Would You Purchase?

[KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82 265]

As I posted in some othe specific threads too, I go with those "theatres/scenarios"

 

1.)

Northern Front / Continious War

 

We could add Finnland to the war and would have a northern flora on the ground.

Also, my suggestion is for a possible collector plane the Hurricane

you purchase for example this collector plane and you are able to fly either

a) for Finnland

b) for some lend-lease Hurricanes on soviet side

Could be interesting when 1 model is used by two sides.

 

 

 

2.)

Spanish Civil War

 

Yes, Bodenplatte will be nice and sooner or later I will get it also. But my personal interest is also on the earlier aviation models

and here comes the spanish civil war in the spot. There are plenty of exotic and unknown planes from different nations.

Also, when people think about biplanes, than mostly WW1 comes into mind. But a lot of good and more powerful planes were

used in the inter-war era by many sides and those were often milestones on the way to the WW2 design.

In mind I have the beautiful italian CR32.bis (and variants) or the I-15 for example.

 

 

 

PS:

A Ju87 D5 version, with the bombing sight and the default 20mm each wing is also worth to mention here

 

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82

[-TBC-AeroAce 858]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

The aircraft can land on a proverbial postage stamp and the landing gear has very large shocks, combine that with a low airspeed and less drag from smaller wheels, the tinny wheels worked fine. That, or they had a couple of wheel barrows going spare when they built it.

 

Its funny. My picture of STOL aircraft is like that of a Piper Cub with monster truck wheels so it can land on the side of a mountain... this plane seems to have quite the opposite. 

[spudkopf 359]

In regards to the original question of this topic, like the majority I'd have to say yes, but no, as has already been said, there are just far more relevant aircraft that would need to take priority over the ones you have listed.

 

The same yes, but no would have to equally apply to the heavy bombers that have been suggested, it's not that I would not like to see them, but simply because the current maps or more specifically the size of the maps just do not support the type of warfare and roles that the heavies conducted in the European theater, medium bombers however are a much different story so bring 'em on.  

 

On 10/8/2018 at 8:30 PM, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 It would be great to fly a 156 too, but one can dream.

9 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

The aircraft can land on a proverbial postage stamp and the landing gear has very large shocks, combine that with a low airspeed and less drag from smaller wheels, the tinny wheels worked fine. That, or they had a couple of wheel barrows going spare when they built it.

 

The Storch is just so way cool and one of my all time favourites, however as much as I'd love to see it in the sim, sadly unlike the Po2, FW189 or even the Lysander for that matter, with little to no offensive capacity (and yes I know there are pictures of a bombed up Storch out there) I doubt it will come to pass, but then again you never know.  

 

That said it's surely time for a gratuitous Fi-156 youtube clip me thinks.... (from the pilot's perspective of course) 

Kermie Cam Part 3

 

8 hours ago, KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82 said:

PS:

A Ju87 D5 version, with the bombing sight and the default 20mm each wing is also worth to mention here

 

Just so many up thumbs!

[6./ZG26_Custard 1825]

34 minutes ago, spudkopf said:

The Storch is just so way cool and one of my all time favourites, however as much as I'd love to see it in the sim, sadly unlike the Po2, FW189 or even the Lysander for that matter, with little to no offensive capacity (and yes I know there are pictures of a bombed up Storch out there) I doubt it will come to pass, but then again you never know

Spotter or medical evacuation would be great, I tend to agree though I'm not hopeful we'll see it.

 

Meanwhile, we can watch  Hermann Göring's stunt double take off in one.

 

[senseispcc 275]

On ‎10‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 3:17 AM, Oubaas said:

Now that we're headed in the "Great Battles" direction, it opens up some possibilities.

 

How many of you would purchase a new title in the series that included items such as the following?

 

Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 Drache
Flettner Fl 265
Flettner Fl 282B Kolibri
Flettner Fl 339
Sikorsky R-4B Hoverfly
Sikorsky R-5A
Sikorsky R-6
Kamov A-7bis

 

Any interest?

 

What about a crew-able Fletcher-class destroyer or some such?

 

How about a Zeppelin add-on to go with Flying Circus?

 

And what are your ideas for IL-2 Great Battles?

 

I buy it all. I grabbed Tank Crew recently, and I love it! I like this Great Battles thing, with a broader spectrum of ideas for what can be produced. I'm buying all of it.

 

 

None of those above, thank You.  

[FarflungWanderer 73]

I think long-term a Korean expansion for IL-2 would be good (Battle of Inchon? Battle of Busan? Battle of MiG Alley? Plenty of names to go with). I don't think IL-2 should expand into modern jets for a long, long time, if ever (i.e., I don't think IL-2 should directly compete with DCS for jet simulating Vietnam and beyond), but the Korean War was close enough to the Second World War that the tech and tactics were only just beginning to pivot towards what we would consider today to be "modern." It'd fit """"easily"""" into the IL-2 environment.

 

But as others have pointed out, fleshing out the Second World War comes first. We have all of the Pacific and most of the European theater of war untouched as it stands. Flying Circus is a porting effort by 1C to move Rise of Flight over and update it, so it's a special case, but I would take issue if the series were to make a module that wasn't set between 1936-1945 until that's a lot more detailed.

 

Also an IL-2 module set in China during the late 1930s would be excellent. I'd love to fly with the AVG!

[Bremspropeller 2320]

The Spanish Civil War thingy also is of interest.

It gets more interesting, the more I think about it.

 

14 minutes ago, FarflungWanderer said:

Also an IL-2 module set in China during the late 1930s would be excellent. I'd love to fly with the AVG!

 

Yeah, definately!

Not only just the AVG, also the 1st Air Commando Group operations and flying stuff over The Hump (TM).

[FarflungWanderer 73]

You could pick southeastern China and cover a lot of territory. The fringes of Indochina and the South China Sea.

 

[EDIT: I seem to have misplaced by several hundred, if not thousand, miles where Nepal is relative to Indochina. Whoops.]

Edited October 10, 2018 by FarflungWanderer

[LukeFF 6292]

35 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The Spanish Civil War thingy also is of interest.

 

Not enough people care or will ever care (I certainly don't) about the SCW. It's a niche within a niche within a niche. 

[ZachariasX 2527]

50 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The Spanish Civil War thingy also is of interest.

It gets more interesting, the more I think about it.

+1

 

Russian aircraft. American aircraft. German aircraft. French aircraft. British aircraft. These are certainly interesting scenarios, whether you care for the Spanish or not.

[Bremspropeller 2320]

It offers a lot of projection area - whether you're fighting against the bloody commies or against the fascist pigs.

And it offers a lot of "romantic" aircraft.

 

The SCW has potential for an awesome movie - exatly because nobody knows anything about it.

A story about youth, idealism, betrayal, etc.

[kendo 511]

To the OP - a resounding 'No' from me as well

[dburne 2465]

1 hour ago, kendo said:

To the OP - a resounding 'No' from me as well

 

No here also.

[=RS=Stix_09 186]

I'd prefer they work on the current game in particular multiplayer to increase new players to the sim. Too much new content IMHO. They already got their hands full (over committed) with BPlatte, tanks and fc work. Currently far to much is put on the community when it comes to multiplayer (ie its all on the community currently).

If you are a new player its a long slow learning curve and its damn poorly documented. Many just give up and go elsewhere.  (apart from AGAIN fantastic work done by the community, videos , tools, and docs and this forum this game would have died long ago)

 

Taken me ages to work stuff out  . Its a far to long and  difficult process for new players, with no help in game or even a manual (that's not hidden on the internet and I think not even a dev one at that) and that's why numbers suffer.. If you are  not super keen on this sort of thing, you would not bother.

 

Devs seriously should rethink their focus. That MHO.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Stix_09
typo

[SeaSerpent 975]

2 minutes ago, Stix_09 said:

I'd prefer they work on the current game in particular multiplayer to increase new players to the sim. Too much new content IMHO. They already got their hands full (over committed) with BPlatte, tanks and fc work. Currently far to much is put on the community when it comes to multiplayer (ie its all on the community currently).

If you are a new player its a long slow learning curve and its damn poorly documented. Many just give up and go elsewhere.  (apart from AGAIN fantastic work done by the community, videos , tools, and docs and this forum this game world have died long ago)

 

Taken me ages to work stuff out  . Its a far to long and  difficult process for new players, with no help in game or even a manual (that's not hidden on the internet and I think not even a dev one at that) and that's why numbers suffer.. If you are  not super keen on this sort of thing, you would not bother.

 

Devs seriously should rethink their forcus. That MHO.

 

I agree with you that the development plate seems full.

 

However, when it comes to your comments about accessibility of the game, in my opinion, I think it is just about perfect now.  Raw numbers in multiplayer isn't the only thing that makes a quality multiplayer experience.  Motivated players that bring some flight sim experience to the table and don't need their hand held is actually a good thing, imo.  I mean you don't want people in multiplayer that need a game manual to know the difference between a flap and a rudder, do you?  You want people who are going to seek out information and grit through the learning curve because they really like it.  The people you refer to that just give up and go elsewhere because it's too hard, probably wouldn't be a wonderful thing for the multiplayer community anyway.   And after all, we do have various documentation and stuff on the forum, and people are always free to ask questions, that are very promptly answered, so I'm not sure what the problem is. 

[=RS=Stix_09 186]

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

I agree with you that the development plate seems full.

 

However, when it comes to your comments about accessibility of the game, in my opinion, I think it is just about perfect now.  Raw numbers in multiplayer isn't the only thing that makes a quality multiplayer experience.  Motivated players that bring some flight sim experience to the table and don't need their hand held is actually a good thing, imo.  I mean you don't want people in multiplayer that need a game manual to know the difference between a flap and a rudder, do you?  You want people who are going to seek out information and grit through the learning curve because they really like it.  The people you refer to that just give up and go elsewhere because it's too hard, probably wouldn't be a wonderful thing for the multiplayer community anyway.   And after all, we do have various documentation and stuff on the forum, and people are always free to ask questions, that are very promptly answered, so I'm not sure what the problem is. 

Yep its a good point about the type of player, I agree with that.

However I still say too much is put on the community, and the game does little to help people get into it. Even an experienced sim player who is new to IL-2 needs hunt online  to learn how to drive it than they need too. I'd like to see a lot more done there, or at the very least the game should help you find what you need online.

 

 Test this ( without searching around the internet or this forum).

Just go find a basic manual on the store site or where you get the game.
Show me the manual  for steam version? or Show me the manual (even a basic guide) on the dev sales or support section site)?

Is there one installed with the game?

 

If you hunt around you can find one that' out of date online.

 

If you are a new person wanting to put the time in and learn sims and Il-2, how easy do does this game make that? Not very. Thats my point.

If youtube did not exist or this forum you would be hard pressed to learn this game. (and even then they don't even point you where to go. (far harder than it should be)

 

And I think multiplayer should also have dedicated servers managed by dev , not pushed all on the community to fund and host and or a better (easier) system for users to do it.

 

The game is great , but from a new user perspective (experienced simmer or not) it's presented poorly. The best software (or hardware)  is  only useful if you can understand it.

 

 The spitfire was successful, primarily because it was easier  to fly than vs say a 109, also a great plane , ague-ably just as good, but harder to use well. I think it may have had a manual too.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Stix_09
typo

[ptisinge 41]

Like OP, I love obscure aircraft - but I'm realistic, especially with what Jason has previously said: there's no point risking the future of this sim with niche aircraft when even mainstream ones are never a guarantee that things will work out to be profitable.

[DetCord12B 2788]

Nah, none of those in the initial post interest me.

 

I will take these two however.

 

 

[=RS=Stix_09 186]

Point is kinda moot anyway, they after current stuff (and that's a bit still) , I think pacific is next theater, so you likely looking at stuff like zeros, Corsairs,  Wildcats etc...
will be a while before ya see any new planes outside that

[Trooper117 2582]

No one knows if the Pacific is next... what we do know is that it is on 'hold' until they can gather the proper info to do it justice...

[Blitzen 853]

Nope. Fletcher class destroyer? Well a lot of other Pacific theater bits & pieces would probably come first...ditto an AI Zepplin after more aircraft & maps,perhaps?

[Ploofy 11]

 

Edited October 13, 2018 by Ploofy

[BlitzPig_EL 2871]

Korea?

 

I want this please...

 

[Ploofy 11]

7 minutes ago, ST_ami7b5 said:

The first and the last jet I will buy in GB is Me-262

 and me I will paid a lot for a Korea map 🤗

[-TBC-AeroAce 858]

50 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Korea?

 

I want this please...

 

 

Although interesting, that looks like a mess to me. Were there two pilot? How the hell did that work?

[BlitzPig_EL 2871]

Google F82 Twin Mustang. 

It worked very well.  Got the first air kill in Korea.

 

It was also quite fast.

 

[JG1_E_Davjack 86]

That might be my favorite example of "most brilliantly ridiculous aircraft design to ever be produced over 100 units and be combat effective."

[Rjel 1656]

The P-82's original design purpose was to alleviate pilot fatigue while escorting B-29s on VLR missions in the Pacific. It wasn't just a slap dashed design but one that had a clear mission purpose. Neither was it just two P-51s lashed together but a brand new design. It ended up being a very serviceable fighter/night fighter in the late 1940s on into Korea as BlitzPig_El said.

Edited October 13, 2018 by Rjel

[BlitzPig_EL 2871]

It could hit 461 mph at 21000 ft.

 

The F82 also holds the record for longest flight by a piston engined fighter.  It flew non-stop from Hickam field in Hawaii, to New York, a distance of 5051 miles, and averaged just over 347mph.  That is still the long distance speed record for a piston engined fighter as well.

 

That aircraft, named "Betty Jo" can be seen at the NMUSAF at Wright Field in Dayton Ohio.

 

 

BTW it was powered by two 1600 BHP Allison V1710 143/145 engines.

Edited October 14, 2018 by BlitzPig_EL

[Rjel 1656]

34 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It could hit 461 mph at 21000 ft.

 

The F82 also holds the record for longest flight by a piston engined fighter.  It flew non-stop from Hickam field in Hawaii, to New York, a distance of 5051 miles, and averaged just over 347mph.  That is still the long distance speed record for a piston engined fighter as well.

 

That aircraft, named "Betty Jo" can be seen at the NMUSAF at Wright Field in Dayton Ohio.

 

BTW it was powered by two 1600 BHP Allison V1710 143/145 engines.

I was just at the museum in September. They also have this F-82 on display. Oddly it didn't have the radome installed. I can't wait to go back there. I was told another hanger is being considered to expand the displays.

[novicebutdeadly 77]

On 10/8/2018 at 12:17 PM, Oubaas said:

Now that we're headed in the "Great Battles" direction, it opens up some possibilities.

 

How many of you would purchase a new title in the series that included items such as the following?

 

Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 Drache
Flettner Fl 265
Flettner Fl 282B Kolibri
Flettner Fl 339
Sikorsky R-4B Hoverfly
Sikorsky R-5A
Sikorsky R-6
Kamov A-7bis

 

Any interest?

 

What about a crew-able Fletcher-class destroyer or some such?

 

How about a Zeppelin add-on to go with Flying Circus?

 

And what are your ideas for IL-2 Great Battles?

 

I buy it all. I grabbed Tank Crew recently, and I love it! I like this Great Battles thing, with a broader spectrum of ideas for what can be produced. I'm buying all of it.

 

I'm going to be honest, no I wouldn't.

There are so many fixed wing aircraft that I would like to see first (fighters, bombers, and trainers)

And a campaign that starts with flight school, with ai squad members having backgrounds etc so that I would care if they got shot down and died.





 

Edited October 14, 2018 by novicebutdeadly

[VA_SOLIDKREATE 2226]

Fi-56 Storch, I'd buy that.

[Bremspropeller 2320]

6 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The F82 also holds the record for longest flight by a piston engined fighter.  It flew non-stop from Hickam field in Hawaii, to New York, a distance of 5051 miles, and averaged just over 347mph.  That is still the long distance speed record for a piston engined fighter as well.

 

Just over 14.5hrs then.

Gee, I thought torture was prohibited in US services? :D

[Arfsix 157]

8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Gee, I thought torture was prohibited in US services? 😄

              Americans have always had a preference for solo flying.

Flight distance record

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Year	Date	Distance	Pilot	Aircraft	Notes
1903	December 17, 1903	39 m	Orville Wright	Wright Flyer	12 seconds
1903	December 17, 1903	279 m	Wilbur Wright	Wright Flyer	59 seconds
1925	August 30–31, 1925	3,206 km	CDR John Rodgers (USN)	PN-9 Flying Boat	From San Francisco and Honolulu by Seaplane over open water without visual navigational aides.[20][21]
1927	May 20–21, 1927	5,809 km	Charles Lindbergh	Ryan NYP, Spirit of St. Louis	Single pilot flight New York – Paris[12][13]
2006	February 12, 2006	41,467.46 km	Steve Fossett	GlobalFlyer	Single pilot (Steve Fossett) flight.[1][