, even with carrier escort, and the island came very close to starvation. RAF Spitfires were flown of US carriers in a last ditch effort to keep their numbers up, as often they were destroyed by marauding 109's and 202's in the landing circuit without even firing a shot in anger. It was a close run thing, but with the help of the US carriers, the RAF just prevailed. For me the air defence of Malta 1940-42 was equally the RAF's finest hour alongside the BoB. 

 

So where would the ground targets come from I here you ask? Well if the map included Sicily and a part of S. Italy, then that solves the problem! Italy was a developed nation and had as much if not more infrastructure as Russia in the 40's, except obviously more ports and naval dockyards than the maps we have now. Finally we have a strong stock of axis aircraft already in place don't we?

 

Please seriously consider this theatre and right a wrong that has lasted far too long already. By the way when the Allies went on the offensive against Sicily in 1943, the US can be introduced to the game too. PLEASE.....  

Edited June 13, 2016 by PantsPilot

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

If to do Malta, which period would you depict and what set of aircraft (8+2) would you include?

 

That's definitely a cool proposition, but I don't know if it can be reasonably done within the current format. Most of 1941 and 1942 are more or less off-limits because the Luftwaffe aircraft for the period have already been sold in other packages.

 

EDIT: Malta/Sicily would be a perfect choice for a standalone map with a campaign though, since half the iconic aircraft are there and the other half will probably be added soon enough.

Edited June 13, 2016 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

I think a genuinely fair way to look at any further games in this series would be for the devs to pick a theatre of war that hasn't been covered before in a combat flight sim. The Pacific has been absolutely saturated as far back as I can remember, and that's a ways back as I used to play Aces of the Pacific by Dynamix in the early 90's - and a good game it was too! if anyone remembers that far back. Since then there's been a steady stream of Pacific titles, far too many to list here.

 It was a steady steam in 90s and early 2000s. Since release of Combat Flight Simulator 16 years and Pacific Fighters 12 years ago I cant name a single flight sim trying to approach the topic. Of course I'm not counting Air Conflicts: Pacific Carriers, which hardly comes close to actual sims. There was also Target Rabaul mod in work, until it completely dropped few years ago. 

 

So yeah, Pacific sims were in steady stream over 20 years ago. Since then lot has changed, including graphics, flight complexity and approach to the solutions. It's like saying that automobile companies should avoid making conventional sedans because there were so many made throughout the years. I dont buy that argument

 

 

 

As has been mentioned already ground targets are going to be very limited - you could fly a whole war without seeing a tiddly Japanese tank in the jungle, and trains even less so, of course ships would be plentiful. But the other problem for the Pacific is that many of the significant battles were very short affairs sometimes just lasting a day or two - would it be worth these guys putting all that cost and effort into building a perfect 3D replica of say Midway just for that?   

Ground war is not limited to tank fighting...

 

And the second sentence is not true. Major campaigns lasted for months.

 

 

 

Even MORE IGNORED has been the air battle for Malta.

It was indeed. I'm fine with most of the Med scenarios. Point is in presenting a reasonable sized map and aircraft set that does not copy&paste what we have. 

 

 

 

So where would the ground targets come from I here you ask? Well if the map included Sicily and a part of S. Italy, then that solves the problem! Italy was a developed nation and had as much if not more infrastructure as Russia in the 40's, except obviously more ports and naval dockyards than the maps we have now. Finally we have a strong stock of axis aircraft already in place don't we?

Italy was a developed nation but no ground combat occurred in given period (1940-1942) in Italy. So you made point about not seeing Japanese tanks and limited ground targets in battles and then you mention Malta ?    

 

In this case Tunisia 1942-1943 wins hands down. 

 

 

Sidenote: Wasn't there a Malta operation in Il-2 1946 on multi which ended with "steel islands" in the middle of the sea ? 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

A malta map would be very difficult to do given it is such a small island and it had to include Sicily/South Italy to provide the Luftwaffe with bases to take off from. Apart from that theres only water so air action is likely to be highly concentrated at "hotspots".

 

If it is possible to create a map big enough to feauture Sicily, Malta and several naval units this could indeed be a fun expansion. If not it's better to go for a different theatre with more potential in my opinion.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

 It was a steady steam in 90s and early 2000s. Since release of Combat Flight Simulator 16 years and Pacific Fighters 12 years ago I cant name a single flight sim trying to approach the topic. Of course I'm not counting Air Conflicts: Pacific Carriers, which hardly comes close to actual sims. There was also Target Rabaul mod in work, until it completely dropped few years ago.

 

The industry has a lot to do with it. Historically speaking, flight sim fans huff and puff a lot about what they will buy/won't buy and what they love/hate but in the end they embrace whichever simulator is presenting the best experience.

 

Back then, the American flight simulation industry was at its peak, so you mostly had the Pacific and Western Europe in the spotlight within a WW2 context.

 

In the early 2000s, the Russian developers came up with the Il-2 series, leading to a brief period when the Eastern Front, Western Europe and Pacific were represented. Though the latter two were more common, the quality of simulation in the Il-2 series in the East made up for it.

 

Halfway through the 2000s the American WW2 flight simulation industry slowly grind to a halt, and Il-2 started to fill the niche by releasing material involving British, Japanese, American and Italian aircraft. At the same time, new graphics in all other industries started to put Il-2 in a tough position where they had to move forwards, which led to Storm of War. Development came, development went, two engine rewrites later and in the end things didn't work out. In the 'history books of flight simulators', there is a dark age for WW2 there, which only ends with this new Il-2 coming to life.

 

One period most people forget though is the one which came between the 2007 4.08m patch and the introduction of Il-2: Battle of Stalingrad at the end of 2013. In those six years, full-fledged commercial releases apart from Cliffs of Dover didn't happen, but there was a massive community-led drive to keep the genre afloat. Because players don't care much for commercial success as they do about what they like, you had an endless stream of content in the shape of campaigns, maps, skins, aircraft, coming both from independent modders and as part of Team Daidalos. There we had the addition of relatively obscure maps such as Odessa, Malta, Crete, Slovakia and so on. The theatres there were never developed before because they weren't blockbusters by any standard, but they provided good fun for the people who had them.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Ground war is not limited to tank fighting...

 

 

 

 

In the context of the sim it really is.  Infantry aren't represented and given the work it would take to do so on top of everything else I can't imagine they will be until at least the end of this generation of IL-2.  So mechanized/motorized forces, artillery and large fortifications are the only representatives of the dirty legs.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Silas

[Gambit21]

I think a genuinely fair way to look at any further games in this series would be for the devs to pick a theatre of war that hasn't been covered before in a combat flight sim. The Pacific has been absolutely saturated as far back as I can remember, and that's a ways back as I used to play Aces of the Pacific by Dynamix in the early 90's - and a good game it was too! if anyone remembers that far back. Since then there's been a steady stream of Pacific titles, far too many to list here.

 

As has been mentioned already ground targets are going to be very limited - you could fly a whole war without seeing a tiddly Japanese tank in the jungle, and trains even less so, of course ships would be plentiful. But the other problem for the Pacific is that many of the significant battles were very short affairs sometimes just lasting a day or two - would it be worth these guys putting all that cost and effort into building a perfect 3D replica of say Midway just for that?   

 

 

 

More of this 

 

There has never been anything close to a fully realized Pacific simulation.

 

We've never had a Solomons/Slot map. The battle for Guadalcanal alone lasted many months...but then actually reading the thread helps.

Never-mind the rest of the island hopping campaign up the Slot. Nobody is daft enough to suggest a sim dealing with and only with the Battle of Midway or similar.

I suggest doing some reading on the subject..."Guadalcanal" by Richard B. Frank is a good place to start.

 

We've never had a Pacific simulation created in anything resembling a modern/current game engine. This alone is why it's more than worth it to revisit the 

Eastern Front as well, never mind Pacific. I would think this fact would be more than obvious.

 

Ground targets not plentiful? It's the PACIFIC...yes it's a given there will be boats to attack, not to mention float plane bases, airfields....ugh.

 

The whole "we've had a steady stream of Pacific simulations" or even WWII simulations comment is just laughable.

There have been 2 Pacific simulations in the last 16 years as Hiromachi has been so kind to point out, both of them fragments at best, and

even 1946 which was vastly superior was incapable of representing the Solomons campaign AT ALL never mind certain other short battles

that occurred with any degree of accuracy due to limitations of the engine.

 

All that said Burma isn't a horrible idea, and I'd still like to see a flyable Storch and Ju52 for our current Maps, and a Kuban map at some point.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Gambit21

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

For the record one of the recent Il-2:1946 updates did include a Slot map plus a lot of other stuff that was way overdue, like a united Crimea/Kuban map.

 

None of the theatres proposed, from Guadalcanal to Malta, are undeserving of revisiting - after all, this simulator just rendered anything that came before it obsolete except for DCS. We will need to build that library of maps and aircraft again in this new world because the old one doesn't cut it, factually. The only point worth discussing is which one do you want next, right now, immediately. All the others will come eventually, but chip in and for the sake of fun dream a little, that's the point of the thread.

Edited June 13, 2016 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

In the context of the sim it really is.  Infantry aren't represented and given the work it would take to do so on top of everything else I can't imagine they will be until at least the end of this generation of IL-2.  So mechanized/motorized forces, artillery and large fortifications are the only representatives of the dirty legs.

Spending some time on WoL, it really doesnt seem that tanks are dominant targets. It is a combination of factories, supply depots, supply columns, artillery positions and tanks. 

 

You know, Army is not made of infantry and tanks only. There is whole logistics and support element, which gives huge possibilities for targets. 

 

 

 

All the others will come eventually, but chip in and for the sake of fun dream a little, that's the point of the thread.

And a bit of dramas as well  

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Historically speaking most of the stuff an air force is hitting when it wants to stop tanks is convoys and supporting infantry. A tank doesn't go anywhere without fuel, and it's a sitting duck without support.

 

Of course the epic accounts go on about KVs, T-34s or Tigers sitting all by themselves mowing down the enemy while the cannon rounds bounce off their armour, but those are the minority. A major reason why the T-34 and KV didn't stop the German advance in 1941 despite being far more capable than their enemies was because the supporting structures were eliminated quickly. Tankists who survived speak of entire rifle companies disappearing in front of them, from both enemy fire and desertion, rendering the tanks useless in the long run since eventually they'd run out of fuel and ammo.

 

The aircraft vs. tank duel is also overplayed, since most airborne weapons were not effective enough (with notable exceptions like very big guns or PTABs when employed in formation).

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I would love Malta but I think it is too hard to implement. There was only three RAF airbases. And Sicily is almost exactly 100 km away which I think would be too

far for most people to fly with out getting bored. Although saying this the scale of the map would be currently possible to implement.

 

Another thing about Malta is that it is extremely dence with scenery! And maybe for the same reasons we can't fly over Moscow currently they would not be able to do this I.e. they would not be able to create the map to the required quality in their usual time frame.

Edited June 13, 2016 by AeroACE

[Jade_Monkey]

Maybe some sort of scaled down version of the Malta- Sicily-southern italy? A reasonable interpretation of the distances?

[Gambit21]

For the record one of the recent Il-2:1946 updates did include a Slot map plus a lot of other stuff that was way overdue, like a united Crimea/Kuban map.

 

Well...there were more recent updates that happened with European Air War years after 98% of us had moved on and that engine was woefully out of date.

I'm talking about relevant updates within the useful life of the sim - but interesting none the less.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Do you want to know what is coming next ???

 

We are moving south.

 

That is a bet hard to lose 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Density isn't necessarily a problem - one Moscow with water around it is easier to build than Rzhev, Kalinin, Mozhaisk, western Moscow and beyond as we have now.

 

Flight times would be slightly long but not particularly impossible. For comparison, it's a 75km flight between Stalingrad and Kalach and you get that done in nearly every sortie. 100km at 400km/h is a meagre 15 minutes, and at 300km/h it's 20 minutes so even in a loaded Ju-87 or He-111 it could be done in no time. The lack of mission variety and limited scope if the expansion is pinned down to a particular time would be its biggest detractors. Also, with the sort of constant monotonous activity (massive enemy attack from Sicily to Malta all day, every day) you would have a bit of a furball simulator with very strict battle formats. With Kuban, Guadalcanal, Burma and whatnot the moving front lines and constant offensive/counter-offensive flow make for a lot of variety and online allow for major theatre-scale tactics. See the DED server for example, the tank guys are always coordinating their attacks with air support (particularly in the Russian early evening) and get a lot done.

 

In Malta you take off, go on station, deal with the vulchers, land, rearm, so on and so forth, losing that combined arms dynamic they are going for here.

 

I know Gambit, I just thought it was worth mentioning. The new patches added lots of huge maps to the old game, I can only imagine how useful those would have been back in the day

 

Gielow, if they announce Murmansk or Leningrad you owe everyone a beer

[Gambit21]

When it comes down to it, I'll be happy to see this sim evolving and progressing, no matter what theater is next.

If development keeps up, I know the Pacific will come.

 

I'd rather see time taken and it done right than get it half-baked as the next theater.

 

Of course, that means I put my money where my mouth is and purchase BoM soon.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Gambit21

[Livai]

This sounds good Battle of what if....You fly with a Stuka around and see this Soviet plane appear in front of you! Who wins?!

 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

When it comes down to it, I'll be happy to see this sim evolving and progressing, no matter what theater is next.

If development keeps up, I know the Pacific will come.

 

I'd rather see time taken and it done right than get it half-baked as the next theater.

 

Of course, that means I put my money where my mouth is and purchase BoM soon.

 

Whenever you do, I don't think you'll regret it. I loved Battle of Stalingrad but Battle of Moscow brought so much excitement to this sim for me, so far. Now I regret not getting Premium straight away and I'm stuck waiting for the P-40 to become available on Steam

 

One thing I appreciate about the 1C:GS development cycles is that improvements are delivered across the board, and older titles get updated. Stalingrad received two new maps right in the middle of Moscow's development for example, and the campaign and aircraft in BoS constantly get fine-tuned together with the new stuff. In the old Il-2 the earlier titles kept falling behind and after a while you could tell. The MiG-3 model there is a monster for example, as was the original P-40. Those aircraft were there from the first one and FB respectively, but never got updated in the game's initial development run, and the cockpits were also pretty poor. Compare that to the neat Ki-61 3D model that came with Pacific Fighters, or the Tempest, the Il-10... it's as if they're different games.

 

Here at least the earlier stuff is kept current, so whichever we get first from Kuban/Pacific Expansion I, within a year from the early access we'll have a well-rounded product and both will be kept up to date as time goes.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Spending some time on WoL, it really doesnt seem that tanks are dominant targets. It is a combination of factories, supply depots, supply columns, artillery positions and tanks. 

 

You know, Army is not made of infantry and tanks only. There is whole logistics and support element, which gives huge possibilities for targets. 

 

 

Yeah, I know from personal experience the army is not only made of infantry and tanks.  But with BOS/BOM when you're a ground-attack kind of guy and you're given a choice between attacking tanks, half-tracks, trucks, trains and artillery or attacking lots of factories and supply depots the choice is very very easy.  I've spent a lot of time flying sorties in an IL-2 against players in tanks or charging for an enemy airfield in a tank of my own, which is an incredibly intense race.  If I was going to be persuaded to give that up, I'd have to have something that replaces it.

[Gambit21]

So you'd rather waste ammo and risk getting jumped because of fixating on a single, hard to kill tank and crew than taking out a row of trucks or a train

carrying troops or supplies? I find it much more rewarding to straff a supply column and see multiple secondaries and fires back over my shoulder, not

to mention the greater benefit (in our pretend sim world) of such a run.

 

If you just want to attack heavily armored tanks I'd say that's your own hang up and you're missing out.

 

Strafing ships and parked, or taxiing aircraft is good fun...much more fun than tanks IMO - and again much more of a benefit to the effort.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I don't see why be picky about it - just shoot up everything.

 

If it flies you shoot it down, if it's on the ground you blow it up, and if it sails you sink it.

[Gambit21]

Yep - oooh...bring on the Beaufighter.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I just go for AA first, once its gone I take soft targets with machine guns/cannons and hard ones with bombs rockets. But generally I shoot everything in given area, until there are no targets

[7.GShAP/Silas]

So you'd rather waste ammo and risk getting jumped because of fixating on a single, hard to kill tank and crew than taking out a row of trucks or a train

carrying troops or supplies? I find it much more rewarding to straff a supply column and see multiple secondaries and fires back over my shoulder, not

to mention the greater benefit (in our pretend sim world) of such a run.

 

If you just want to attack heavily armored tanks I'd say that's your own hang up and you're missing out.

 

Strafing ships and parked, or taxiing aircraft is good fun...much more fun than tanks IMO - and again much more of a benefit to the effort.

 

 

I seem to recall mentioning trucks and trains in my post.  Passing over the absolutely huge role tanks and tank killers played on the eastern front, where tanks really shine is the fact that now PLAYERS can crew the tanks and vastly change the dynamic of the flight sim from the usual fighters=carnivores ground attack=herbivores.  Enemy player tanks about to over-run your convenient frontline airfield? Better have CAS!  Your friendly player tanks about to take that enemy airfield?  Better protect them from that CAS!  Enemy planes scrambling from where you can see them in your tank?  Better put a cannon round in the cockpit and remove him from existence!

 

I mean, I've actually looked at the mission briefing with a few wingmen, seen that enemy tanks are present and likely looking to take a key town and airfield and dashed to destroy a key bridge just in time before they can use it to advance.  Not because it was marked with a red dot and it was worth points, to STOP THE GUYS IN TANKS.

 

They don't have to be tanks, but they need to be something.  People talk about missions and formats being stale, if you remove that you remove the one step forward that's been taken in a long time.  Strafing the two staff cars the island garrison keeps to ferry around the commandant and his adjutants won't cut it.  Even let people control landing ships that will capture a sector if they deploy correctly, but let people control something.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Silas

[Gambit21]

I'm all about attacking tanks when it makes sense - good fun if I'm in the proper aircraft and that's my mission.

[Livai]

Any news from the E3 what's next. Maybe something playable? There are not many days left to find them........

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

EDIT: And for McKvack...

 

 

Aww yiss <3

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

They could make the Ju-52 flyable and add the floats as an unlock. Then we can have Stalingrad and Kuban air bridge missions, and this can become a thing

Edited June 14, 2016 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

[Gambit21]

WHAT? Ju 52 float plane?

Heart of mine be still....I want it...NOW

Dammit I'll do the modeling work!!

 

I would fly that thing constantly online.

Have to totally let go of ego though - it would completely mess up your stats.

Dammit Lucas, I'm sitting here trying to work on a rendering and now I'm distracted.

(of course that's my fault for clicking here instead of concentrating on my rendering to begin with)

Edited June 14, 2016 by Gambit21

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Been there, this thread is a black hole of time that could be spent working

 

If there are missions that reward ferry/evac/etc. missions on multiplayer the addition of such types could actually be made. An air bridge would have interceptors sitting all across the routes and escorts similarly placed trying to get the goods through. Besides point rewards, keeping the besieged positions well-stocked could then trigger counter attacks or activate new frontline airfields.

[Gambit21]

That would be so much fun.

Getting kills is fine, but I let go of that 'need' a long time ago and for me it's just about the mission.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Same here. So far the biggest satisfaction I can get is from an escort flight. Bombers are to enemy fighters what candy is to ants, and when you go out in a pair and manage to fend off a whole flight of enemy fighters there's always a great feeling to it even if you have to crash-land due to damage and get no kills whatsoever.