Ok, sell me the Pacific theatre planes.

[Heliopause]

Bob Hoover talks about flying the P-39 in Timeless Voices

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/10-25-2016-bob-hoover-legendary-pilot-dies-at-age-94

(scroll down to see the clip of 48:53 min).

 

He showed it att to fellow pilots that you could do anything with it like you did in the P-40.

[Gambit21]

Which German pilot was it that asked Bud Anderson if he ever flew a P-39?

 

"Hit it any old place and it goes tumbling in"

[Lusekofte]

Honestly, what I want to see, and which is something no flight sim, that I know has done, I think , is ships to do evasive maneuvers when they are under dive/torpedo attacks.

 

 

I managed to make this happen in old IL 2 by testing out when ly will be over the target and make them turn hard. The trick was not too hard , because then they skid like in down hill skiing. It should be possible to make a trigger to make ships start turning when planes are over them

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Fyi, Microprose 1942 Pacific Air War had the ship evasive manuever built in.

With today's standards, simple circling and slowing down/speed up when plane is within certain trigger range logic may be less than stellar. That said, it had good number of features that were second to none at its time.

Microprose did many great things, their live Dynamic campaign for Falcon 4.0 is probably one of the best things in computer game history that will never be surpassed.

[Gambit21]

If only the rest of the sim worked!

Yeah, I was one the one's who excitedly went home with that binder on the day of release.

[Dakpilot]

Microprose did many great things, their live Dynamic campaign for Falcon 4.0 is probably one of the best things in computer game history that will never be surpassed.

 

And unlikely to be repeated seeing as it bankrupted the company

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[wtornado]

And unlikely to be repeated seeing as it bankrupted the company

 

Cheers Dakpilot

I game all types of games and know plenty of gamers and

flight sims 20 years ago and even today do not interest these

players.

 

My sons watched me play IL-2 for over a decade and are not

in the least bit interested in flying sims.They play everything else though.

 

Flight sims are not popular anymore and they never really were that popular in the first place.

 

There are not that many joystick companies today compared to 20 years ago for a reason.

 

That is why companies go bankrupt and I don't think it is very hard to go bankrupt either

with such a limited following.

 

When you have an audience and customers that buy your product you listen to them or disappear

like all the flight sims companies that disappeared have done due to lack of interest or just fading away.

[TheElf]

I game all types of games and know plenty of gamers and

flight sims 20 years ago and even today do not interest these

players.

 

My sons watched me play IL-2 for over a decade and are not

in the least bit interested in flying sims.They play everything else though.

 

Flight sims are not popular anymore and they never really were that popular in the first place.

 

There are not that many joystick companies today compared to 20 years ago for a reason.

 

That is why companies go bankrupt and I don't think it is very hard to go bankrupt either

with such a limited following.

 

When you have an audience and customers that buy your product you listen to them or disappear

like all the flight sims companies that disappeared have done due to lack of interest or just fading away.

 

 

I agree and disagree.  

 

I agree that Flightsims have been the least popular (or played rather) genre in the PC market.  

 

I disagree that Flightsims are not popular anymore.  I actually think they are more popular now than they ever have been!

 

I think the reason they have been the least popular is that of all the genres Flightsims are the hardest to get into from a cost of the peripherals to enjoy it properly, and a complexity standpoint.  War Thunder, for all its warts, has changed that.  The ONLY thing I thank WT for is creating a newfound interest in WWII combat.  There are countless new players that might never have picked up BoS or BoM if not for WT.  Once hooked on Air to Air Combat, there are few things in the PC gaming world that are as rewarding and fun as battling it out with another live opponent.  More so than twitching at a full sprint in CoD or BF1.

 

The problem with the Flightsim Genre has been with the way they have been developed and marketed.  I love Flightsims, but I have never picked up a copy of Flight Sim X.  Why?  Because there is no combat, no dynamic campaign, only wonderfully modeled aircraft of all sorts that are high fidelity that you can fly around in wonderfully detailed scenery.  Oh and you can flight plan and shoot approaches and practice take offs and landings...EFFING BORING.

 

Even DCS suffers from this mentality.  They are working toward a hopeful immersive WWII environment, and it looks somewhat promising, but damn, I'll be 62 (I am 42 now) by the time is comes out with ANYTHING like BoS has achieved already.  They have developed some beautiful models and systems, but the planes fly on rails, and the wildly produce planes that have no context with each other, although there WWII stable is a little better in that regard.  Probably the most concerning thing is their time to develop and provide a believable combat environment will be outpaced technology and by the time they reach their perceived nirvana their sim will seem dated and behind compared to competitors.

 

I also think 1C/777 are doing it right and have a HUGE advantage over the rest of the field.  Everything they have done to date has been better than the day before.  Sure there were some missteps in the early offing, sure they need to fix some things and keep improving, but they are poised to dominate the market.  Once new theaters start coming out, the cash flow will be there, and as long as they are on the current improving trend, I think the sky is the limit.  

 

This is a great time to be in the Flightsim community. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Great post, TheElf. Can't rep unfortunately, but imagine there's a 1 in the little square by the bottom right corner of the post.

 

The technology available today allows developers to really flesh out sims that can provide both intensity and depth, and though peripherals are a barrier, it's one that can be overcome by setting $50 aside whenever the chance appears, which is the cost of a basic but decent stick these days, and it will make for years of entertainment.

[Gambit21]

 

Even DCS suffers from this mentality.  They are working toward a hopeful immersive WWII environment, and it looks somewhat promising, but damn, I'll be 62 (I am 42 now) by the time is comes out with ANYTHING like BoS has achieved already.  

 

Exactly.

I don't bother even following it...I check in on their website every few years, so I'm due to pull up their page again in 2018 I guess.

Maybe there will be some decent Normandy "work in progress" shots by then.

 

Edit - come to think of it, by the time there's anything up and running making the download and install worth bothering with,  I'll be too busy flying my Zeke to give a flying #&*%

Edited November 5, 2016 by Gambit21

[ShamrockOneFive]

You guys have hit the nail on the head with the issues that I have with DCS. Their Normandy WIP shots look great and the Spitfire IX they just showed off looks great. Everything they are doing is really really good. But it lacks cohesion. A Bf109K-4 and FW190D-9 aren't really contemporaries to the Spitfire IX and only one of those three are suitable to a Normandy map. A little developer focus would be great there. Outside of the WWII stuff... they are doing incredibly cool stuff.

 

What I'm loving about 1CGS/777 is that we're getting these battle packages and when you get them you get 8-10 very relevant planes. Yeah we can have some arguments here and there but by and large...you get Stalingrad and you get a bunch of planes relevant to that time and battle. Moscow is the same. Kuban is the same. They are the right mix of diversity, developer time on complex types, and they are both useful and relevant to the battlespace. I'm looking forward to Midway and Okinawa too because I know we'll have 10 aircraft useful to those places and times. The Collector aircraft are a little further off in each of those products but they still fit in remarkably well. The Spit IX vs 109K-4 example doesn't by comparison.

 

So we can have some rousing discussions on just what aircraft should make it into Okinawa but I know from what the devs have done that we'll see a good mix of fighter, bomber, attacker, etc. that fit the battles that we're talking about. It'll have something for each of the types of players that use these aircraft and that has made it fun and the past and will make it so much fun in the future!

Edited November 5, 2016 by ShamrockOneFive

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

A Bf109K-4 and FW190D-9 aren't really contemporaries to the Spitfire IX

 

They would be if the DCS Spit IX is the 1944 version, which I guess it is?  With automatic radiators, supercharger and prop pitch (according to how 1946 portrays this version).

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

They would be if the DCS Spit IX is the 1944 version, which I guess it is? 

Not sure about that, last time mentioned it was running on pretty much similar boost as 1943 IXs. Just like P-51 which also is restricted to standard engine settings. You should ask for details MiloMorai, since he knows a lot about Spitty

But it certainly is not a direct competitor for 1945 K-4.

 

Still biggest disappointment of the year is F4U and Iwo Jima that were put on hold by Leathernecks.  

[Mac_Messer]

I'm sorry to interrupt this rant, but its not just one thread. We had quite a few threads on this boards related to Pacific long before it was even mentioned in Jason announcement, except speculation threads there are also suggestions, some threads in history and aviation section and even in free subject section. 

Yes, we do not know anything specific about actual Pacific expansion as of yet, probably because its anno Domini 2016, we are far from having Kuban and only close to getting Yak-1b/Ju-52 and most importantly DirectX 11 version of the game.

 

But based on Jason Q&A (just look how many questions were asked about PTO and how much Jason tried to explain his ideas, despite we are still having BoK in front of us) and those threads I'd say its not longer hypothetical, whether it will be Midway, New Guinea, Okinawa, Leyte or Burma its beyond doubt that next is Pacific, with great detail and attention given to naval aspect. And we can be sure that there will be a Zero and Wildcat somewhere, just like one would expect a 109 in any European expansion.    

 

And to top it, yes, we want it to succeed. With available technology things that were not possible 12 years ago, are now doable enhancing desire to have closest to reality Pacific combat simulator ever. 

 

I'd also like to raise counterargument, dont go on telling people how bad the prospects of Pacific are if you cant back it up - "and there is no reason to suspect different for Battle of Midway. If you`re saying the Midway/Guinea is going to save the series, it is a far fetched idea." It's not going to be easy, but somehow its being done for almost 20 years and there is no reason to believe that 1CGS cannot accomplish that as well. Not to mention that I dont think there is a need to "save" the series, implying that its about to step on a death row ...  

I wasn`t the one to imply that the series need saving, it was the people who posted about PTO coming to BoX series.

 

My reasoning is simple. It is not only more complicated, but it is harder both concept-wise and resource-wise. I`m not saying that it can`t be done, but IMO the devs are taking up too big of a challenge. It might be done, yes, but it will not have many of the features listed in the PTO threads. The expectations I see are already very high and I just don`t understand how can you pick such a hard theater of operations to make instead of choosing some of the safer options. Think about it - if the naval aspects proves to be limited or nearly not there, the people here who seem so enthusiatic will tear apart this game and 777. Those are real doubts I don`t need to back up, since all of them are based on realistic and rational thinking.

 

Maybe you`re right and this looks only like a frustrated rant and maybe I should just say "hey boys, let`s just all calm down a bit". I have no illusions - nothing I post here will make a difference. As a LW exclusive player I already have many of my toys flyable and accept that others need to receive theirs. I just think that we`re being a little too optimistic...?

[VBF-12_Snake9]

I wasn`t the one to imply that the series need saving,

 

 

I believe this guy said it.  

 

 

I feel like I am back in 2010 trying to keep Rise of Flight alive. It's 2016 and the same damn challenges remain before us as a team. The same question still haunts me - Can the market support a hardcore flight-sim? Yes it can, but it's not easy. I know the market for this kind of simulation is still big enough to ensure future titles, but we need everyone who is even remotely interested to buy in. If everyone who initially bought into BOS bought into BOK direct from on our website over the next couple months we'd be fine and guarantee another product will come. But there has been some decline in customers willing to make a purchase or they wait for Steam sales. I'm sure I know why, but now with our new plan we hope that interest will pick up and more direct purchases will come. A direct purchase from us now, helps us much more than a Steam purchase later. Steam takes a huge chunk of the money and the net revenue is no where near as much if you buy direct from us. Steam is great for pumping up numbers of players, but direct purchases has the most immediate impact and sustains us.  Bottom line is that we need your continued business and financial support for us to make our entire plan or more become a reality. If I sound desperate or like a beggar I don't care. A big part of your hobby is at risk and will continue to be at risk for a long time without your support. We can't change the past. All we can do now is try to give you a combat-sim product you asked for and will love. Please help spread the word and if you can afford to buy in please do so.

[ShamrockOneFive]

They would be if the DCS Spit IX is the 1944 version, which I guess it is?  With automatic radiators, supercharger and prop pitch (according to how 1946 portrays this version).

 

I'm not sure what version. It's a LF.IX I'm fairly certain but still not sure what boost its running.

 

My point is that the Bf109K-4 came later than the Normandy campaign. So they will have a Normandy map with a RAF aircraft that is at home with it and three other types that didn't. Doesn't seem like great planning from the outside... Maybe they have a great plan behind the scenes and it will all come together.

[BlitzPig_EL]

 Maybe they have a great plan behind the scenes and it will all come together.

 

Yes, all they will need is another 10 to 15 years and they will have the number of planes we have right now, maybe...

 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It's a funny thing, considering that DCS more or less set the current format in stone with Lock On following up the Flanker series, by offering six aircraft (MiG-29A, S, Su-27, Su-25A, A-10A, F-15C) with fitting map and comprehensive set of vehicles, then added something similar to 'collector aircraft' with the Su-25T and then the Ka-50 and A-10C, but somewhere along the way things started having great growth but without a proper common direction.

 

But I look forward to the Pacific in this Il-2. Kuban is great for them to learn the ropes of naval warfare, and then we'll see what probably will be the best Pacific flight sim interpretation ever

[wtornado]

I agree and disagree.  

 

I agree that Flightsims have been the least popular (or played rather) genre in the PC market.  

 

I disagree that Flightsims are not popular anymore.  I actually think they are more popular now than they ever have been!

 

I think the reason they have been the least popular is that of all the genres Flightsims are the hardest to get into from a cost of the peripherals to enjoy it properly, and a complexity standpoint.  War Thunder, for all its warts, has changed that.  The ONLY thing I thank WT for is creating a newfound interest in WWII combat.  There are countless new players that might never have picked up BoS or BoM if not for WT.  Once hooked on Air to Air Combat, there are few things in the PC gaming world that are as rewarding and fun as battling it out with another live opponent.  More so than twitching at a full sprint in CoD or BF1.

 

The problem with the Flightsim Genre has been with the way they have been developed and marketed.  I love Flightsims, but I have never picked up a copy of Flight Sim X.  Why?  Because there is no combat, no dynamic campaign, only wonderfully modeled aircraft of all sorts that are high fidelity that you can fly around in wonderfully detailed scenery.  Oh and you can flight plan and shoot approaches and practice take offs and landings...EFFING BORING.

 

Even DCS suffers from this mentality.  They are working toward a hopeful immersive WWII environment, and it looks somewhat promising, but damn, I'll be 62 (I am 42 now) by the time is comes out with ANYTHING like BoS has achieved already.  They have developed some beautiful models and systems, but the planes fly on rails, and the wildly produce planes that have no context with each other, although there WWII stable is a little better in that regard.  Probably the most concerning thing is their time to develop and provide a believable combat environment will be outpaced technology and by the time they reach their perceived nirvana their sim will seem dated and behind compared to competitors.

 

I also think 1C/777 are doing it right and have a HUGE advantage over the rest of the field.  Everything they have done to date has been better than the day before.  Sure there were some missteps in the early offing, sure they need to fix some things and keep improving, but they are poised to dominate the market.  Once new theaters start coming out, the cash flow will be there, and as long as they are on the current improving trend, I think the sky is the limit.  

 

This is a great time to be in the Flightsim community. 

I get what you are saying but only one thing will decide this game's fate.

 

Game buyers and money nothing else no matter how strong even if it is small the community is.

 

At least 1c is doing better with this than CLoD was with Ubisoft.

 

I know I know I said the ''U'' word.

[Gambit21]

they have a great plan behind the scenes and it will all come together.

 

...an alternate reality war where the Mig21, Dora, F-86, Spitfire, Mig-15, Mustang and L-39 all clash over the skies of the Las Vegas desert!

In that case looks like the final release is close.

 

For anything else...Skynet will kill us all first.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Not sure about that, last time mentioned it was running on pretty much similar boost as 1943 IXs. Just like P-51 which also is restricted to standard engine settings. You should ask for details MiloMorai, since he knows a lot about Spitty But it certainly is not a direct competitor for 1945 K-4.

DCS's Spitfire and DCS 109 K4 are aircraft that both served in 1944 in real life. Over the Normandy? No. But at the same time. Did 190 serve in Stalingrad? Did the P40-E(!) serve around Moscow in 1941? Or the Mc202? No...so i can't see too much difference in that respect. 

You could also say that BoM 109-E7 and BoM Mig-3 (very) late amazing prototyp performance are no direct competitors, since the E7 was out one year sooner.

Mk9 served until the end of the war, as did the P51-D.

 

Would i have prefered a G10 or a G14/AS over the K4? Definitely..same goes for A9 over Dora...

 

But this constant chatter, that the planes don't fit together historically just isn't right. They give the Germans an advantage regarding choice of aircraft, when compared to historical numbers, that's sure. As does BoM in favour of the Soviets.

[Gambit21]

ugh

Edited November 21, 2016 by Gambit21

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

DCS's Spitfire and DCS 109 K4 are aircraft that both served in 1944 in real life. Over the Normandy? No. But at the same time. Did 190 serve in Stalingrad? Did the P40-E(!) serve around Moscow in 1941? Or the Mc202? No...so i can't see too much difference in that respect. 

You could also say that BoM 109-E7 and BoM Mig-3 (very) late amazing prototyp performance are no direct competitors, since the E7 was out one year sooner.

Mk9 served until the end of the war, as did the P51-D.

 

Would i have prefered a G10 or a G14/AS over the K4? Definitely..same goes for A9 over Dora...

 

But this constant chatter, that the planes don't fit together historically just isn't right. They give the Germans an advantage regarding choice of aircraft, when compared to historical numbers, that's sure. As does BoM in favour of the Soviets.

 

I don't think it gives that much advantage to the Soviets... could it have been worse? Well yes, if they made the Soviet fighters be an I-153 and a first series LaGG (the one which was heavy, underpowered and had a lot of unnecessary guns).

 

But at the same time they could have had better planes for the Soviets, like for example a P-40C and an early Yak.

 

Speaking of this "good and not that good" fighter set up... looks like for BoK it kinda fades away... as there aren't clearly many "fighter tier" differences between the Bf-109 G4 and the Fw-190 A5, both are the top of the German fighters there. I think it's kinda the same for Yak-7B and the P-39, not thaat much difference, if instead of Yak-7B it was a Yak-9 or Yak-1B then yes they would be on the same level 100%... just the 7B would be a little slower than those.

[JG1_Daze]

For me it's immersion. Il2,  ROF , CLOD or DCS or whichever has the most.  Too much focus on plane count and not enough on game play.  I can't take 6 months to learn the A10c as much as I would like to I just can't .  IL2 46 looks good enough for me but no matter what if  there's no good game play the eye candy does keep my interest

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

I don't think it gives that much advantage to the Soviets... could it have been worse? Well yes, if they made the Soviet fighters be an I-153 and a first series LaGG (the one which was heavy, underpowered and had a lot of unnecessary guns).   But at the same time they could have had better planes for the Soviets, like for example a P-40C and an early Yak.

 

Normal Mig3 with topspeed of around 470kph at ground level, I15, I16, and early Yak/Lagg against mainly F4 and F2 would be representational of the Moscow campaign in autumn/winter 41. Early Yak is definitely not better then the Mig we have in game, nor is the P40-C (when we take the modeling of the E as example). But that would have been kinda lopsided in terms of balance, so i am fine with the setup we have.

 

 

 

Speaking of this "good and not that good" fighter set up... looks like for BoK it kinda fades away... as there aren't clearly many "fighter tier" differences between the Bf-109 G4 and the Fw-190 A5, both are the top of the German fighters there. I think it's kinda the same for Yak-7B and the P-39, not thaat much difference, if instead of Yak-7B it was a Yak-9 or Yak-1B then yes they would be on the same level 100%... just the 7B would be a little slower than those.

 

BoK aircraft setup (+Yak 1B) is in terms of history by far the best representation of what happened in real life, from those 3. I think it's very good, with addition of La5F and G6 for the latter stages of Kuban, it would be perfect. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Normal Mig3 with topspeed of around 470kph at ground level, I15, I16, and early Yak/Lagg against mainly F4 and F2 would be representational of the Moscow campaign in autumn/winter 41. Early Yak is definitely not better then the Mig we have in game, nor is the P40-C (when we take the modeling of the E as example). But that would have been kinda lopsided in terms of balance, so i am fine with the setup we have.

 

BoK aircraft setup (+Yak 1B) is in terms of history by far the best representation of what happened in real life, from those 3. I think it's very good, with addition of La5F and G6 for the latter stages of Kuban, it would be perfect. 

 

I thought of P-40C being better than I-16, and the Yak-1 favoring more low altitude combat and being more agile than the MiG-3, vs the E7/F2 lineup. I think a P-40C might not be as bad as the P-40E because it would be more agile and have better climbrate, although a bit slower and less powerfull armament (we'll see it's effectiveness when we have the P-39 without firing the cannon). A Bf-109 F4 in 1941 would have engine limitations making it more or less the same than the F2?

 

I agree BoK set up is the best so far, I don't know how the proportion of Yaks was in the battle (Yak-1s vs Yak-7s vs Yak-9s) but would prefer a Yak-9 over the Yak-7B as it's one of the new fighters introduced in that time, and it gives playability for later scenarios like the Yak-1B.  Well in that case the Yak-7B was also present in Battle of Stalingrad so it's kinda the same but backwards.. so really don't know what to conclude appart from " we need more plane slots, gotta cover them all D: "

Edited November 8, 2016 by SuperEtendard

[ShamrockOneFive]

I thought of P-40C being better than I-16, and the Yak-1 favoring more low altitude combat and being more agile than the MiG-3, vs the E7/F2 lineup. I think a P-40C might not be as bad as the P-40E because it would be more agile and have better climbrate, although a bit slower and less powerfull armament (we'll see it's effectiveness when we have the P-39 without firing the cannon). A Bf-109 F4 in 1941 would have engine limitations making it more or less the same than the F2?

 

I agree BoK set up is the best so far, I don't know how the proportion of Yaks was in the battle (Yak-1s vs Yak-7s vs Yak-9s) but would prefer a Yak-9 over the Yak-7B as it's one of the new fighters introduced in that time, and it gives playability for later scenarios like the Yak-1B.  Well in that case the Yak-7B was also present in Battle of Stalingrad so it's kinda the same but backwards.. so really don't know what to conclude appart from " we need more plane slots, gotta cover them all D: "

 

I would love the Yak-9 as well but it sounds like that might be saved for a future Battle. More slots would be great but I guess its down to the time spent modeling, programming, and doing the flight models for all of them. Definitely limits how many you can do a year... without a much larger team. But obviously there are issues to having that too!

 

I think they made a good call with the Yak-7B. It's a common type across all areas of the Eastern front, it was used at Stalingrad extensively and its still very much in the battle at Kuban. Some Yak-7Bs were still in frontline squadrons even in the following year though many of those would have the cut down fuselage like the Yak-9 (essentially being Yak-9 models).

 

Overall BoK has a great aircraft lineup. A mix of some very interesting types!

[Spindrift]

-I don't identify with participants. PTO was a separate conflict involving Japanese and Americans (and colonial forces of Europan powers/Commonwealth), that happened to run parallel to WW2, with little impact on other participants other than bringing US into the war on other theatres. It's little less abstract subject than, say, Samoan civil war of 1886. Or football. 

 

WOW. ("run parallel to WW2?" In the US, it's viewed as at least HALF OF IT. LOL!)

 

I would just like to mention now, full disclosure, that before the original IL-2, I wasn't aware that Russia was even all that involved in WW2. I'm serious. Although I was a HORRIBLY IGNORANT 14 or 15 year-old at the time (and they say we have a first-rate education system in America  ).

 

I for one am THRILLED for the Pacific, especially the A6M2 in this sim engine... I grew in fascination with Russian AC and their history, because of the old IL-2, I'm sure you will have the same experience with the PTO and it's belligerents, if you keep an open mind to it (little hint... that's the key to EVERYTHING). 

 

 

 

Davie

Edited November 9, 2016 by Spindrift

[Luftschiff]

 

 

(and they say we have a first-rate education system in America  )

Yes, those are indeed, most certainly the words commonly used to describe the US Educational system. 

[Gambit21]

I became familiar with the air war in the east through IL2 back in the day. Of course in our school system we're taught that we saved the world with the Normandy invasion. Meanwhile it was the Russians who did most of the fighting and dying.

 

Now those less familiar with the Pacific may become inspired to learn more about that theater.

Not to mention gain some appreciation of what is to me the most beautiful aircraft of WWII - The Zeke

[Spindrift]

Now those less familiar with the Pacific may become inspired to learn more about that theater.

Not to mention gain some appreciation of what is to me the most beautiful aircraft of WWII - The Zeke

Hear hear!

[hames123]

If you think that the Pacific would not be well-liked, you are mistaken. I am not an American fanboy, and in fact would have prefered the Med, and to be able to fly some RAF aircraft, but as long as there are good multiplayer servers with objectives, and scope for Close Air Support, then I think most people would enjoy flying over the jungles and oceans of many Pacific Islands.(Devs please add a Seafire).

[ShamrockOneFive]

If you think that the Pacific would not be well-liked, you are mistaken. I am not an American fanboy, and in fact would have prefered the Med, and to be able to fly some RAF aircraft, but as long as there are good multiplayer servers with objectives, and scope for Close Air Support, then I think most people would enjoy flying over the jungles and oceans of many Pacific Islands.(Devs please add a Seafire).

 

Don't worry, we convinced him I think :D

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

There is somewhere a thread about flying with one wing and picture was posted about famous Kanichi "One Wing" Kashimura. 

Here is a video sequence showing the aircraft shortly before landing:

Found here (further details and story are provided) : http://www.aviationofjapan.com/2016/11/clipped-wing-claude.html

 

Kashimura was one heck of a pilot but somewhat a loner and a strict teetotaler, wasn't particularly liked by many of the pilots he was flying with due to his cocky attitude. When he was injured in Rabaul, he was only visited in hospital by his two former apprentices, Isamu Miyazaki and Tetsuo Kamada who despite teachers attitude respected him and treated like friend due to all he taught them when they were green pilots. Kashimura was probably very expecting teacher and to many young pilots that could be a problem.One way or another an incident is know which never was fully investigated, on March 6th Kashimura led a buntai of Zeros escorting a group of D3A dive bombers to Russell Islands and were intercepted by P-39 fighters, which concentrated on dive bombers. Two Zeros failed to return, one was supposedly shot down by SBD gunner (a flight of Dauntless dive bombers was somewhere nearby), the other Zero was the one that belonged to Kashimura. The official story is that his wingmen PO1/c Fukumori and CPO Akiyoshi got separated from leader and saw him engage a group of 18 American fighters, of which Kashimura managed to shoot down one before he was killed.

There is however a discussion if in fact Kashimura had been "fragged" by friendly fire, the rumor comes from the fact that Kashimura and Akiyoshi had a fight before, and that a former 2nd wingmen in Kashimura flight, PO2/c Mitsuo Hori was wounded before and transferred to Formosa which was a heavy blow to Akiyoshi who was his best friend. Truth wont probably be ever known since Akiyoshi was in 1944 killed over Iwo-Jima.