Ok, sell me the Pacific theatre planes.

[Rolling_Thunder]

True, but there was a RN carrier TF involved in the Okinawa operations, Jason has already said, IIRC, that he will consider including it. I doubt that will happen, since I expect the team will have their hands full with portraying the US machines alone, but we shall see.

  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet

 

 

 

Though Seafires main issue was range, even with external fuel tanks it still had limited capabilities and couldnt operate far from carrier.

 

I'd love to see a FAA corsair in this game. There's something about the royal navy cammo, BPF roundels and the clipped wings. A lot of different nationalities flew with the FAA as well as the RAF Im not sure a FAA corsair collector aircraft would sell well but I can dream.

[ShamrockOneFive]

   I'd love to see a FAA corsair in this game. There's something about the royal navy cammo, BPF roundels and the clipped wings. A lot of different nationalities flew with the FAA as well as the RAF Im not sure a FAA corsair collector aircraft would sell well but I can dream.

 

I think we should make a case of it when the time comes. The BPF was discussed during the Q&A and Jason seemed receptive to the general idea of it being there. With very very little effort we can have nearly the whole lineup of aircraft by virtue of them being nearly the same as the US Navy versions.

 

I'd love the attention to detail of having the slightly clipped wings as well... but I'll reluctantly accept the US Navy Corsair version with a beautiful splash of FAA paint.

 

To show you guys how beautiful they can be... Here's a photo I took a couple of years ago with Vintage Wings of Canada's Corsair Mark IV (F4U-1D) painted to represent Canadian pilot Robert Hampton "Hammy" Gray VC DSC aircraft. It's from 1841 Squadron, HMS Formidable during the Okinawa battle.

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by ShamrockOneFive

[Rolling_Thunder]

Although I've stated the planeset and the continuation of the Eastern front doesn't interest me I'm encouraged by the direction jasons posts are pointing towards. With the prospect of the Pacific war on the horizon I'm seriously considering throwing my support into the new direction by purchasing kuban.

Great photo shamrock

Edited September 16, 2016 by Rolling_Blunder

[xThrottle_Geek]

Ok, so here are a couple of pics from the National Naval Aviation Museum at NAS Pensacola. I snapped these about 3 weeks ago on vacation. Several should get fans of the PTO excited.

 

P-40

 

F4F

 

F4U

 

SBD Dauntless & TBF Avenger

This specific Dauntless is supposedly the only known surviving member of its type from the Battle of Midway

 

An N1K I believe.. (someone help me out here)

 

Enjoy!

[ShamrockOneFive]

An N1K2 to be specific. The N1K1 had a midwing arrangement while the N1K2 had a lower wing setup. Fantastic fighter that I hope to see over Okinawa!

[xThrottle_Geek]

Thanks for pointing that out Shamrock! I couldn't remember what the sign had read. 

[itsmecamille]

Regarding the use of radial engines, as far as I remember (from a Wildcat doco I watched last week in fact), this was a requirement imposed by the USN in the design of all carrier borne aircraft, and the reason cited in this doco was that the US aircraft carriers had their space to handle radial engine - but I also remember reading about some of the advantages of having air cooled engines on carrier in terms of maintenance.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Another reason for the preference of the Navy for radials is that they don't have to waste storage space for keeping quantities of glycol coolant on board, and also one less thing to have taking up precious space in your entire supply chain.

 

Remember that replenishment at sea was a far cry from what we have today.

 

Early on most engagements lasted a day or two, then had the carriers running back to some base for repair and replenishment.   Which is why both our Navy and the IJN had a tremendous fear of land based aircraft.  Their "carrier" didn't have to run home every few weeks, and could carry on sustained campaigns in a way that the navies only could dream about.

 

Midway lasted 2 days, New Guinea was a 2 year+ long meat grinder, that decimated the cadre of the most experienced Imperial Japanese Army pilots.

[TheElf]

Both Bltiz and ptisinge are correct.  The most important thing to a Naval Aviator is reliability.  Radials were known to be more robust, easier to maintain, and capable of taking damage and still getting their craft back home.  Inline, liquid cooled engines were more delicate and more prone to critical failures when ridden hard or damaged.

 

Even today, Naval Aircraft are equipped with 2 engines for the same reasons.  The F-35 is first single engine Combat Aircraft to grace the deck of the aircraft carrier since the A-7 Corsair, and that is only because LM and PW claim uber-reliability in the F135.  We'll see...

[Bearfoot]

Regarding the dominance of radial engines, the reason given here, 

 

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=208642

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3hyzh8/in_world_war_ii_why_were_single_engine_fighter

 

at least of the USN are:

 

(1) Regulations

(2) Primary reasons for above: weight (as in power to weight ratio), reliability, ease of maintenance

 

For the IJN, it was, in addition to (2), manufacturing/technological constraints, at least early on.

 

Of course, the source for all of this is the "internet". So, especially from the IJN perspective, perhaps someone with access to the history of the development of the Zero fighter, mentioned in this thread, could illuminate/clarify/confirm?

Edited September 16, 2016 by Bearfoot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Of course, the source for all of this is the "internet". So, especially from the IJN perspective, perhaps someone with access to the history of the development of the Zero fighter, mentioned in this thread, could illuminate/clarify/confirm?

To simply put it, yes, Japanese had limited access to inline engines. They werent all that popular either. The only inline engine manufacturer was Kawasaki which carried limited research and in 1930s relied on contacts with BWM relations, which started in somewhat uncomfortable way for Germans. Japan was granted a license rights for BMW water-cooled inline aero-engines as part of reparations after WWI. Kawasaki made effort to improve relations and in 1927 obtained license for a new 450-600 HP BMW VI engines. Throughout 1930s Kawasaki regularly "updated" their licenses, in 1932 acquiring BWM VII. From September 1933, Kawasaki began production of BMW IX with a mechanical supercharger, giving up to 800 HP, since engine was not mass produced in Germany Japanese used it as an opportunity to begin their own research and development. BMW IX was known as Ha-9 in Japanese engine naming system. Engine supercharger was found unreliable, and so Kawasaki made own efforts to improve it. This resulted in release of Ha-9-I and later Ha-9-IIa which was  a de-rated version to improve reliability. This engine was adopted in Ki-10 "Perry" fighter, a modern biplane fighter used by Japanese Army.

At the end of BWM engine road in Kawasaki was Ha-9-IIb, entering service in 1938. An 850 HP inline engine which powered Type 98 Light Bomber (Ki-32) and had improved altitude performance but engine proved to be the maximum extension of technology dating back to mid 1920s. After 1938 as BWM was no longer involved in any development of liquid-cooled inline engines, Kawasaki approached Daimler Benz obtaining DB 601 Aa, which was modified and served as Ha-40 inline engine, powering Ki-61. Kawasaki after that time increased research team and its funds which resulted in independent development of 1500 HP version of Ha-40, known as Ha-140 - quite similar in dimensions to DB 601E but with performance closer to DB 605. There were also few interesting designs, where they tried to combine two Ha-40s to power a single shaft but it didnt extend beyond prototype phase.

 

Second manufacturer of inline engines in Japan was Aichi, though they had much lesser experience and result was somewhat unreliable AE1A Aichi Atsuta 1200 HP engine which was based on DB 601A as well. As you are aware, Japanese Navy and Army rivalry existed and so Aichi was basically forced to obtain license from Daimler Benz independently from the Kawasaki. This resulted in some engine differences, most notably fuel injection system - as neither company was given rights to manufacture Bosch system, Kawasaki approached Mitsubishi which designed and provided own fuel injection system while Aichi made their own (although some sources say that later on more reliable Mitsubishi injection system replaced Aichi design anyway). 

AE1A was later on modified and upgraded to a 1400 HP AE1P with much better altitude performance (over 350 HP more at 5000 meters than AE1A).

Atsuta was used in D4Y Judy dive bombers.

 

In regard to the Zero itself there were no options for other engines than given in 12-Shi specification from 1937 - Navy gave option for two radial engines, Mitsubishi Zuisei 13 or Mitsubishi Kinsei 46. Horikoshi chose the first one, only later it was replaced by new Nakajima Sakae 12. Some people question Horikoshi choice for the engine, as if he should have decided the latter one, Kinsei. But with strict requirements, that initially seemed impossible to satisfy, he made right decision. As he explained himself, Kinsei while deliver almost 200 HP more than Zuisei, was a larger and heavier engine that consumed more fuel - this would require larger airframe (and so reducing drag would be even greater issue) and would affect weight of the design, which was supposed to meet specific requirements of landing speeds and handling.

 

Overall inline engine designs were in Japan somewhat overshadowed by radial engines, simply due to lack of own development and requirements of more robust engines (in 1930s radials were a lot more reliable than inline engines) which is extremely important for any naval aircraft. And it didn't help that only two inline engine manufacturers were Kawasaki and Aichi, a second rate companies as considered by Americans with smaller teams and lesser funds to carry extensive development. 

[BSS_Vidar]

I'm excited about the PTO coming, but I'm still not a fan of the Flight Modeling of this current series. Hope improvements and changes are coming in that regard. Forget landing on the boat with those bouncing characteristics!

 

My biggest concerns are the accurate limitations of these aircraft represented properly, particularly the Zero. In 1946, the Zeke could be used as a B-n-Z aircraft, in many cases running down Corsairs and P-38's. The F-6F while heavier, still had the power-to-weight to accelerate in the climb and easily catch a Zeke in the vertical. 1946, it flew like it was dragging an ACME Anvil! The Zeke was terrible in a dive and it's controls locked up over 250kts in a dive. The IJN prohibited dives because many pilots (that were mistaken as Kamikaze) were simply auguring in due to elevator compressibility. It also could not roll to the right due to engine torque in a very light airframe. U.S. fighters saving grace was to roll right and dive.

 

In the BSS, we have over 2/3rds of our members not active because there is not a new PTO sim. This will bring them back! That's just one squadron. Imagine the interest world-wide.

 

In regards to flying around the carrier, if you need to learn how to do it, ANYONE is free to join in with us on-line and we'll show you how to do it right. I have written a CV OPS guide that is referenced directly for the U.S. Navy's CV NATOPS manual, and is available for anyone to read in our Tech Manuals on our website  BSS214.com. It's called "CQ/Formation Flying Guide"

 

V

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

I'm excited about the PTO coming, but I'm still not a fan of the Flight Modeling of this current series. Hope improvements and changes are coming in that regard. Forget landing on the boat with those bouncing characteristics!

 

 

V

Bouncing is soon a thing of the past... New ground behaviour is on the way

 

https://youtu.be/CMILz8dgyP8

Edited September 16, 2016 by SvAF/F19_Klunk

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

My biggest concerns are the accurate limitations of these aircraft represented properly, particularly the Zero. In 1946, the Zeke could be used as a B-n-Z aircraft, in many cases running down Corsairs and P-38's. The F-6F while heavier, still had the power-to-weight to accelerate in the climb and easily catch a Zeke in the vertical. 1946, it flew like it was dragging an ACME Anvil! The Zeke was terrible in a dive and it's controls locked up over 250kts in a dive. The IJN prohibited dives because many pilots (that were mistaken as Kamikaze) were simply auguring in due to elevator compressibility. It also could not roll to the right due to engine torque in a very light airframe. U.S. fighters saving grace was to roll right and dive.

 

Despite over exaggerating reports of some US pilots and intelligence,  for the most Zero remained a very dangerous opponent even during all successful Battle of Philippines Sea (also known as Turkey Shoot). And when it comes to realism, old Il-2 is not best example. It's flight model files back then had only 32 inputs if I'm not mistaken, making in painfully limiting. 

Later changes and mods tried to address that, in particular Target Rabaul was promising but at the end nothing came out of it. 

 

For the record, Zeke pilots (at least those with some training and experience, not late war rookies) exploited altitude and energy advantage like everyone else, trying to maintain superiority and reclimbing after pass. Zero has sufficient power to weight ratio to do that and it can push a lot further than F4U due to low stall speed. 

 

Zero had elevator stiffening like every other fighter of that time and design, dives were not prohibited by any means. A steep and prolonged dives were prohibited with a speed limit of 340 knots Indicated (though actual A6M2 was safely flown up to 365 knots, pullouts were normally executed). Observed skin wrinkling at high speed and high G maneuvers was fixed by additional bolts placed on surfaces experiencing highest loads. What locked during high speeds was ailerons, those were becoming heavy and very heavy with speeds in excess of 220-250 knots Indicated. And that certainly should be portrayed here, as well as very good roll characteristics at low speeds, around 100 to 150 knots Indicated. And aircraft certainly could roll to the right, it however for the mentioned torque, had worse roll rate to that side and thus pilots preferred to roll to the left. 

 

Here is one of the best articles trying to actually address discrepancies of A6M2 performance: http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm

[Cloyd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrC3puZ8cwY

 

I'm sure many of you have seen this already.

 

This is the guy I'm trying to simulate - some rich guy who could buy and fly WW2 warbirds. I'm not really interested in simulating the horror and terror of war anymore. But, if I can do just a little brain-squint and imagine that I'm Kermit Weeks in his Wildcat, I'm all in.

 

But, I also still do enjoy pretending that I'm scrambling from Henderson Field against incoming Bettys. I imagine that Kermit did that too.

 

Cloyd

Edited September 16, 2016 by Cloyd

[Gambit21]

 

But, I also still do enjoy pretending that I'm scrambling from Henderson Field against incoming Bettys. I imagine that Kermit did that too.

 

Cloyd

 

"40 bombers headed yours"

[Bearfoot]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrC3puZ8cwY

 

I'm sure many of you have seen this already.

 

This is the guy I'm trying to simulate - some rich guy who could buy and fly WW2 warbirds. I'm not really interested in simulating the horror and terror of war anymore. But, if I can do just a little brain-squint and imagine that I'm Kermit Weeks in his Wildcat, I'm all in.

 

But, I also still do enjoy pretending that I'm scrambling from Henderson Field against incoming Bettys. I imagine that Kermit did that too.

 

Cloyd

 

 

Thanks for sharing that video. Yes, for me, too, at the heart it's all about the flying. Shooting/blowing things up is fun too.  But the flying comes first.

[Ace_Pilto]

Haha +1 for Kermie cam!

[DD_Arthur]

I want to see them blow up realistically when hit and limp onwards or slowly sink below the waves, etc, etc.

 

Oh and the sea must be PERFECT. Add in a few seagulls  while you`re at it. It`s all about immersion, not just the aircraft, so many people get this wrong. 

 

 

Hello seafire   I hope this can give you some flavour of what RoF can do at the moment.

 

 

From what Jason said on the Q & A session I got the impression he really wants to push the boat out for Midway.

[Freycinet]

"World War II", the clue is in the name. PTO, bring it on!

[Mattress]

I'm not entirely opposed to the PTO, but I'm wondering who would actually play the Japanese? I mostly play singleplayer, so it's not a huge deal to me, but I know lots of people on here are MP-only. In War Thunder (I know, I know, it's arcadey and PTW) the Japanese nation is easily the least played. Last I played it (a few years back), there was one US vs British map that was constantly being played because there were just no Japanese players. Pacific maps were also generally less played in 1946 from what I saw.

Personally, I might dabble in some US Navy aircraft (even if I find their Western Europe theater aircraft more interesting) and I would love to fly Seafires and Sea Hurricanes if the British were in, but I would likely fly the Japanese aircraft little. I'm just envisioning a fairly small PTO MP playerbase already, by nature of the theater and its popularity - but then there will be an even smaller subset of that somewhat small subset, who are willing to fly the Japanese aircraft.

 

I agree with others who have called for MTO or Western Front campaigns - basically something where the only available "bad guy" isn't the Japanese. I saw a suggestion for the Gustav Line, which seemed really interesting. Something that is often forgotten in sims (and in general) would be the multiple Finnish wars of WW2 - you would have extreme variety for the Finnish across multiple expansions, while being able to have both the Russians and Germans as enemies. Really though, I kind of feel like just about anything non-Japanese (or something where the "bad guys" are the Japanese PLUS someone else) would be more popular for MP, and likely more popular for SP too.

 

Edit: For the record, I really don't have much of a stake in this - I play a lot of games and sims and I come back to BoS every now and then. I'm not emotionally attached so I won't care all that much if I have to skip multiple PTO expansions for a few years. Just thought it might be good to hear a dissenting voice from someone who isn't clearly emotional about it. I may be 1 in 1000 too - maybe everyone really does like the PTO and Japanese aircraft. I just feel like this could be a bad move financially for the sim.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Mattress

[Bearfoot]

I'm not entirely opposed to the PTO, but I'm wondering who would actually play the Japanese? I mostly play singleplayer, so it's not a huge deal to me, but I know lots of people on here are MP-only. In War Thunder (I know, I know, it's arcadey and PTW) the Japanese nation is easily the least played. Last I played it (a few years back), there was one US vs British map that was constantly being played because there were just no Japanese players. Pacific maps were also generally less played in 1946 from what I saw.

Personally, I might dabble in some US Navy aircraft (even if I find their Western Europe theater aircraft more interesting) and I would love to fly Seafires and Sea Hurricanes if the British were in, but I would likely fly the Japanese aircraft little. I'm just envisioning a fairly small PTO MP playerbase already, by nature of the theater and its popularity - but then there will be an even smaller subset of that somewhat small subset, who are willing to fly the Japanese aircraft.

 

I agree with others who have called for MTO or Western Front campaigns - basically something where the only available "bad guy" isn't the Japanese. I saw a suggestion for the Gustav Line, which seemed really interesting. Something that is often forgotten in sims (and in general) would be the multiple Finnish wars of WW2 - you would have extreme variety for the Finnish across multiple expansions, while being able to have both the Russians and Germans as enemies. Really though, I kind of feel like just about anything non-Japanese (or something where the "bad guys" are the Japanese PLUS someone else) would be more popular for MP, and likely more popular for SP too.

 

Edit: For the record, I really don't have much of a stake in this - I play a lot of games and sims and I come back to BoS every now and then. I'm not emotionally attached so I won't care all that much if I have to skip multiple PTO expansions for a few years. Just thought it might be good to hear a dissenting voice from someone who isn't clearly emotional about it. I may be 1 in 1000 too - maybe everyone really does like the PTO and Japanese aircraft. I just feel like this could be a bad move financially for the sim.

 

What's funny is that on another thread, someone was saying the exact opposite: that they anticipate most people flying the Japanese planes of the US, and was lamenting at the predicted imbalance the other way!

 

Goes to show, that it is often difficult to predict the future when extrapolating from our own idiosyncratic experiences, which may or may not capture the general reality!

 

I actually agree with the post on the other thread: I suspect that more people will fly the Zero than the Wildcat because you have to be a better pilot with better tactics to best the Zero in a Wildcat, as in most of the readily apparent aspects, the Zero outperforms the Wildcat easily. People like uber-planes. I cannot speak for the WT crowd's preference for US planes over Japanese. Perhaps the differences in the performance get washed out in the cartoonish flight models so there's not much to choose in terms of planes and people go for country? Maybe because WT is dedicated more toward blowing things out the sky rather than simulating flight and combat that people pick their rides based on nationalism rather than mechanics or aesthetics?

 

For me the flying comes first. And I love the Japanese planes. The Zero and the Val and the Kate. So that's what I'm going to fly. I suspect lots of other people will feel the same, i.e. fly the aircraft they like rather than the flag.

 

Having said that, I might change my mind once I get some virtual stick time in the various new a/c. It's happened before. E.g. I was sure that I the Spit would be my ride in CLOD. And in DCS, I thought it would be the FW-109. But for some reason in both cases, once I actually got behind the virtual sticks, I fell in love with flying the Bf-109 in both sims over the Spit and the FW-190 respectively. I just loved the way in flew, temperamental and all (especially the K-model in DCS). It has been my go-to fighter ever since. Would not have predicted that. 

Edited September 19, 2016 by Bearfoot

[Mattress]

What's funny is that on another thread, someone was saying the exact opposite: that they anticipate most people flying the Japanese planes of the US, and was lamenting at the predicted imbalance the other way!

 

Goes to show, that it is often difficult to predict the future when extrapolating from our own idiosyncratic experiences, which may or may not capture the general reality!

 

I actually agree with the post on the other thread: I suspect that more people will fly the Zero than the Wildcat because you have to be a better pilot with better tactics to best the Zero in a Wildcat, as in most of the readily apparent aspects, the Zero outperforms the Wildcat easily. People like uber-planes. I cannot speak for the WT crowd's preference for US planes over Japanese. Perhaps the differences in the performance get washed out in the cartoonish flight models so there's not much to choose in terms of planes and people go for country? Maybe because WT is dedicated more toward blowing things out the sky rather than simulating flight and combat that people pick their rides based on nationalism rather than mechanics or aesthetics?

 

It certainly could turn out that way - people might find an "advantage" (at least when it's two lower-skilled players fighting) in the Zero. Like I said, I'm just speculating; I certainly hope it works out well, because I'd like there to be more IL-2. 

As for War Thunder, the flight models really aren't at all as arcadey as they are made out to be on here. No, they aren't as good as IL-2 nor DCS nor ATAG CLoD, but the Zeros handle approximately like they should and the Cats and Corsairs do too. At one point, back when the FMs really were atrocious, the Zero could 'helicopter' (point its nose upwards and maintain altitude indefinitely) and was renowned for being very incorrect and also very overpowered. Yet the Japanese were still hardly used. I also don't think many will see them as 'uber planes', given their extremely poor historical record. Perhaps after some game time, they will be known differently?

 

Maybe nationalism plays a hand in why the Japanese were unpopular in WT, with Japan being a relatively small nation compared to the other sides, so having less potential nationalistic players? Maybe people just don't like large ocean battles and if the Japanese were on the Eastern Front, they would be more popular? For me, they hold very little interest militarily and historically, their planes were somewhat interesting for their range, but I find it difficult to decipher their letters/characters (I learned the Russian ones well enough), making it hard to learn what means what in the cockpit. For whatever reason, I truly just don't care much about Japan (now or in WW2) - maybe it's the vast culture difference or maybe it's the relatively small number of movies and documentaries on them compared to Russia and Germany. As far as the "bad guys" of WW2, they are simply by far the least interesting to me.

 

Again, I'm just trying to add my thoughts and feelings on the PTO, as an anecdotal reference point. Hopefully I'm not offending anyone by speaking candidly. I don't know if I represent a majority, minority or anyone at all. I really do hope it's a wild success and leads to other theaters in IL-2.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

As for War Thunder, the flight models really aren't at all as arcadey as they are made out to be on here. No, they aren't as good as IL-2 nor DCS nor ATAG CLoD, but the Zeros handle approximately like they should and the Cats and Corsairs do too.

Do they ? I've been a Mod and Tester in Wt for quite a while and its been a never ending spiral of updates fixing and breaking those warbirds. Not so long ago Corsair barely could pull up from medium speeds and its elevator had almost no authority. But regardless, its not only about of "what they should" but also a feeling you get from flying and BoS engine is in this case a lot more natural.

 

 

 

For me, they hold very little interest militarily and historically, their planes were somewhat interesting for their range, but I find it difficult to decipher their letters/characters (I learned the Russian ones well enough), making it hard to learn what means what in the cockpit.

It's the least problem, most of gauges function same way as others and its not hard to spot where manifold pressure gauge is, or altimeter, or compass. For the details, there can be made a manual for each aircraft. I was actually thinking of doing it.  

 

 

 

As far as the "bad guys" of WW2, they are simply by far the least interesting to me.

Everyone has his most favorite places and least favorite, but than again, its hard to argue with opinions.  

 

So far not so rarely Soviet side is outnumbered, yet they do quite well for as long as they are organized and focus on mission targets. If similar approach will be taken by Japanese side, I see absolutely no problem here. 

[unreasonable]

I also don't think many will see them as 'uber planes', given their extremely poor historical record. Perhaps after some game time, they will be known differently?

 

 

I am not sure that their record was that bad at all early on: I think that their problem was that their best cadre of naval pilots (massively experienced and tactically sophisticated) was wiped out at Midway, not in air battles, but by having their carriers sunk with little hope of rescue. After that, their training courses never quite managed to keep up with the losses.

 

There are a couple of people very knowledgeable about the theatre - oops, Hiromachi has just posted, talk of the devil. Was their record poor?

[Mattress]

Do they ? I've been a Mod and Tester in Wt for quite a while and its been a never ending spiral of updates fixing and breaking those warbirds. Not so long ago Corsair barely could pull up from medium speeds and its elevator had almost no authority. But regardless, its not only about of "what they should" but also a feeling you get from flying and BoS engine is in this case a lot more natural.

 

For sure, the FMs feel better and are definitely more realistic (and stable). Though I recall issues with climb rates of FW-190s in this game too, of course, but overall the FMs in any serious sim are better than WT. The point is just that the FMs in WT aren't awful enough that the Corsair is out-turning Zeros.

 

It's the least problem, most of gauges function same way as others and its not hard to spot where manifold pressure gauge is, or altimeter, or compass. For the details, there can be made a manual for each aircraft. I was actually thinking of doing it.  

 

I'm sure I could learn it, but think of me more as a part-time simmer. I won't say casual, because I will happily get hardcore into details. But I like the nations and planes I like, I attempt to learn the ones that come up often (Russia) and I ignore others (Japan, China, Italy, for example). I could learn the gauges and I could learn the multitude of Japanese planes, but why? They really only take part in the PTO. They have so many planes which all seem so insignificant in the grand scheme of things (few fielded relative to other nations, poor pilots leading to poor performance, etc). I could probably swing learning the Zero, since it's their most known plane, used the most in PTO sims. But all the rest? Nah.

 

Everyone has his most favorite places and least favorite, but than again, its hard to argue with opinions.   

 

Like I said, I'm not here to argue, just share my thoughts. I just hope the devs have researched (or are researching) the demand for PTO expansions. If they haven't, maybe posts like mine will give them pause and make them look into it more. I understand having favorites - if I could, I'd push hard for a Finnish expansion (I'm not Finnish and have no relation to anyone Finnish) just because I find it an extremely interesting area politically and militarily in WW2. But I doubt sales would be high for something like that.

 

So far not so rarely Soviet side is outnumbered, yet they do quite well for as long as they are organized and focus on mission targets. If similar approach will be taken by Japanese side, I see absolutely no problem here. 

 

This is what I hope for Japan if/when they come to IL-2. What I worry is that people who are interested in WW2 history are often interested in Russia; there are many movies about their side, their planes are known and interesting, they had T-34s (seems to be one of the most well known tanks) and they are generally "cool" for many people. I don't know that the same thing is true for Japan. The only influence I see from Japan in modern culture is anime, which doesn't seem like the typical sim audience.

 

I am not sure that their record was that bad at all early on: I think that their problem was that their best cadre of naval pilots (massively experienced and tactically sophisticated) was wiped out at Midway, not in air battles, but by having their carriers sunk with little hope of rescue. After that, their training courses never quite managed to keep up with the losses.

 

There are a couple of people very knowledgeable about the theatre - oops, Hiromachi has just posted, talk of the devil. Was their record poor?

 

Early on it wasn't too bad. F2As had a 1.3:1 reported "kill":"death" ratio, though that greatly widened with the F4F (6:1). It probably was largely untrained pilots, but I'm not so much here to argue the exact details, as to attempt to explain what I see as a general perception which may lead to limited sales and/or limited Japanese playerbase. Maybe IL-2's playerbase is both large and made up of people who delve deeply into the history of all theaters of WW2 and can respect each nation and their equipment for what it was. I doubt it though and imagine it is either small or largely ignorant of some theaters (not saying this is wrong - I've read a little about PTO, but am largely ignorant).

Edited September 19, 2016 by Mattress

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

I think that their problem was that their best cadre of naval pilots (massively experienced and tactically sophisticated) was wiped out at Midway, not in air battles, but by having their carriers sunk with little hope of rescue.

 

Quoting Shattered Sword:

"There has been a tendency when analyzing the battle to both under- and overestimate the importance of these material factors. For instance, most early accounts of the battle casually assumed that the sinking of the Japanese carriers ipso facto destroyed the cream of Japan’s carrier aviators and therefore put a stop to Japanese expansion. The truth is more complex. Works such as John Prados’s Combined Fleet Decoded have corrected the record by noting that the battle itself did not signal the end of the Japanese naval aviator corps. This view is directly supported by the carriers’ operational records. Kaga suffered twenty-one aircrew deaths (both in the air and on board ship), Soryu ten, and Akagi a mere seven. Hiryu’s air group was the exception, suffering casualties in excess of 50 percent, with seventy-two fatalities, including her air group leader and many officers. Included with these must also be the eleven floatplane crewmen who perished. However, the deaths of 121 airmen, though painful, did not constitute a disaster in itself. In fact, Japan would lose a similar number of aviators (110) at the Battle of the Eastern Solomons in August 1942,2 and two dozen more than that (145) at the Battle of Santa Cruz in October 1942. The losses at Midway certainly did not radically degrade the fighting capabilities of Japanese naval aviation as a whole, which probably boasted around two thousand carrier qualified aircrew at the beginning of the war. Rather, it would take the hellish attrition of the Solomons campaign to initiate a fatal downward spiral in Japanese carrier aircrew proficiency, with the Battle of Santa Cruz marking the effective end of the elite prewar cadres."

Shattered Sword - The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway byJ. B. Parshall and A. P. Tully, Potomac 2007, chapter : Assessing the Battle’s Importance.

 

 

 

After that, their training courses never quite managed to keep up with the losses.

By mid 1943 their ability to replace pilots was moderately effective, however attrition rate during Solomon and New Guinea campaigns made it eventually impossible to keep up with Americans and by the end of 1943 Japanese were lacking experienced pilots. Even though during this events average ratio in losses was 1:1 for American to Japanese aircraft lost quite often.

 

 

 

Was their record poor?

If it was so poor, why would it prompt US Navy to work quickly on Wildcat replacement, or why would Corsair be pushed into operations so fast ? 

Zero for a 1942 came with a very good records, even in 1943 for as long as it wasnt fighting against all the odds it could do well and be a problem to any American pilot. It wasn't really until 1944 that Americans started rolling fronts and defeating Japanese while suffering only moderate losses. Even Hellcats introduction did not cause unusual losses, since late summer of 1943 it went into action and over Solomons established a claimed ratio of 4.9 : 1 which was superior to 4.1 : 1 of Wildcat, but not quite equal to F4Us 5.4 : 1 win to loss ratio. The real success began with claimed 19:1 during raids on Truk and Palau in spring of 1944. 

 

 

I'm sure I could learn it, but think of me more as a part-time simmer. I won't say casual, because I will happily get hardcore into details. But I like the nations and planes I like, I attempt to learn the ones that come up often (Russia) and I ignore others (Japan, China, Italy, for example). I could learn the gauges and I could learn the multitude of Japanese planes, but why? They really only take part in the PTO. They have so many planes which all seem so insignificant in the grand scheme of things (few fielded relative to other nations, poor pilots leading to poor performance, etc). I could probably swing learning the Zero, since it's their most known plane, used the most in PTO sims. But all the rest? Nah.

Well, what about Soviet or Italian aircraft. It's not like one could spot a Yak over Dover or Macchi around Bulge. Soviet aircraft are limited to Eastern Front and yet nobody complains because its not a relevant argument.

In regard to insignificance, well, I bet Prince of Wales, Repulse, Hermes, Dorsetshire and Cornwall, Hornet, etc. dont sound insignificant.  

[Mattress]

Well, what about Soviet or Italian aircraft. It's not like one could spot a Yak over Dover or Macchi around Bulge. Soviet aircraft are limited to Eastern Front and yet nobody complains because its not a relevant argument.

In regard to insignificance, well, I bet Prince of Wales, Repulse, Hermes, Dorsetshire and Cornwall, Hornet, etc. dont sound insignificant.  

 

 

I already said I consider Italian aircraft on the same level as Japanese in terms of how much/little I am interested. The only reason Italian aircraft would often be included is that they supplement the German aircraft already included. I don't recall any MTO games/campaigns which were exclusively the Italians on one side. Likewise, if the PTO could somehow have the Germans on the side of the Japanese (and still be historically accurate...and maybe be fought over islands instead of bland ocean) then I would guess it would be wildly popular.

The Soviets tend to be popular in videogames, movies, documentaries and sims. I can't think of a single videogame where you play as a Japanese soldier, but can think of multiple (big ones like Call of Duty) where you play a Soviet. I'm not saying this is right, nor that Russians are better than Japanese or anything like that. I'm talking interest level. If this sim is about cataloging historical records and plane data, then I see my point as invalid. But if the sim needs to make money, the devs would do well to make sure as many people as possible are interested in the content they are bringing. Maybe they are?

 

Edit: I'm not trying to come off as superior here - quite the opposite actually. I have many interests and one of them is simming (and one part of that is WW2 flight simming). I don't have the time nor inclination to learn/care about every facet of it. I know there are many who are far more knowledgeable than me, but when I see the small online playercount, I can't help but wonder how many of the people who buy IL-2 are like me (somewhat ignorant, unwilling to learn all sorts of new stuff just to fly both sides of a new expansion).

Edited September 19, 2016 by Mattress

[unreasonable]

Plus of course we all know claimed ratio =/= actual ratio. Thanks for the clarification and detail - clearly I am still in the grip of some Midway myths.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The Pigs used to fly for the Emperor a lot.. 

 

Mostly because we typically took the side with the least amount of players, and were not dogmatic about who we flew for.

In doing so we learned how best to use these aircraft in '46, and had good fun flying them.

 

Personally I prefer the Japanese Army planes to the Zeke, but if all I have available is the A6M, then fine, though my real love in the IJN air fleet is the A6M2-N float plane, and of course the H8K Emily.

[VBF-12_Snake9]

I find it funny that there are easily double the threads, posts about the pacific than there is about Bok. We are three years away. (I'm in the same boat.)

 

It seems the interest level is way more than Bok even though Bok is coming much sooner. Makes me think they should have just skipped Bok and went straight to the pacific. I mean really, it seems Bok is just an after thought when in fact it comes first. Lol

 

Just the fact that the pacific is planned I feel my interest in flying anymore Russian front is dropping fast.

[No601_Swallow]

I find it funny that there are easily double the threads, posts about the pacific than there is about Bok. We are three years away. (I'm in the same boat.)

 

It seems the interest level is way more than Bok even though Bok is coming much sooner. Makes me think they should have just skipped Bok and went straight to the pacific. I mean really, it seems Bok is just an after thought when in fact it comes first. Lol

 

Just the fact that the pacific is planned I feel my interest in flying anymore Russian front is dropping fast.

 

Don't forget that we get mountains in Kuban, and a proving ground for developing the technology necessary for the pacific.

[Gambit21]

I find it funny that there are easily double the threads, posts about the pacific than there is about Bok. We are three years away. (I'm in the same boat.)

 

It seems the interest level is way more than Bok even though Bok is coming much sooner. Makes me think they should have just skipped Bok and went straight to the pacific. I mean really, it seems Bok is just an after thought when in fact it comes first. Lol

 

Just the fact that the pacific is planned I feel my interest in flying anymore Russian front is dropping fast.

 

I politely told tour Russian friends some time ago (before Jason was in a position to make it happen) that with a Pacific announcement, we'd be throwing money at them.

Not only was I on point, but there are people on here trying to pay more but without a means to do so.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The pacific will provide a completely different expirience from the current theatres in any way, not only in terms of aircraft. The overall gameplay will be very different. Jason stated they aim for big naval engagements in which aircraft play an important role in fulfilling key objectives such as sinking carriers ect.

 

Solo flying will be harder and less rewarding as you have to get into the hornets nest to fulfill your objective of destroying naval forces. Furthermoer dive & torpedo bombers in particular will play a more important role in the pacific than they currently do in eastern front scenarios as they're vital for precise attacks on naval vessels.

 

Of course the aircrafts are very different and adopting to them will be a challenge to some extend (especially the japanese as you mentioned), but the fun part about a sim is that it allows you to improve steadily. By the time the first pacific product is released I'm sure enought documentation and tutorials will be availabel for an easy introduction into the important elements of the new aircraft.

 

Also, there are many awesome aircrafts that served in the pacific.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq5zOgDQ4d8

SO there are a lot of reasons to be exited about the PTO expansions

Edited September 19, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I'm not entirely opposed to the PTO, but I'm wondering who would actually play the Japanese? I mostly play singleplayer, so it's not a huge deal to me, but I know lots of people on here are MP-only. In War Thunder (I know, I know, it's arcadey and PTW) the Japanese nation is easily the least played. Last I played it (a few years back), there was one US vs British map that was constantly being played because there were just no Japanese players. Pacific maps were also generally less played in 1946 from what I saw.

 

From my time in 1946 online the Pacific maps were less played than the European ones, but not by that much. And in regards to US vs IJN/IJA numbers were actually balanced in most cases, sometimes maybe a bit more into Japan's side, as most of the people who preffered flying German planes flew Japanese ones.

 

Thing about War Thunder is the progression system. Lots of people fly the US or Russian nation because most of the players are from those places and want to have the iconic planes of their countries (P-51, F-86, MiG-15, etc) while the Japanese tree doesn't appeal many people mostly because of not having "hot stuff" at the end of the progression tree I guess (mostly paper/prototype projects), or because the people are already working on their priority national grind. They have their vocal fanbase but their number is low compared to others.

 

 

 

Also, there are many awesome aircrafts that served in the pacific.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq5zOgDQ4d8

 

 

Wow that Avenger take off!! So short distance, and could pull up without having the tail off the ground. And I thought it would be a heavy/clumsy plane. If I saw that in a flight sim I would say the FM suffered from being helicopterish like (no use of flaps either looks like)

Edited September 19, 2016 by -=PLR=-SuperEtendard

[unreasonable]

 

I think we should make a case of it when the time comes. The BPF was discussed during the Q&A and Jason seemed receptive to the general idea of it being there. With very very little effort we can have nearly the whole lineup of aircraft by virtue of them being nearly the same as the US Navy versions.

 

I'd love the attention to detail of having the slightly clipped wings as well... but I'll reluctantly accept the US Navy Corsair version with a beautiful splash of FAA paint.

 

To show you guys how beautiful they can be... Here's a photo I took a couple of years ago with Vintage Wings of Canada's Corsair Mark IV (F4U-1D) painted to represent Canadian pilot Robert Hampton "Hammy" Gray VC DSC aircraft. It's from 1841 Squadron, HMS Formidable during the Okinawa battle.

 

 

Is that FAA finish ( I mean the background colour) exactly the same as the USMC dark finish? Looks slightly more grey, but that might just be the photo. If the RN was true to form, it would be different just for the sake of it.

Edited September 19, 2016 by unreasonable

[Trooper117]

It can be different

 

 

 

[xvii-Dietrich]

i.e. fly the aircraft they like rather than the flag.

 

"Fly the aircraft, not the flag"

 

Yes... good words of wisdom.

 

 

I understand having favorites - if I could, I'd push hard for a Finnish expansion (I'm not Finnish and have no relation to anyone Finnish) just because I find it an extremely interesting area politically and militarily in WW2. But I doubt sales would be high for something like that.

 

Agreed.

 

I too am bitterly disappointed that it went to Kuban, and not to Finland.

 

However, I understand that there are markets for different theatres and that there has been a strong push from numerous quarters for Kuban. As has been said, that area will be a proving ground for game-mechanics to be used in PTO, so I understand that it makes sense from a game-engine perspective too.

 

PTO does represent an opportunity to experience new types of aerial warfare not covered recently by any flight sim. It is the diversification of the genre which will engender its appeal to new pilots. Even if the history does not appeal at first, the plethora of new mechanics, situations and aircraft will engage the player. Learning the skills is the first step, causing them to delve into the mechanics, learn the circumstances and, only later, appreciate the history of that era.

[Bearfoot]

It can be different

 

 

 

 

That Corsair is one beeeeeeeeautiful aircraft!

[Heliopause]