Bodenplatte early access

[Rjel]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

The main documents missing for the DCS module is the wind tunnel data and some other material I think. I wonder if Il2 Devs can get bey without the proper wind tunnel data? If not then I don't see the Jug being released for Il2 either.

But in today's digital world, is the data that a wind tunnel would provide just as easily programmed with a computer? I'm no expert in aviation or computer programming but wouldn't it be possible to generate the same numbers and results with a computer today that they got back in the 1940s with slide rules and wind tunnel testing?

Edited March 21, 2018 by Rjel

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, ATAG_Flare said:

The problem with development of the P-47 is that most of the technical documents were destroyed back in the 80s or something. I know the DCS devs were having a very hard time developing the Jug because it was really hard to find documents. Perhaps 1C has a different source for documents but as far as I know it's hard to find accurate technical docs on the P-47 so I'd expect it to take longer than most of the other planes.

 

There is more than enough documentation to model the P-47 accurately. DCS is just making up excuses.

[wombatBritishBulldogs]

2 hours ago, ATAG_Flare said:

The problem with development of the P-47 is that most of the technical documents were destroyed back in the 80s or something. I know the DCS devs were having a very hard time developing the Jug because it was really hard to find documents. Perhaps 1C has a different source for documents but as far as I know it's hard to find accurate technical docs on the P-47 so I'd expect it to take longer than most of the other planes.

 

I predict the Spitfire and 109s to come out first, P-51 shouldn't be that long either.

One would hope All documents (P-47) regardless of companies involved would be willing to share resources for the betterment of the flightsim industry and communities ! I wonder though ! 

[Rolling_Thunder]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

There is more than enough documentation to model the P-47 accurately. DCS is just making up excuses.

Exactly. ED have too many things going on at once. Too many "promises" to many unfinished modules, a 2.5 that was rushed out the door because wags promised an end of February release. Bugs after bugs after bugs. I now hear one of their patches has left Las Vegas devoid of buildings! They are not working on the P47, not because lack of documentation but because they suck at project management

[The-Doctor]

3 hours ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

Exactly. ED have too many things going on at once. Too many "promises" to many unfinished modules, a 2.5 that was rushed out the door because wags promised an end of February release. Bugs after bugs after bugs. I now hear one of their patches has left Las Vegas devoid of buildings! They are not working on the P47, not because lack of documentation but because they suck at project management

I agree 100% , i’ve never played DCS since i’ve been introduced to il-2 couple of months ago , they have no clear vision like il-2 do . Poor multiplayer environment , poor campaign content , , delays and bugged , unfinishied projects

[PedroTheGoat]

1 hour ago, =RS=BlackRaven said:

I agree 100% , i’ve never played DCS since i’ve been introduced to il-2 couple of months ago , they have no clear vision like il-2 do . Poor multiplayer environment , poor campaign content , , delays and bugged , unfinishied projects

 

Yet it seems like our IL2 devs want to start the same 3rd party fiasco that DCS is currently constantly putting fires out for. 

 

I know I’m a first time poster. But I’ve lurked a lot down here and have been simming since the 90’s. And when I recently read that we are thinking about opening up to 3rd parties I almost flipped my lid. 

 

HORRIBLE decision by 1C and 777 if they go down that road IMHO. 

Edited March 22, 2018 by PedroTheGoat

[ShamrockOneFive]

5 minutes ago, PedroTheGoat said:

 

Yet it seems like our IL2 devs want to start the same 3rd party fiasco that DCS is currently constantly putting fires out for. 

 

I know I’m a first time poster. But I’ve lurked a lot down here and have been simming since the 90’s. And when I recently read that we are thinking about opening up to 3rd parties I almost flipped my lid. 

 

HORRIBLE decision by 1C and 777 if they go down that road IMHO. 

 

Depends on how it gets managed. Eagle Dynamics opened the DCS platform up to multiple devs and for the most part they each do sort of what they want and get it approved by ED. I think, but I'm happy to be corrected here, is that 1CGS is contracting out work which is a somewhat different arrangement. Its not a horrible model to follow on its own and one case study with a somewhat different model does not make it a bad one overall.

 

I can counter with the other case study which is War Thunder where the devs there have worked with talented community members to build new content for them (He219 for example) under a profit sharing arrangement. That seemed to go ok.

 

I'll be happy to eat my words if things go badly. It does seem that Jason has mitigated a fair bit of risk as apparently the groups they are contracting out to have done work for him/1CGS in the past. Having known quantities in that area is important. The Po-2 and Li-2 projects are also low risk... if they go wrong then its not the end of the world and it doesn't hurt the products. If they go right then we get some more planes.

[OrLoK]

I have faith on the devs and the direction they are going.

 

So far, in recent times, they seem to be firmly on the right path.

 

Give em some leeway!

[PedroTheGoat]

I agree they’re on the right path currently. IL-2 in my opinion is on the right track. And is the best overall sim experience on the market. 

 

But let’s not forget CloD on release and that the company is not infallible. Yes, 777 is in the mix now. But that doesn’t mean we’re not open to horrible decisions. 

 

It seems like the company as a whole is on the right track.  And I imagine their sales revenue is growing. (Or at least I pray so). So why split development with 3rd parties like ED?  

 

I get it...  Much more refined engine and a tighter development team... blah blah. 

 

Seems like a dumb slippery slope that this company could avoid if they’re playing the long game of growth. 

Edited March 22, 2018 by PedroTheGoat

[Field-Ops]

It looks more like they are still going to have their core employees work on the main content for Battle Series stuff (IE: the planeset for BoS, BoM, BoK, BoBp). So no change on the core path there. The contracted help is for addons to that content like extra plane models, Tank Crew development, and porting RoF content for Flying Circus. The flight modeling is still going to be handled by the core team from what i've read. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

41 minutes ago, PedroTheGoat said:

I agree they’re on the right path currently. IL-2 in my opinion is on the right track. And is the best overall sim experience on the market. 

 

But let’s not forget CloD on release and that the company is not infallible. Yes, 777 is in the mix now. But that doesn’t mean we’re not open to horrible decisions. 

 

It seems like the company as a whole is on the right track.  And I imagine their sales revenue is growing. (Or at least I pray so). So why split development with 3rd parties like ED?  

 

I get it...  Much more refined engine and a tighter development team... blah blah. 

 

Seems like a dumb slippery slope that this company could avoid if they’re playing the long game of growth. 

 

Ubisoft pushed 1C to release Cliffs of Dover. The current team, 1CGS (and 777) have almost nothing to do with that whole debacle, and most of them were busy improving Rise of Flight at the time.

 

Again, nothing we've heard so far suggests that the third parties are coming in using the same model of development as ED is. This sounds like they have contracted out for certain types of work to be done. Its not unusual. Using a big title as an example, DICE famously contracted out the entire GUI for Battlefield 3 because their team was too busy working on core technologies. It happens a lot in the games industry (and many others).

[PedroTheGoat]

53 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Ubisoft pushed 1C to release Cliffs of Dover. The current team, 1CGS (and 777) have almost nothing to do with that whole debacle, and most of them were busy improving Rise of Flight at the time.

 

Again, nothing we've heard so far suggests that the third parties are coming in using the same model of development as ED is. This sounds like they have contracted out for certain types of work to be done. Its not unusual. Using a big title as an example, DICE famously contracted out the entire GUI for Battlefield 3 because their team was too busy working on core technologies. It happens a lot in the games industry (and many others).

Agreed. 

 

And thanks for a bit of enlightenment on CloD. 

 

I guess I’m just really rooting for the company and want them to succeed. As a sim fan for a long time I truly believe this is the best sim on the market. 

 

I want to defend this sim from any pitfalls with my opinion. That includes defending it from the publishers and devs themselves. 

 

I truly don’t think it’s necessary at this phase to involve any third party development outside of community research and help. 

 

After Bodenplatte and “Pacific” and the growth of the player base afterwards (Which will be damned massive) THEN discussing outside development may be a great idea. But as great as they’re doing on their own at this point... employing 3rd monetary party’s is just a recipe for DCS (AKA: Disaster)

Edited March 22, 2018 by PedroTheGoat

[DSR_A-24]

10 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

There is more than enough documentation to model the P-47 accurately. DCS is just making up excuses.

That's why they skipped the P-47 to make the Spitfire instead, because of "excuses". 

IIRC the P-47 was supposed to come out before the Bf-109K4 too.

[Daff]

I'm getting flashbacks to 1993 on the playground, Nintendo vs Sega. You know who the real winner is? The spoiled bastard that had both systems and a sweet Dos PC to play Doom and Mechwarrior.

 

This was inevitable though with the same planes in both games, but I thought the DCS thread in Free Subjects was the official bashing area.

 

The missing P-47 data is a great loss, like the Japanese data that is needed aswell (or just translating?) for the BELOVED Pacific expansion. Here's a article about it. https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/when-republic-aviation-folded-69197851/

 

IL-2 is a great product that can stand on it own merits, it must play to it's strenghts like DCS plays to it's strengths.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Foghorn

[Aap]

2 hours ago, DSR_T-888 said:

IIRC the P-47 was supposed to come out before the Bf-109K4 too.

 

I don't think so. Luthier started to work on K4 immediately when kickstarter was completed and he showed irregular updates of their progress, K4 was the main thing that was moving forward and was pretty much ready, when Luthier got kicked out. There were some updates on P47 cockpit, so it seems that indeed P47 was going to be the next one, but definitely not before Bf109. Also, P47 was expected to be a free aircraft for everybody; or more specifically, one of Bf109, Spit or P47 to be voted bu backers, but P47 being heavy favorite.

[Sotka94]

In a previous dev diary it was mentioned that work on the 3D-models of Spifire IX, 109 G-14 and P-47D are already underway, so my guess would be that the Jug will be among the first half of early access-planes. Two conversions from previous aircraft, then a taste of something less familiar? 

 

Fw 190 A8 and 109 K4 I'd guess will also come sooner rather than later, whereas the two-engined planes will probably indeed be last,  and Dora, Pony and Tempest coming somewhere inbetween. Let's see how wrong my predictions turn out to be.

 

Kinda hoping at some point this year we'll have a "Christmas every month" type of situation, what with planes from both Bodenplatte and Flying Circus rolling into early access in parallel development.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Habsburger

[Rolling_Thunder]

7 hours ago, DSR_T-888 said:

That's why they skipped the P-47 to make the Spitfire instead, because of "excuses". 

IIRC the P-47 was supposed to come out before the Bf-109K4 too.

The spitfire was yoyos baby. The 109k4 was practically, like the 190d, in advanced stages when Luther was fired. In the almost 3 years ED have been in sole charge of the ww2 aircraft they have released the spitfire and completed the work, already started, on the 2 german aircraft. The map work they contracted out to a different company. They have failed miserably in managing the project they stated would take 1 year to complete, wags words. If they cant find the data for a P47 in 3 years and counting they never will. So what do they do? They sit on a project that was funded by 2553 backers and do absolutely nothing! Its pathetic

[Herne]

In an effort to try and get back on topic. This thread is about BoBp after all.

I think if we consider the fact that Jason told us that the pacific was put back because they could not get needed data particularly for the Japanese Warbirds in time, before the pacific was officially announced, then there is pretty damn good chance that they felt they had access to the material they need for the BoBp warbirds that were announced.

 

As for third parties I guess it is a matter of trust. I see no problem at all here so long as 1CGS/777 maintain executive oversight for any product that has IL2's good name on it.

[CIA_Yankee_]

I for one would love to take some Spit IXs out for a spin over the steppes!

 

I mean, it IS plausible. Maybe a squadron of spirited and audacious brylcreem boys decided to head out east for a while and caught a most opportune tailwind. Next thing they knew, they were over the Russian steppes, and while they were there decided to show frizt the old what-for!

 

<RaF Pilot Over Russia>: "Tally-ho!"  

<Eastern Front LW Pilot>: ?!?!?

 

Totally could have happened, I say!

[Gambit21]

21 hours ago, Legioneod said:

The main documents missing for the DCS module is the wind tunnel data and some other material I think. I wonder if Il2 Devs can get bey without the proper wind tunnel data? If not then I don't see the Jug being released for Il2 either.

 

1. We know the Jug is coming

2. Are you saying wind tunnel data was utilized for every other aircraft? 

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

I for one would love to take some Spit IXs out for a spin over the steppes!

 

I mean, it IS plausible. Maybe a squadron of spirited and audacious brylcreem boys decided to head out east for a while and caught a most opportune tailwind. Next thing they knew, they were over the Russian steppes, and while they were there decided to show frizt the old what-for!

 

<RaF Pilot Over Russia>: "Tally-ho!"  

<Eastern Front LW Pilot>: ?!?!?

 

Totally could have happened, I say!

 

They were there in Russia in masses but according to this source they saw no combat.

 

http://soviethammer.blogspot.de/2015/03/british-aircraft-in-russian-service.html

 

Spitfire IX

 

Soviet Union got 1185 Spitfire IX fighters - almost all were LF IX version and only two were HF IX.

First 6 Spits of that type arrived to Basra on April 5th, 1944 aboard s/s "City of Eastborn". Initially planes sent to Soviets were after general repairs but later planes were straight from factory.

Most planes (825) were sent to PVO units. In summer 1944 Spits LF IXC/E were assigned to 26 and 27 GIAP near Leningrad, 16 and 177 IAP PVO near Moscow, 767 IAP near Murmansk and several others.

One Spitfire HF IX was assigned to 16 IAP PVO, where Russian called it "Spitfire 9G"

There is no reports about combat use of Spitfire IX in Russian service.

Edited March 22, 2018 by sevenless

[Guest deleted@117422]

Anyone know what the terrain will look like? (western Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium)

[=LD=Hethwill]

I hope we have a large part of continent, channel and a tip of Britain.

[Winglesschip209]

On 3/20/2018 at 3:02 PM, BorysVorobyov said:

Is the P-51 ready yet?

I hope they do an excellent job on this plane this is not just a aircraft its the aircraft that helped win the war. I hope we get drop tanks. 

[Custard]

2 minutes ago, =LD=Hethwill said:

I hope we have a large part of continent, channel and a tip of Britain.

 

Well realistically that's not going to happen.

 

[=LD=Hethwill]

Just now, Custard said:

 

Well realistically that's not going to happen.

 

 

Yeah, reckon so. Was thinking similar to a RoF Channel Map.

[Gambit21]

6 minutes ago, Winglesschip209 said:

I hope they do an excellent job on this plane this is not just a aircraft its the aircraft that helped win the war. I hope we get drop tanks. 

 

As an American who loves the Mustang (and the Zero, and the Jug, and the Dora, and, and...) can we not start this "Mustang won the war" bunk please? If anything it was the Russian pilots that "won the war"

[Legioneod]

7 minutes ago, Winglesschip209 said:

I hope they do an excellent job on this plane this is not just a aircraft its the aircraft that helped win the war. I hope we get drop tanks. 

Drop tanks would be sweet. I wonder though, will I be able to adjust my fuel slider and keep the drop tanks at full fuel? So I can take 30-40% internal fuel and full drop tanks.

2 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

As an American who loves the Mustang (and the Zero, and the Jug, and the Dora, and, and...) can we not start this "Mustang won the war" bunk please? If anything it was the Russian pilots that "won the war"

 

I'd argue that the P-47 and P-38 won the war over Western Europe, to say that the Russians did all the work is just as foolish as saying the Americans did.

[Gambit21]

7 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Drop tanks would be sweet. I wonder though, will I be able to adjust my fuel slider and keep the drop tanks at full fuel? So I can take 30-40% internal fuel and full drop tanks.

 

I'd argue that the P-47 and P-38 won the war over Western Europe, to say that the Russians did all the work is just as foolish as saying the Americans did.

 

I didn't say "The Russians did all the work". I meant that the Russian front is where most (please note use of the word 'most') of the fighting and dying took place.

 

Jugs and P-38's - no argument there.

 

The Mustang did it's job admirably and for my money is one of the most beautiful aircraft produced.

[Winglesschip209]

24 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I didn't say "The Russians did all the work". I meant that the Russian front is where most (please note use of the word 'most') of the fighting and dying took place.

 

Jugs and P-38's - no argument there.

 

The Mustang did it's job admirably and for my money is one of the most beautiful aircraft produced.

Agree it did it’s job escorting the B-17 deep into Germany and I also agree it’s the most beautiful aircraft produced but that’s my opinion as of what I sead earlier about helping win the war I stand by it maybe the way I sead it sounded like it did everything but I think every plane and country contributed to winning the war. I hope the dev detail the hell out of it and spend a lot of time on it I just love that bird also as the spitfire those are my 2 all time favorite 

[Ropalcz]

Spitfires, Hurricanes and other machines were important the early stages of war. Mustangs, P-47´s were important in mid to late stages of war.

 

Succesful air offensive against German industry by RAF and USAAF was crucial in my opinion.

 

 

[Blitzen]

Veterans of the Eighth Air Force have said that the un-scorted raids by B-17's deep into Germany ,despite their high losses, did the main job of blunting the Luftwaffe before P-51's arrived mid 1944.It would be interesting to see Luftwaffe veteran fighter pilot losses in 1943 to say May of '44.Not just the aces but overall....I think it would give proof to the story that the fighting strength of the Luftwaffe in terms of morale & numbers was on the wane already when the P-51 made its debute..

[Gambit21]

22 minutes ago, Winglesschip209 said:

Agree it did it’s job escorting the B-17 deep into Germany and I also agree it’s the most beautiful aircraft produced but that’s my opinion as of what I sead earlier about helping win the war I stand by it maybe the way I sead it sounded like it did everything but I think every plane and country contributed to winning the war. I hope the dev detail the hell out of it and spend a lot of time on it I just love that bird also as the spitfire those are my 2 all time favorite 

 

I'm guessing you'll be very happy

 

 

[Rjel]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

As an American who loves the Mustang (and the Zero, and the Jug, and the Dora, and, and...) can we not start this "Mustang won the war" bunk please? If anything it was the Russian pilots that "won the war"

 

I'll upvote the not wanting to reopen the Mustang won the war argument. That is such a tired argument usually waged by those who really don't know what they are arguing or are only arguing on emotions.

 

All the same, I don't want to belittle the contribution done by the USAAF in Europe. The airwar it fought was unlike any of the other combatants' airwar. It was an offensive airwar fought over enemy territory from the first day until the end of the war. No other major combatant's air force can claim that. 

[Gambit21]

No arguement from me Rjel.

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, Blitzen said:

Veterans of the Eighth Air Force have said that the un-scorted raids by B-17's deep into Germany ,despite their high losses, did the main job of blunting the Luftwaffe before P-51's arrived mid 1944.It would be interesting to see Luftwaffe veteran fighter pilot losses in 1943 to say May of '44.Not just the aces but overall....I think it would give proof to the story that the fighting strength of the Luftwaffe in terms of morale & numbers was on the wane already when the P-51 made its debute..

 

Maybe these numbers here help. Can´t, however say how valid they are. 

 

http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1135719/1/Some_Facts_about_German_Aircra.html

 

1943 was a terrible year for the Luftwaffe.

 

and this one might also help:

 

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by sevenless

[Leaf]

P-51's have been done to death, anyone wanna show the Dora some love? 

It's probably the plane I'm most looking forward to, and it's undoubtedly the best-looking (shuddup, you know I'm right).

 

Not that I know too much about it, but it seems to me to be a very well balanced plane, and I can't wait to try it out.

[Royal_Flight]

1 hour ago, Rjel said:

 

I'll upvote the not wanting to reopen the Mustang won the war argument. That is such a tired argument usually waged by those who really don't know what they are arguing or are only arguing on emotions.

 

All the same, I don't want to belittle the contribution done by the USAAF in Europe. The airwar it fought was unlike any of the other combatants' airwar. It was an offensive airwar fought over enemy territory from the first day until the end of the war. No other major combatant's air force can claim that. 

 

No desire to get into a back-and-forth debate over which air force did more of what, and not to belittle the contribution of the USAAF either, but they weren't the first or the only combatant nation to wage an offensive air war over enemy territory from the first day of their war to the last. 

Nor were they the only air arm to fight exclusively over foreign soil. 

 

Stating this to be the case is only a few steps short of 'the Mustang won the war' territory. 

[Rjel]

8 minutes ago, Royal_Flight said:

 

No desire to get into a back-and-forth debate over which air force did more of what, and not to belittle the contribution of the USAAF either, but they weren't the first or the only combatant nation to wage an offensive air war over enemy territory from the first day of their war to the last. 

Nor were they the only air arm to fight exclusively over foreign soil. 

 

Stating this to be the case is only a few steps short of 'the Mustang won the war' territory. 

 

I guess you'll have to enlighten me as to which other air forces fought exclusively over foreign territory or offensively from first to last. It certainly wasn't the RAF, the Soviets or the three major Axis powers as they all fought major defensive battles over their homelands. If you don't want to discuss it publicly, you can PM me as I'm really curious who you're talking about.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

6 minutes ago, Rjel said:

 

I guess you'll have to enlighten me as to which other air forces fought exclusively over foreign territory or offensively from first to last. It certainly wasn't the RAF, the Soviets or the three major Axis powers as they all fought major defensive battles over their homelands. If you don't want to discuss it publicly, you can PM me as I'm really curious who you're talking about.

Canadian and Brazilian Air Forces