Jump to content
Missionbug

What compromises to the current aircraft fidelity would you accept to go to the Pacific?

Recommended Posts

I'd trust the devs to do their best and to tweak as time progressed if possible.

 

I'm not fussed if FMs are not perfect.

 

just like the low fidelity aircraft in DCS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with them making compromises for the Pacific, after all if the information is not there so they would need to compromise  how would we know something is not accurate down to the tee.

 

I do very much want the Pacific. I am sure they would do the very  best they can with the information they do have.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine the sh1t storm on these forums if the dev's did compromise. Hell folk "feel" the German cannons aren't good enough and decide it's necessary to complain. Or the allied weapons are too powerful. The Soviet aircraft are too tough. Folk read some biography and decide the FM of their preferred ride is all wrong because their "hero" could do things they can't. I really want the Pacific but not a compromised version. The dev's would spend too much time chasing complaints or documentation produced long after the module is finished. Having to go back to "Battle of midway" to fix the FM, Dm etc of the Japanese aircraft while working on "Battle of Britain".

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has their own conception of a "compromise"

So first, we need to define what a compromise is for a  planes simulator !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say that they just start with something like a small campaign with VMA214 (Black Sheep) on Henderson field. It would be a small map and few planes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

We have our first jet, no small thing.

We have a fighter bomber (Jug) that can carry 2 1000 bombs plus a belly tank...F me sideways if that isn't adding something to sim.

 

 

 

 

Bah!

Jug, P-38, Mustang, Me262, Tempest - this amounts to more than more Ost Front.

 

While that is indeed true, the fact is that in online play, it will be the same thing we have now, with nicer scenery and faster aircraft.  One side will concentrate on the ground objectives and win every match, while the virtual Hartmanns and Gabreskis will be up in low earth orbit having a nice dance and having no effect on the outcome.

 

I still look forward to having competitive US aircraft, but I don't for one minute think that anything about outcomes will change much in the online arena.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be mistaken but isn't most of ROFs/FCS aircraft performance guess work? I  can't imagine that the flight test data from that era to be accurate and or complete.  

 

I guess my point is if they have to use fudge factors for some aircraft that should be fine as they already have a good record of doing so successfully. 

Edited by AeroAce
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dev Team will surely do the best job they possibly can do, given the best information they have available. I can't expect more from the Dev Team and don't expect more from the Dev Team. I anticipate being greatly pleased with their future efforts, as I am greatly pleased with their past efforts and current efforts. 🛩️ 

Edited by NewGuy_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

While that is indeed true, the fact is that in online play, it will be the same thing we have now,

 

Online play will not change in any appreciable sense until we get some sort of HL type functionality back.

Until that happens, it's going to be non-historical "air quake" no matter what the plane set, and that holds no interest for me frankly.

 

When we get the Zeke and Wildcat I'll be into it for a minute, then get back to SP historical scenarios.

Share this post


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

Imagine the sh1t storm on these forums if the dev's did compromise. Hell folk "feel" the German cannons aren't good enough and decide it's necessary to complain. Or the allied weapons are too powerful. The Soviet aircraft are too tough. Folk read some biography and decide the FM of their preferred ride is all wrong because their "hero" could do things they can't. I really want the Pacific but not a compromised version. The dev's would spend too much time chasing complaints or documentation produced long after the module is finished. Having to go back to "Battle of midway" to fix the FM, Dm etc of the Japanese aircraft while working on "Battle of Britain".

 

 

That's what I was saying in my first post, but I wanted to avoid the term sh*t storm, although this was the first expression coming to my mind. You're absolutely right, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

While that is indeed true, the fact is that in online play, it will be the same thing we have now, with nicer scenery and faster aircraft.  One side will concentrate on the ground objectives and win every match, while the virtual Hartmanns and Gabreskis will be up in low earth orbit having a nice dance and having no effect on the outcome.

 

I still look forward to having competitive US aircraft, but I don't for one minute think that anything about outcomes will change much in the online arena.

 

Just imagine the PTO, where Hartmann and Gabreski types, who ignore the ground game, will find themselves without a place to land (or take off) when their flat-tops get sunk.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least when it’s a carrier they can just gun the engine and take off without looking like nobs.  

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Online play will not change in any appreciable sense until we get some sort of HL type functionality back.

Until that happens, it's going to be non-historical "air quake" no matter what the plane set, and that holds no interest for me frankly.

 

When we get the Zeke and Wildcat I'll be into it for a minute, then get back to SP historical scenarios.

 I agree totally about HL.  The current lobby is worthless.

Share this post


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

At least when it’s a carrier they can just gun the engine and take off without looking like nobs.  

 

From what I've seen nobs will find a way to express their nobness no matter what, but yeah a carrier deck helps.

As an aside...a static carrier, not moving at all separates the men from the boys when it comes time to land. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

I hope the nobs get the opportunity to roll off the end without unfolding the wings like you could in old IL-2.

 

Good times.

We re-started missions so many times because someone (not necessarily a nob) couldn't get up the first time, carrying Tiny Tim's etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember back in Zeke vs Wildcat days all the boy Hartmanns would just belly land next to the carriers, cos they were much too good for all that piloting stuff.  :happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hated air quake rooms...but that one was OK.

I spent some time in there on slow CoOp nights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a thought: if assumptions are made because facts cannot be known, who's to say that your assumptions are wrong?  I have met many a good bullshi!tter that achieved great success on that principle.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Here's a thought: if assumptions are made because facts cannot be known, who's to say that your assumptions are wrong?  I have met many a good bullshi!tter that achieved great success on that principle.

 

Good one Pat.:lol:

 

The word ' sh*t storm ' seems to have come up a few times in relation to any kind of compromise, however, bear in mind the aircraft we do have are obviously documented well enough that a lack attention to detail should/would be expected to cause wide condemnation of those faults.  The 109 was widely used by many Air Forces in all its variants and there are many still available today in varying states of repair with good access and plenty of pages written on their use and technology so the chance of getting it wrong should be marginal if not impossible.

 

Japanese aircraft on the other hand even in this digital age when very little is private or unseen still remain something of a enigma, almost shrouded in secrecy it seems like parts of some long lost civilization as are many things associated with the places and peoples of that region, at least to me anyway.

 

Much of their aircraft industry had developed through the thirties using Western technology copied or altered to their needs, probably many of the systems used during WWII were actually directly descended from those license production agreements concluded with Britain and Germany amongst others.  Very few of their aircraft actually went to export, many only operating with what we could describe as puppet governments of their Tokyo masters, not quite sure about Thailand there as they were technically independent, or flown by press ganged local aircrew as part of the Japanese forces they were conquered by.

 

So, if many would cry foul at any compromise what then is to become of the Pacific goal?

 

The team is renowned for continually updating and improving what they delivered but how many times could they be expected to pull apart and re-build as and when information trickled in?

 

How long is eventually?

 

The team it seems on this one is dammed if they do, dammed if they do not.

 

 

 

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

Share this post


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

Much of their aircraft industry had developed through the thirties using Western technology copied or altered to their needs, probably many of the systems used during WWII were actually directly descended from those license production agreements concluded with Britain and Germany amongst others.

Good point, but I would also add Italy. Maybe our path to the Pacific leads through the Med? Hurray! :biggrin:

(Just anecdotal, but I remember of having read that when the Americans "liberated" Japanese trucks manufactured by Toyota, they were so exact copies of American ones that they could be serviced with spare parts manufactured in the US. The situation was somewhat different in the aircraft industry, overall aircraft designs being genuine to a great extent, but why would have they redesigned sub-systems from scratch when they could rely on models that were proven to be successful and effective?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1C company has all the info on Jap planes , maps , ships etc and hence IL2 1946 , Pacific fighters , so if you are the same studio  whats the problem ? i have one request though , more power to the Corsairs and Hellcats pls !! way under powered .

Edited by dog1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good is that you cant argue about FM if you have no data of japanese planes.

If they decide not to admit that they used guessed FM

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re high altitude flying: many would also bomb higher up and avoid the furballs and flak if it was easier. Unfortunately the object draw range bubble makes it much more difficult than it should be. Especially for targets that are not airfields or within/right next to cities or other easy landmarks. For most types of targets jaboing or using dedicated attack plane like Il-2 is easier, more productive and much quicker than level bombing. :(

 

I agree that without a proper coop lobby or, less importantly, changes to object visibility the actual gameplay is unlikely to change much from east front low altitude furballs and ground attack.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at this way...

 

Start building it. I'll pre-order immediately. But I'm all in on this sim. I will take some infidelities. 

 

This team is awesome at what they do. They build to the best of the data they have on hand. I can recall several threads where, new, tangible data was presented to the devs and they adjusted the sim accordingly. In this respect, this sim is a "living document" so to speak. Nothing is final (though some things have been drawn out over time). If there is credible evidence, from what I have seen, the devs take it into account and adjust the sim accordingly via updates. This team is top f*****g notch. I'll take some nuance here and there any day for the opportunity to flame some Zekes in my "Birdcage Corsair" (*hint hint*). I know if there is new evidence uncovered, they will implement it. This whole team is second to none. 

 

I say BUILD IT.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how perfectly accurately you model two planes, as soon as someone's favourite is shot down when they think they shouldn't be, there will be tears, so arguing for perfect accuracy based on potential whining is silly, the whining is inevitable and unstoppable. Anyway, as much as I'd like for the sim to be as accurate as it can be, I do accept that at some point the game has to be released, art is not finished, it is surrendered, etc, so extrapolation for incomplete datasets is perfectly fine by me

 

18 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

While that is indeed true, the fact is that in online play, it will be the same thing we have now, with nicer scenery and faster aircraft.  One side will concentrate on the ground objectives and win every match, while the virtual Hartmanns and Gabreskis will be up in low earth orbit having a nice dance and having no effect on the outcome.

 

I still look forward to having competitive US aircraft, but I don't for one minute think that anything about outcomes will change much in the online arena.

 

While people enjoy dogfighting for the sake of dogfighting, people will dogfight and there's not much you can really do about that. For a lot of people, putting high performance fighter against high performance fighter and figuring out how to win is the most fun part of the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I was wondering in regards to the Pacific Theater is if the team would be allowed to use information gathered from other flight sims that also did the Pacific.

 

I am thinking of my first flight sim game I ever played actually: Microsoft combat flight simulator 2. 

 

This game already did the pacific theater, and from what I remember they did an OK job at it, would the team be allowed to use this game for information? or would that be coming to close to copying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, =SqSq=switch201 said:

I am thinking of my first flight sim game I ever played actually: Microsoft combat flight simulator 2. 

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO - please don't. Take whatever source you may find, but don't do that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the Devs are more than familiar with previous products etc. There’s no “hey, why didn’t we think of that?!” that’s ever going to happen. Go look at this old sim, go find this engineer or that designer etc.

 

They've been around a while.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's very complicated. Use all the information available. Where there isn't any, guess as close as possible. I agree that none of us knows what a Val or Kate felt like to fly, so It's unimportant. Just make it "feel" right. A Val shouldn't fly like a Corsair. If it feels close to a Dauntless, maybe you got it right. That's all. If that's what's holding up the Pacific, screw it!

And if it's gonna be carriers, let me put my two cents in for The Battle of the Philippine Sea. Hellcats versus A6M5's. Mariana Islands....Oops, didn't mean to derail the post! (Couldn't help myself!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be fine with whatever they can made at this point, they will polish it over time as they did with current planes.

It's not like it will be arcadey FM or such so some compromises are perfectly fine in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, unreasonable said:

One thing on which I will not compromise - it is knob, not nob.

 

We were misspelling it like a bunch of hosers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been said that the Great Battles team is aiming for "the spirit of 1946".  The original Il-2 was a special game.

 

What made it that way?  The breadth and depth of experience it offered?  The flight models?  Or both?

 

This is an important question.  People like to compare this game to DCS.  Is that wise?  Do we want this game to try to "out DCS" DCS?  Or do we want something different?

 

I'm not judging anybody.  I'm just curious.  What's your vision of what you'd like this game to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

One thing on which I will not compromise - it is knob, not nob.

 

Let me stop you right there for the sake of accuracy.  A knob is internationally recognised as a rounded object found upon something you might put your hand on.  A door for example.  

 

A nob is a thing recognised among most Commonwealth countries as a rounded object somewhat closer to home.  It is found upon something which you might also put your hand on.  Indeed, some gentlemen here may have their hand upon it now.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Let me stop you right there for the sake of accuracy.  A knob is internationally recognised as a rounded object found upon something you might put your hand on.  A door for example.  

 

A nob is a thing recognised among most Commonwealth countries as a rounded object somewhat closer to home.  It is found upon something which you might also put your hand on.  Indeed, some gentlemen here may have their hand upon it now.  

Both words are derived from the same knob...you knob...😊

  • Haha 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

×