CanadaOne Posted February 11, 2019 Posted February 11, 2019 56 minutes ago, LukeFF said: Sure, if your goal is to kill sales and end any further development. Like I said, you obviously don't understand the flight sim community very well. So, let me say it again, Barney-style for you: people want to fly a plane against its real-world adversaries, on a time-period appropriate map. That's why career mode has been such a welcome addition to the game. You got some drama queen going on there, brother. "Killing sales and ending future development". Perhaps an extinction level event as well, dogs sleeping with cats, that sort of thing? It's... a... game. Breathe.
BOO Posted February 11, 2019 Posted February 11, 2019 11 minutes ago, CanadaOne said: You got some drama queen going on there, brother. "Killing sales and ending future development". Perhaps an extinction level event as well, dogs sleeping with cats, that sort of thing? It's... a... game. Breathe. I think (although id never presume to risk speaking for dear old Luke) what he was alluding to was the notion that BOX is doing ok because it sticks to a coherent development plan that has some resonance of integrity to its customer base who, by and large, tend to like the historical set more than ad hoc QMB scenarios. If one starts to DCS the crap out of it then there is a risk that a model that may have been popular within a wider map supported scenario would not be a particular success as a stand alone until such a time there is a map and a wider plane set to support it. This means its a long term return risk that always more likely to be bought in sales than at full price. And from what is alluded to, long term slow burning returns are not an option especailly when there are aircraft that could be sold in quantity from the off as collectors that fit existing maps. Whilst its "only a game" to us, its a living to others and not an especially secure or comfortble one by all accounts. 1
56RAF_Roblex Posted February 11, 2019 Posted February 11, 2019 Give me a couple of aircraft carriers,put a hook on my spit and add a corsair and a zeke and a Kate and I will be happy if the map is only water ? For some unknown reason I just love carrier ops. Failing that, I am happy to use Kuban as a stand-in for New Guinea or Indonesia with a suitable selection of aircraft as the mountainous jungle terrain in some parts is very similar. I think the major issue 1C have though is that they cannot just 'throw together' IJN aircraft as there is very little data available to make accurate models from, especially the flight models. I think I am one of the few people who cannot get excited about BoBp. If I cannot get Pacific fighters then I would rather they made N Africa as we have many of the necessary aircraft already or ones that can be modified to get the correct models plus the terrain is not as taxing as Europe. I know that is not on the cards, just dreaming.
CanadaOne Posted February 11, 2019 Posted February 11, 2019 23 minutes ago, SCG_BOO said: I think (although id never presume to risk speaking for dear old Luke) what he was alluding to was the notion that BOX is doing ok because it sticks to a coherent development plan that has some resonance of integrity to its customer base who, by and large, tend to like the historical set more than ad hoc QMB scenarios. If one starts to DCS the crap out of it then there is a risk that a model that may have been popular within a wider map supported scenario would not be a particular success as a stand alone until such a time there is a map and a wider plane set to support it. This means its a long term return risk that always more likely to be bought in sales than at full price. And from what is alluded to, long term slow burning returns are not an option especailly when there are aircraft that could be sold in quantity from the off as collectors that fit existing maps. Whilst its "only a game" to us, its a living to others and not an especially secure or comfortble one by all accounts. I hear ya, and there is much in what you say. But it's fair to state I was not calling for Frankenplanes or scenarios where F-15s attack the trenches at the Somme. I mentioned a Corsair and then the wheels came right off the bus and the fall of the republic was imminent. If someone wanting a WWII plane in a WWII flightsim causes that level of breathlessness in "some people", well, maybe decaf or yoga is in order. 1
Gambit21 Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 Part of what drives excitement, anticipation and sales for a new title is getting a new set of aircraft. If they started introducing things like the Wildcat or Corsair with no PTO/map/complimentary aircraft to compliment them then when the PTO release did come it would be a bit anti-climactic. Not to mention the fine example of 'what not to do' that DCS has so kindly provided us. 1
CanadaOne Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 Okay, no unreality in a video game permitted. What should I do if I accidently load up a Sopwith Camel against a 109? What if I go after a Panzer in a Spad? Shouldn't the game be designed so this cannot happen? Why is it made in such a way that encourages such unrealistic scenarios? It's almost as bad as (gasp!) flying a Corsair over Kuban! My God, it's like DCS! The horror... The horror...
Gambit21 Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, CanadaOne said: Okay, no unreality in a video game permitted. What should I do if I accidently load up a Sopwith Camel against a 109? What if I go after a Panzer in a Spad? Shouldn't the game be designed so this cannot happen? Why is it made in such a way that encourages such unrealistic scenarios? It's almost as bad as (gasp!) flying a Corsair over Kuban! My God, it's like DCS! The horror... The horror... If you want an incoherent mess, fly DCS! I just wrote that. I expect royalties. 2
CanadaOne Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 14 minutes ago, Gambit21 said: If you want an incoherent mess, fly DCS! I just wrote that. I expect royalties. But then tell me why I can fly a Sopwith Camel over 1940s Moscow and chase Panzers? (Not that I'm complaining. I like it.)
Gambit21 Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 6 minutes ago, CanadaOne said: But then tell me why I can fly a Sopwith Camel over 1940s Moscow and chase Panzers? (Not that I'm complaining. I like it.) I can choose that....I can also choose to use a Power Ranger's skin on my 190 if I want. Choosing to be silly and being forced into it are two different things. I support your right to be silly. 1
CanadaOne Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 9 minutes ago, Gambit21 said: I can choose that....I can also choose to use a Power Ranger's skin on my 190 if I want. Choosing to be silly and being forced into it are two different things. I support your right to be silly. And I think that's awesome. But why is it okay to choose to fly a Sopwith Camel in a Power Rangers skin over 1940s Moscow and chase 109s, but it's not okay to choose to fly a Corsair over Kuban? And who, dear sir, would "force" you to do that anyway? Are the devs at your door wearing looks of coercion?
Gambit21 Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 29 minutes ago, CanadaOne said: And I think that's awesome. But why is it okay to choose to fly a Sopwith Camel in a Power Rangers skin over 1940s Moscow and chase 109s, but it's not okay to choose to fly a Corsair over Kuban? I think you're missing the point. If we get a PTO release and a Corsair later, then feel free to fly it over Kuban or the Stalingrad. 1
BOO Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, CanadaOne said: And I think that's awesome. But why is it okay to choose to fly a Sopwith Camel in a Power Rangers skin over 1940s Moscow and chase 109s, but it's not okay to choose to fly a Corsair over Kuban? And who, dear sir, would "force" you to do that anyway? Are the devs at your door wearing looks of coercion? Because thats something you can do within the sandbox of the game as a side result of the current 3 pronged dev cycle of three separate products that are intended to appeal to a player base that ultimately craves accruacy within their chosen niche. Im quite sure that if the Devs thought there was a finacially sound reason for a true sandbox element within the series it would happen. That it doesnt likley indicates that there isnt. The Camel will belong to a full product that is in the works and part of an early access programme now whilst the Corsair would be very much a single entity DCS style. The Camel has adversaries from its period and theatre also that were released at the same time. The Corsair, to my knowledge, never flew against any of the aircraft currently modelled. Now you could say "so model a Japanese Fighter as well" but then we are back into doing the reserach on the Japanaese aircraft and double the effect of the law of slow burning returns. What you can and cant do if the mood takes you if down to you but such silly match ups are a minority sport that soon grows old for the majority if indeed it even interested them for the briefest time in the first place. You can use DCS as an example since few if any servers even there, put up 109s against F18s to sell out participation. Whilst you may think its awesome, take a look at the Soviet V USAAF proposal poll recently posted. Even mashing up aircraft in a more likely what if scenario isnt floating that many boats or even gaining that much interest for people to even bother clicking a yes/no button. Edited February 12, 2019 by SCG_BOO
Missionbug Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 I think I have to agree with those in favour of any aircraft integrated into the game actually having a role to play within it, although we would hope one day to have the SBD, Corsair and most other types available now is not the time or place, sorry to say. As has been mentioned we are only able to use types from the various sets now because of the development cycle, in a full release game that would not be the case as you would have the plane set designed for it, early access is after all a development tool really and it is certainly fun to test the various types but I think they are always better used in their intended environment. That said, in previous iterations of the game there were available various fantasy/online maps, not necessarily of anywhere in particular, however, there for people to play out their own fantasies, a few basic maps like that would be welcome I think to fly with existing types as we have seen with recent Far East type actions on the Kuban map. Do not get me wrong, I am of the opinion a game even at simulation level should be fun to use, for the player to relax with and not always taken too seriously, however, I think the current model works best, the anticipation of a map and aircraft set in a particular region is what most buy into, I think even if third parties made the aircraft mentioned the development team would be hard pressed trying to do their part of the integration while working on the established/upcoming modules and so it is highly unlikely it would ever happen. If it could and folks wanted to buy DCS style then fair enough, their money and game, however, we should not be craving for things that could potentially disrupt the established development cycle where they only add what is necessary for each module. Take care. Wishing you all the very best, Pete.
CanadaOne Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 My, my. I had no idea the walls could come crumbling down with such ease. So for the sake of existence itself, I officially withdraw my request for a Corsair. Breathe, friends. Life is good again.
BRADYS555 Posted February 12, 2019 Author Posted February 12, 2019 Corsairs did operate over Norway, Though as far as I know they did not engage any German aircraft, this was during one of the raids on the tripetz
Soilworker Posted February 12, 2019 Posted February 12, 2019 HANG ON, everyone seems to be missing a fairly important point here: You can't just add in any planes that would be important for the future Battle of Midway and Battle of Okinawa base planesets, they could only be potential collector planes because otherwise future customers who only purchase the PTO base modules would have to also buy the important planes missing from the set. For example it'd be like buying Battle of Stalingrad and then have to buy the Yak-1 extra! (Sorry if this has been mentioned already, I didn't see it but I skim-read most of the posts.)
BRADYS555 Posted February 13, 2019 Author Posted February 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Soilworker said: HANG ON, everyone seems to be missing a fairly important point here: You can't just add in any planes that would be important for the future Battle of Midway and Battle of Okinawa base planesets, they could only be potential collector planes because otherwise future customers who only purchase the PTO base modules would have to also buy the important planes missing from the set. For example it'd be like buying Battle of Stalingrad and then have to buy the Yak-1 extra! (Sorry if this has been mentioned already, I didn't see it but I skim-read most of the posts.) Well, they already have several planes in the game that operated in the CBI and Pacific, so ...?
Soilworker Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 9 hours ago, BRADYS555 said: Well, they already have several planes in the game that operated in the CBI and Pacific, so ...? Well it would make the situation even worse, wouldn't it. But you're right, I forgot about them.
MiloMorai Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 The SBD did fly in the ETO, tho it was against a target in Norway. It was also used in Operation Torch. The F4F and F6F flying with the FAA operated in the ETO, tho again not in a map that we currently have.
BRADYS555 Posted February 13, 2019 Author Posted February 13, 2019 4 hours ago, MiloMorai said: The SBD did fly in the ETO, tho it was against a target in Norway. It was also used in Operation Torch. The F4F and F6F flying with the FAA operated in the ETO, tho again not in a map that we currently have. The SBD operated over Europe for a long time, all the way up till the end of the fighting in May of 45, the US Navy used them as you say above and the French used them as well, they were operating south of the Bodenplate map: F4F's also operated in NA, briefly, by the FAA from land bases in Egypt.
1CGS LukeFF Posted February 13, 2019 1CGS Posted February 13, 2019 Yes, that's all good and well, but players honestly don't give much of a care about the SBD's service in Europe. It's all about the Pacific.
BraveSirRobin Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 A big part of the current business model is that they need to sell “modules” in order to generate enough revenue. People who prefer bombers are forced to buy fighters, people who prefer fighters are forced to buy bombers, and everyone is forced to buy maps. If they start producing core aircraft, like the SBD, without the map and corresponding aircraft, the business model starts to fall apart. They need to sell modules in order to stay in business. 3
BRADYS555 Posted February 13, 2019 Author Posted February 13, 2019 2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said: A big part of the current business model is that they need to sell “modules” in order to generate enough revenue. People who prefer bombers are forced to buy fighters, people who prefer fighters are forced to buy bombers, and everyone is forced to buy maps. If they start producing core aircraft, like the SBD, without the map and corresponding aircraft, the business model starts to fall apart. They need to sell modules in order to stay in business. That's not lost on me, but when we hear about the pacific it so far out largely because of the huge work load, the idea with the SBD, like a lot of the other extant planes that are transferable to the pacific, if not the current model a derivative, the H81 for example, it will just lighten there load when it comes to getting around to the Pacific, even if they go Japanese on the Cheep, and do a Burma map, at least at first, there are a lot of dual use types that can be done and used on current maps that they can make money on in the mean time
BraveSirRobin Posted February 13, 2019 Posted February 13, 2019 2 hours ago, BRADYS555 said: That's not lost on me, but when we hear about the pacific it so far out largely because of the huge work load 1. They never said that PTO was pushed back because of a high workload. 2. Even if it was an issue, they still need the extra revenue that modules bring. If they make additional planes, it makes a lot more sense that planes fit in existing maps/modules. People are far more likely to buy aircraft that fit in a map that they already own. If you want random aircraft and maps with no connection at any level, then DCS is the game for you.
CanadaOne Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 6 hours ago, LukeFF said: Yes, that's all good and well, but players honestly don't give much of a care about the SBD's service in Europe. It's all about the Pacific. Ahhh, I see. Now that a plane actually does fit with a map, you're speaking on behalf of "the players" and saying they don't want it anyway. How convenient for you. Please submit a list of all the other planes that fit with BOX maps that "players don't give much of a care about" so we'll know what we do and do not like.
Gambit21 Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 3 hours ago, BRADYS555 said: That's not lost on me, Well there you go...so adding core aircraft without the module/map they're most associated with is a bad idea.
BRADYS555 Posted February 14, 2019 Author Posted February 14, 2019 45 minutes ago, Gambit21 said: Well there you go...so adding core aircraft without the module/map they're most associated with is a bad idea. They already have, depending on what future map your fantasying about, Flying Tigers in Burma, we have The P40 but it’s not the H81, if they did the SBD now it would be the A24, not the SBD - (pick a model and a time frame), we have the P47D 28 , but for Okinawa it would be the N, there are many other examples, I think we can have our cake and eat it to, I would be surprised if they did the A24 now’ish, but thinking about it is fun
CanadaOne Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 1 minute ago, BRADYS555 said: They already have, depending on what future map your fantasying about, Flying Tigers in Burma, we have The P40 but it’s not the H81, if they did the SBD now it would be the A24, not the SBD - (pick a model and a time frame), Apparently we don't want the SBD even if it flew in WWII Europe. I'm glad someone told me, because up until he told me I didn't want it, I wanted it. Glad I got the info in time.
Poochnboo Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 People keep talking about "an easy way to get into the Pacific." I think the devs would argue with you about those "easy ways." If they are going to take the time to build Pacific based airplanes, they might as well keep going and build the theater. When the P-38 comes out (can't wait) I intend to fly it over the Kuban map against the Macchi, painted as a Tony and the LA-5, painted as an Oscar. That's as close as we're getting to the Pacific, in here, for many years. 1
BRADYS555 Posted February 14, 2019 Author Posted February 14, 2019 I think obviously it really depends on your point of view, personally for me the Pacific is simply code for something with Japan in it, and anything that involves building aircraft carriers and ships seems like a tremendous undertaking in and of its self, but I think it gets to the mindset of the average player or what they think the average consumer of their product is wanting, my guess is probably aircraft carriers, personally while I am interested in those things, I would like to see us get there sooner rather than later, and there are a lot of places where the allies fought the Japanese that had nothing to do with aircraft carriers, Burma I have over sold above, but New Gunie would be another way to go, or China, the solomons, DEI, lots of options some easer to build certainly than others but it’s the market analysis part investment versus reward...
BraveSirRobin Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 22 minutes ago, CanadaOne said: Apparently we don't want the SBD even if it flew in WWII Europe. I'm glad someone told me, because up until he told me I didn't want it, I wanted it. Glad I got the info in time. If you want to fly a SBD over Europe you should see if someone will do it for DCS. That's kinda their thing.
CanadaOne Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said: If you want to fly a SBD over Europe you should see if someone will do it for DCS. That's kinda their thing. What's with this "blame DCS" thing that's going on. It's becoming a bit silly. Kind of a lazy tagline to try and stifle discussion. "Oh god, that's soooo DCS of you!" In any case, it was mentioned that SBDs did fly in the ETO. The quick comeback on that was "Okay, maybe it does have a map to go with it... but... but... people don't want it anyway." We're getting into serious snowflake land with all this. It's like mentioning the wrong plane is a micro-aggression and some people need colouring books and soft pillows to help them deal with the stress. It's... a... game. Really.
BraveSirRobin Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 1 minute ago, CanadaOne said: What's with this "blame DCS" thing that's going on. It's becoming a bit silly. Kind of a lazy tagline to try and stifle discussion. I'm not blaming DCS. But putting planes on maps where they had extremely limited, if any, combat time, is kinda a DCS thing. And no one is trying to stifle anything, I'm just trying to explain the BoX business model to you. Also, constantly calling people "snowflakes" is a pretty good indicator that you need to buy a mirror. 1
BRADYS555 Posted February 14, 2019 Author Posted February 14, 2019 ‘In April 1945 each SBD-5 averaged three missions a day in the European theater.’ Referring to the French squadrons operating them, A24- is just the Army designation for SBD
BraveSirRobin Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 2 minutes ago, BRADYS555 said: ‘In April 1945 each SBD-5 averaged three missions a day in the European theater.’ Referring to the French squadrons operating them, A24- is just the Army designation for SBD I'm very much in favor of them making SBD's after they've modeled all the aircraft that fought over Europe which averaged more than 3 missions per day. 2
CanadaOne Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 Just now, BraveSirRobin said: I'm not blaming DCS. But putting planes on maps where they had extremely limited, if any, combat time, is kinda a DCS thing. And no one is trying to stifle anything, I'm just trying to explain the BoX business model to you. Also, constantly calling people "snowflakes" is a pretty good indicator that you need to buy a mirror. The argument at first was "no map = no plane". Now that there is a map the goalposts are moving. That's fine, but this exaggerated breathless "if your goal is to kill sales and end any further development" apocalyptic style of banter is a bit much. And no, I'm not a snowflake. I'm a lot of things, but not that.
BraveSirRobin Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 1 minute ago, CanadaOne said: The argument at first was "no map = no plane". Now that there is a map the goalposts are moving. That's fine, but this exaggerated breathless "if your goal is to kill sales and end any further development" apocalyptic style of banter is a bit much. And no, I'm not a snowflake. I'm a lot of things, but not that. Yes, I moved the goalposts from "no map = no plane" to "model this plane after they have modeled almost every single other aircraft that saw combat over Europe". Huge difference. I can see why you're upset. As for killing sales and development, you should probably "debate" Jason over that one. He's most likely the one who decided on this sales model.
CanadaOne Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said: Yes, I moved the goalposts from "no map = no plane" to "model this plane after they have modeled almost every single other aircraft that saw combat over Europe". Huge difference. I can see why you're upset. As for killing sales and development, you should probably "debate" Jason over that one. He's most likely the one who decided on this sales model. No, not upset. Just curious about this "OMG! We can't have that plane!" mindset of some people.
BraveSirRobin Posted February 14, 2019 Posted February 14, 2019 Just now, CanadaOne said: No, not upset. Just curious about this "OMG! We can't have that plane!" mindset of some people. That "mindset" is an imaginary invention of yours. If you want to debate the validity of the business model, talk to Jason.
Recommended Posts