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

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I was really hoping that the Judy would be the collector plane.  It's just such a beauty!

Edited October 26, 2018 by hrafnkolbrandr

[MasterShake]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

You do realize that the engine in that Judy is from a DC3 yes? 

 

Yes, BUT it does power the aircraft's systems. A developer would be able to learn the movement speed and full range of motion of its control surfaces and landing gear. They would also be able to learn how the controls and various equipment operated in the cockpit, just to name a few. If the gaps in knowledge are filled with any other known documentation or information, maybe we could get an accurate enough aircraft.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by SVTONY

[Avimimus]

I care mainly about physics and flight models ...and AI.

 

If some visual details needed to be filled in - I wouldn't mind really. I hope anyway ?

[Eicio]

As long as we have japanese planes and a pacific ocean that's good for me !

[THERION]

Gentlemen,

 

to some degree I understand that not all necessary data is available today and therefore to simulate all the airplanes 100% correctly (which is anyway nearly

impossible due to the fact that it is simulated in an supposed environment too). So that's OK for me. BUT...

 

Yes, I'm sometimes really amazed in what people are willing to neglect or overlook when it comes to PTO and on the other hand complain about a missing

rivet in one of the cockpits, which you only would discover, when bending all the way forward just before hitting your nose under the instrument panel and

only when cockpit lights are on!!!

 

To me this is some kind of schizophrenia.

 

Have a nice weekend,

 

Cheers

[Akatsuki]

15 hours ago, Eicio said:

As long as we have japanese planes and a pacific ocean that's good for me !

 

Same for me, as i'm sure the devs would do their best with the data they would have collected. I trust them on that.

[Meteor2]

Due to the fact, that the PTO ist probably a bigger project, I am willing to accept compromises easily.

If plane models are based on best assumptions in the beginning, it is totally acceptable. 

Flight models can be adjusted step by step. As long we are seeing ships, islands and and interessting plane set, I am very patient.

 

[Drifter28]

I reckon that's about right, and would be much easier to 'market' than the not widely known Operation Bodenplatte, if indeed such things should be marketed at all. The US market will think it's a type of sausage. Should have called it P51 air battle or something if Bulge wasn't available.

 

Very unfortunate to see any and all posts referring to the expansion structure being wholesale deleted and the community being managed by having their opinions censored. This can only happen if it's a very internally sensitive topic for the devs and with good reason.

[falle96]

To answer the original question, I would prefer if there were no sacrifices. If it means taking more time, oh well, but I don't think we should sacrifice quality to get a "quick fix" that we'll come to regret later.

 

This is a simulator. We should aim for the same level of fidelity that we have seen and the devs have struggled for since Battle of Stalingrad.

[LukeFF]

16 minutes ago, Drifter82 said:

The US market will think it's a type of sausage. Should have called it P51 air battle or something if Bulge wasn't available.

 

People weren't confused at all at the June Flight Sim Expo in Vegas when we told them that the next title was Bodenplatte. You're underestimating general American knowledge about the war too much. 

[Eicio]

2 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

People weren't confused at all at the June Flight Sim Expo in Vegas when we told them that the next title was Bodenplatte. You're underestimating general American knowledge about the war too much. 

 

I think that it's safe to say that there are dumb people in every country on earth and that they are anyway not the targeted public of flight simulation (or simulation as a whole).

[=621=Samikatz]

 

24 minutes ago, Drifter82 said:

I reckon that's about right, and would be much easier to 'market' than the not widely known Operation Bodenplatte, if indeed such things should be marketed at all. The US market will think it's a type of sausage. Should have called it P51 air battle or something if Bulge wasn't available.

 

Very unfortunate to see any and all posts referring to the expansion structure being wholesale deleted and the community being managed by having their opinions censored. This can only happen if it's a very internally sensitive topic for the devs and with good reason.

 

The sort of people who buy and enjoy this kind of title are generally pretty nerdy about planes. They might now know what engine is in a Fw-190 and what guns are in specific models of 109 or the command structure of RAF squadrons, but they generally at least know something

 

That said I don't like the name Bodenplatte because it's like, one day out of the nearly half a year the module will represent. Il-2: Liberation of Europe or Il-2: Advance to the Rhine would probably be better descriptions but I imagine they want to keep the Battle of ______ thing going

[Missionbug]

1 hour ago, Drifter82 said:

Very unfortunate to see any and all posts referring to the expansion structure being wholesale deleted and the community being managed by having their opinions censored. This can only happen if it's a very internally sensitive topic for the devs and with good reason.

 

Not sure if you refer to this thread with the above statement, however, I made a request to the moderating team to remove a series of arguments between a number of individuals having a discussion regarding Coops, it had/has nothing whatsoever to do with the point of this thread and if we as posters could clean our own threads I would have done it myself.

 

If people want to argue about things they have a interest in then please do it in your own threads, not those of someone who has no interest in what they were discussing, all it does is clutter up the thread and detract from the initial question.

 

 

On the point of censorship in any way shape or form, this forum is provided for us by 777 studios, their house, their rules.

 

 

To the individual who cleaned the thread up for me, thank you very much indeed, really appreciated.

 

 

Anyway, off rant and back to the topic, it certainly seems that most just want to get to the Pacific first and foremost and are happy to accept compromise to get there, a case of it being more a W.I.P than finished project where they feel the development team can add things as they go along if/when information becomes available, as we have seen so far they have continually upgraded the product over time so there is every probability that a Pacific title would receive the same attention to detail we have come to expect.

 

My thoughts are get there, if the title is continually delayed because of a lack of information then it might never come to be and that would be a great shame for those who have a passionate desire for it.

 

 

Take care.

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Missionbug

[Drifter28]

On 11/13/2018 at 7:25 AM, LukeFF said:

 

People weren't confused at all at the June Flight Sim Expo in Vegas when we told them that the next title was Bodenplatte. You're underestimating general American knowledge about the war too much. 

 

A late response here, but of course they won't be at a flight sim expo. These are hardcore simmers, half of them are more interested in history and engineering than playing the game.

 

If you think they represent general western knowledge of the war then you've lost all perspective. If you think they're the limit of your market, then go nuts.

 

I mean, God in Heaven,  googling 'Bodenplatte' brings up codenames.info and your own store on the first page, and you think it's general knowledge?! It's just nonsense mate, and it's just what happens when you spend a lot of time with your head in development, the marketing guys or consultant or someone should have straightened it out.

[BraveSirRobin]

13 minutes ago, Drifter82 said:

 

A late response here, but of course they won't be at a flight sim expo. These are hardcore simmers, half of them are more interested in history and engineering than playing the game.

 

If you think they represent general western knowledge of the war then you've lost all perspective. If you think they're the limit of your market, then go nuts.

 

I mean, God in Heaven,  googling 'Bodenplatte' brings up codenames.info and your own store on the first page, and you think it's general knowledge?! It's just nonsense mate, and it's just what happens when you spend a lot of time with your head in development, the marketing guys or consultant or someone should have straightened it out.

 

Have you seen the list of aircraft that you'll get to fly?  It really doesn't matter what they call it.

[LukeFF]

30 minutes ago, Drifter82 said:

I mean, God in Heaven,  googling 'Bodenplatte' brings up codenames.info and your own store on the first page, and you think it's general knowledge?!

 

Oh, and you mean all this other stuff that was found with a 2-second search?

 

 

Cmon bro, if they though Bodenplatte was not a good name for the title, they would have changed it by now. But, they haven't, so...

Edited February 5, 2019 by LukeFF

[theOden]

I would support a "First attempt" just getting Pacific out the door.

If it is insanely hard to find info to backup data in the simgame I can't see any complainers being able to back their claims up anyhow.

If lucky, a Pacific installment just might lure some experts here to point out some "best guess implementations" are wrong and even having the docs to back it up - all good next patch.

 

Amazing how hard some guys have to keep on topic reading the posts above this.

[Drifter28]

Hey 'bro', I replied because I thought you were an internal tester who might be able to mention it to someone? But it appears you're just a community beta tester or something otherwise you wouldn't... I dunno, post what I asked you to look at? You cropped the picture and missed the second page of German language results too, nicely done, and the response time was surprising.

 

Anyway, don't worry about it. I must've mistaken you. It's an obvious marketing opportunity missed considering the aircraft involved and the setting, but perhaps they aren't aware of that as Russians.

 

A bit off topic for you OP I know, but what can I say it appears this was as good a place as any, and if the discussion just kind of explodes out of nowhere it's because it's been hanging in the background for a long while.

 

Pls feel free to delete and speculate about the PTO if you so desire. It's a long way off, and these guys have to see how successful their dlc\expansion sales are to fund it. Buy more tanks to support them I guess.

[danielprates]

Bodenplatte has a good sounding. It sure is better than Operation Hottentotterattentatter or other caricature germanism. I wonder if the Panzer General franchise would have been successful if it was called "operarion Sichelschnitt" or "Aufmarschanweisung N°4, Fall Gelb"!!

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, danielprates said:

Operation Hottentotterattentatter

I‘d buy that right away.

 

Also, I couldn‘t think of any name capturing any (German) offensive better in spirit and in execution.

[Padre*]

It's not just a case of compromise. Do you realise how difficult it would be to add carriers with rolling and pitching decks at this stage? It would undoubtedly take a long time, especially with the small team working on the sim, and that's only one area of physics to achieve from scratch. To go there now would take so long that there's a real risk of not producing any content for years, and that would make any further development of the sim at risk as potential revenue streams would dry up while this is developed and there is potential for the development to fold from a business perspective.

There are lots of potential battles that could more easily be brought to the sim, which could generate continuous revenue which would be a bigger draw to a larger number of people, and allow continued, but slower development of the Pacific theatre that is already happening in the background. The fact is that the Western front and Southern European campaigns covering battles in places such as Italy, Malta, D-Day, Berlin, Falaise Pocket, Market Garden, and the Allies crossing the Rhine into Germany would have a much larger potential revenue stream. This is because more people from many more nations took part in those battles/campaigns, and the Pacific has much more limited appeal due to the few nations that took part in it.

Sometimes you have to take a step back, look at it from an objective and economic viewpoint, rather than a personal one, and consider what it will take to see this flight sim survive.
I understand that there are people who were incredibly disappointed when development of the Pacific was put on the back burner, but the development of other areas of battles and the many more people who will buy west front battles, those developments, which have never been properly covered in flight sims, and the ability of the developers to incorporate the new tanks battles into this, will actually help you to eventually realise your dreams.

Edited February 6, 2019 by 334th_KMA