Jump to content
Lemsip

Li-2/C-47

Recommended Posts

By adding the C-47 alongside the Ju-52 in the game you essentially provide transport aircraft for practically any nationality in the game, those two iconic aircraft moved the Axis and Allied armies men and provisions throughout the war years, before and since in most cases, adding the C-47 is essential to provide a realistic air war scenario.

 

Bomber aircraft on occasion were used in that role but that one particular aircraft adds a certain balance rather than say have the Ju-52 available to both sides, if the development team also add the appropriate tasks and points for their use it provides a truly unique and authentic element to the environment and to the conflict because they are recognized purely for that role and would have been seen at every airfield within the theater of war.

 

 

For that reason I believe the cost of producing the C-47 to be both worth the effort and cost, yes fighter types sell games because most like their shinny new uber plane, however, I believe a lot here like to have the opportunity to fly other roles and aircraft types that contributed as much to the conflict, not everyone flies just to shoot things, the game should have a broad appeal hence the possible introduction of the PO-2.

 

Variety is what makes or breaks a game, different tasks and types have a appeal I think to a larger player base, old and young, you cannot just always say one type makes more money so they are the only thing that should be available for the players.

 

What made the old IL-2 1946 so awesome, still is I think personally, are the variety of aircraft and environments and a mission builder that could keep you occupied for hours without ever taking to the air, hence the longevity of it.

 

Sadly some of the more unusual types of the old game might never see the light of day in this current iteration unless made by third parties, however, the C-47 does deserve its place here because of the sheer numbers used the world over in all the conflicts of the period, it is one of the most iconic aircraft ever built.

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.:biggrin:

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A DC3 is something that Il2 can never go wrong with:

 

Any type of supply mechanics enriches gameplay in the sense that it allows for more complex missions and game type options, which is what you want to set you appart from more pure airquake.

 

It is one of the most classic airframes that people love and it´s derivants flew on all sides, even the germans and japanese had a handfull.. so the key question is more like what kind of compromise the comunity might have to face to see a catch-all variant implemented, because a complete detailed research and modeling of all the small differences might potentially be too expensive?

Edited by Monostripezebra
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so glad to see that like me you want more than just dogfight/strafing/bombing in this simulator guys.

Since IL1946, I always wanted to do other stuffs, mostly with transports. 

I thought I was the only one....

So happy to be in this community! 

 

And this...

On 5/2/2018 at 5:44 PM, xvii-Dietrich said:

 

No need to save up. Check your PM/e-mail.

 

Thank you Dietrich for this kindness!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have more loadout options for the transports. Ju 52 should have a slider to choose how many crates of supplies/wounded men/doctors and nurses in you plane. The more supplies you take, the more points you get for a sucessful flight.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, hames123 said:

They should have more loadout options for the transports. Ju 52 should have a slider to choose how many crates of supplies/wounded men/doctors and nurses in you plane. The more supplies you take, the more points you get for a sucessful flight.

 

This is a great idea. More loadout options for internal capacity would be great.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/05/2018 at 8:33 AM, InProgress said:

Just because you don't like it does not mean it's a waste of time and money. There is lots of people who like ju52. And if devs will start making Li-2 and other transport for pacific or west front. Then it was success and they find it worthly to make another one. Or you have data of sales and you know that "majority of players did not purchase it and that almost no one, except the few fans did"

 

Tbh it feels like you are this kind of people who will be against anything that they don't like because instead of 101th fighter devs would make 1 transport instead and it would hurt you :mellow:

 

I quite agree with this,  and on a side note,  just a few weeks ago someone started a thread on the favorite collector planes and the JU52 got a lot of votes (mine included). The argument invariably was that we need more variety and flavor.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the notion that gameplay mechanics need to be expanded.

The Ju-52 was an excellent start and I was most appreciative of it's inclusion. (even though I don't have time to fly it right now)

Same with the Po-2 and the Li-2/C-47.
 

I'd love the ability to land and pick up cargo.

 

I'm personally fine with using a C-47 in place of the Li-2 or visa versa.

We could use a good recon mechanic (although this is already possible with some creative mission logic)...and I'd love the Storch still, even if just for AI scenery in the missions.

The recon mechanic can be as simple as hitting a key/trigger within an assigned/placed trigger zone on the map.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what happen whith the Li-2 and C-47??, We will not have allied airlift transport in the IL-2 BoBP ?? 
Now , when developers want introducing the tanks war in is game, ..How could we transport the tanks without Transport gliders and without C-47,s for towing?


14449356285_b4cfa25f2c_o.jpg

ead8f0ea3cc74f1f36d4e9fc4e94911b.jpg

WWII military transport aircraft

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@III/JG52_Otto_-I-

Do not worry I want so much the C47/Li2 as well! 

It will come along after the Po2/U2 if everything goes well with Yugra Media because they are taking care of the 3d model and animations of the Po2 and later the Li2

For the glider, it will most likely not be developed because it requires a lot of work four the dev team, but we will most likely have paratroopers so it is good. 

Edited by 1./TG1_Nil
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

How could we transport the tanks without Transport gliders and without C-47,s for towing?
 

 

Are you serious?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Are you serious?

Forget it, he's rolling!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 3:11 PM, Missionbug said:

By adding the C-47 alongside the Ju-52 in the game you essentially provide transport aircraft for practically any nationality in the game,

This is solely the reason why C-47 (and variants) should be in.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love flying transport/cargo/para missions and would love to see the c47 in game. They could be responsible for resupplying the forward airfields with fuel and parts to repair planes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d like to receive lasting points for the number of supply missions successfully flown and the tonnage of material delivered.  I don’t feel like doing anonymous charity work to help pad out other players stats.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

I’d like to receive lasting points for the number of supply missions successfully flown and the tonnage of material delivered.  I don’t feel like doing anonymous charity work to help pad out other players stats.  

 

‘You want to be a transport pilot.  Well, anonymous charity work to help pad the stats of other people is what transport pilots did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

‘You want to be a transport pilot.  Well, anonymous charity work to help pad the stats of other people is what transport pilots did.

 

This is a video game, so a scoring system for transport aircraft could help add to the fun factor. And it would hardly be the most historically inaccurate thing in MP (lack of formations, availability of anachronistic skins, etc.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

I’d like to receive lasting points for the number of supply missions successfully flown and the tonnage of material delivered.  I don’t feel like doing anonymous charity work to help pad out other players stats.  

Of course! I also want to have some points. I am doing charity work for almost 2 years with the Junkers 52. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be feasible to make the C47/Li-2 in "one batch"? I thought the planes were quite different from each other. The design was the same, but engines and used materials were different. 

 

Grt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, I./ZG1_Dutchvdm said:

Would it be feasible to make the C47/Li-2 in "one batch"? I thought the planes were quite different from each other. The design was the same, but engines and used materials were different. 

 

Grt M

 

I was hoping that it would mostly be a case of different instruments and English advisories and warnings scattered around the cockpit. I would have thought that flight characteristics and performance would have been quite similar.

Edited by =11=Herne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pb_Cybermat47 said:

 

This is a video game, so a scoring system for transport aircraft could help add to the fun factor. And it would hardly be the most historically inaccurate thing in MP (lack of formations, availability of anachronistic skins, etc.)

 

It is already in place. In TaW you get points for transport missions and also for paradrops. 🙂 I am sure they will also find mechanics to give points to the Po-2 (like recon or bringing spies into enemy territory)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the differences between the C-47 and Li-2, there were 707 C-47s delivered to the SU under lend-lease. So just modelling the basic C-47 will cover all nations.

 

And here's one example headed for a museum...

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/douglas-c47-salvage-mission-siberia-russia/index.html

Edited by Elem
added info
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently got a chance to fly one.  It handled like a school bus...  which I guess is EXACTLY how it was designed to handle.

20181205_102657.jpg

20181205_094659.jpg

  • Like 6
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the Li-2 project get started now that the Po-2 is on sale ?

Edited by Pollux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pollux said:

Will the Li-2 project get started now that the Po-2 is on sale ?

 

Hopefully we will know more in the next Developer Diarys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2018 at 5:00 PM, 71st_AH_Hooves said:

Recently got a chance to fly one.  It handled like a school bus...  which I guess is EXACTLY how it was designed to handle.

20181205_102657.jpg

20181205_094659.jpg

It's not realistic to fly with enabled gps 😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gps... in nowadays aviation and in visual flight it is used mostly to not cross boundaries of the complicated zones in the airspaces.

For example, in Europe the airspace is so complicated and tight. Not like before were it was much more simple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Pollux said:

Will the Li-2 project get started now that the Po-2 is on sale ?

 

Hoping so. With the right skins and a few mods it would fit Bodenplatte as well, so this could be good timing to make a start.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the number of fly able DC-3's and DC-3 versions still in commercial service be useable for mitigating development costs?

 

They may also be a good source for operating information on the Wright Cyclone and P&W Twin Wasp engines, which could support their Pacific theater work as well. 

 

I'm torn on it myself. It is interesting and a historically significant aircraft that would be part of every single Great Battle that I could think of, but I can also see how it would be a limited sale item. At the same time I could see how it could be a very useful training aircraft for things such as map familiarization flights, yet I would probably do those in my primary aircraft rather than the DC-3. 

 

I would expect it to sell better than the Ju-52/3 and Po-2, though, but likely less than any combat aircraft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would absolutely be onboard for this. Pre-ordering day 1.

 

Not only will it be nice to have a transport aircraft on the eastern front, this is about as iconic an aircraft could be, and could be used in BoP and earlier scenarios with ease (though technically the Li-2 is different from the C47, different engines for one thing, but they're close enough that some reskinning would be good enough). Not to mention that it's basically a DC-3, and that's about as iconic an aircraft as there ever was.

 

Here's hoping that the Po-2 and the Tante Ju were/are successful enough to motivate the devs to go through with this. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Voyager said:

I would expect it to sell better than the Ju-52/3 and Po-2, though, but likely less than any combat aircraft. 

 

It gets difficult, because if there’s more ‘non-combat’ aircraft which offer new options and attract different types of pilot, there’s likely to be more content created for it. This could then attract more interest in these types of mission. 

 

The problem is that there’s not enough investment in these roles yet - the Ju 52 is great but it’s only on one side, having no VVS equivalent, and there’s still no scoring system or other way to gain value or see an in-game effect of flying it.

 

The Li-2/C-47 will even things up a bit, and with transport or resupply missions available in the SP career and MP servers it’ll be easier to tell how engaged people are with the idea. 

 

At the moment it’s hard to say how many people are interested in non-combat missions as there aren’t really any ways to fulfil these roles, as all the aircraft are for direct combat.

But, as they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

 

It just requires a leap of faith from the devs that all the people who are asking for non-combat aircraft are prepared to buy them.

But if they add such aircraft and support them properly with mission types and triggers for scoring, and still no-one buys them, then we can take that to mean no-one is that fussed and any further investment is likely not worthwhile. 

 

But it needs that investment to come first.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

It's not realistic to fly with enabled gps 😜

Well it was the only server available with the fly able DC-3.  😂

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TG1_Nil said:

The gps... in nowadays aviation and in visual flight it is used mostly to not cross boundaries of the complicated zones in the airspaces.

For example, in Europe the airspace is so complicated and tight. Not like before were it was much more simple

Yup, we use it only when flying to foreign countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe in the future a suitable "no combat" aircraft could be included for each side in the original planeset for an expansion. This way you can use a "combat" aircraft that fits the scenario (but not as integral) for a more desirable collector type. You could be guaranteed more variety this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Royal_Flight said:

 

It gets difficult, because if there’s more ‘non-combat’ aircraft which offer new options and attract different types of pilot, there’s likely to be more content created for it. This could then attract more interest in these types of mission. 

 

The problem is that there’s not enough investment in these roles yet - the Ju 52 is great but it’s only on one side, having no VVS equivalent, and there’s still no scoring system or other way to gain value or see an in-game effect of flying it.

 

The Li-2/C-47 will even things up a bit, and with transport or resupply missions available in the SP career and MP servers it’ll be easier to tell how engaged people are with the idea. 

 

At the moment it’s hard to say how many people are interested in non-combat missions as there aren’t really any ways to fulfil these roles, as all the aircraft are for direct combat.

But, as they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

 

It just requires a leap of faith from the devs that all the people who are asking for non-combat aircraft are prepared to buy them.

But if they add such aircraft and support them properly with mission types and triggers for scoring, and still no-one buys them, then we can take that to mean no-one is that fussed and any further investment is likely not worthwhile. 

 

But it needs that investment to come first.

 

The problem is that some kind of mission (drop paratrooper and cargo operation) are only available for German.  So, it's difficult to have one gameplay dedicated to one side.

 

On kuban, Russian did paratrooper operation, but we can't simulate them.

 

The other problem is that there is no statistic for that kind of mission. I don't care about the statistic, but others not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2018 at 4:10 AM, 56RAF_Roblex said:

I am also hoping the Po-2 is successful so they get permission to do the Li-2 ...

 

I hope they dont get judged on the success of the Po2 but on its quality and how their collaboration went.

 

I think the po2 is not going to be incredibly successful just because of its nature, but that doesn't mean the 3rd party didnt do a great job.

 

If their relationship works well then thry could build a ton of content that the dev team does not have time for.

 

I'd also like some higher quality ground models (AAA, trucks, static units, etc).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they did a very good job on the U2.  The model is up to current standards, even with the ghostly rear crew member...   It's a fun aeroplane to fly, but it's use will be very situational in the sim.  In an offline scripted campaign it will find it's place, online, not so much.  The online "needz my precious go faster plane" crowd will never understand it, but that's OK.  It won't stop me from flying it if it's available. 

 

The important thing about it is that it proves the ability of it's creators to do up to standard work, and thus should add another production stream of aircraft models entering the sim.  I say turn them loose on the I-153 and Hs 123.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I share the sentiment that their quality of work should be what 1C looks at instead of the success of the product. I also have a feeling the U2 is doing better then some believe and that perhaps 1C was prepared for the gamble. It will definitely have uses in online missions with the videos I've seen in the last couple of days the U2 annihilates entire trains, vehicle columns and artillery positions in one pass. Especially at night if any servers can keep people online for those missions.

 

The use of the U2 can only expand as time passes and missions like medical evac and recon, and even as a trainer if my suggestion gains any traction (shameless plug)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...