Next Theater Announcement Date

[GP*]

Battle of (whatever gets us a Typhoon and Mosquito), please. 

[-LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor]

35 minutes ago, Alexmarine28 said:

(109s really need those drop tanks... )

 

This so much. 109's just don't look right without a drop tank below them.

[GreenSound]

7 minutes ago, -LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor said:

 

This so much. 109's just don't look right without a drop tank below them.

I was hoping we would get drop tanks with Bodenplatte, but maybe that will come with the next one, or as a surprise patch one day.

 

Really hoping the next theater is MTO, but I just want to know out of sheer curiosity, tbh. I'm really enjoying BoBP at the moment. Loving the Tempest and the P47. Devs have done a great job

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, InProgress said:

Tbh, i don't care. I simply said that i want to fly long missions. Saying that no one wants to fly in a fly sim is ridiculus statement. Not everyone here needs 2min of flying to dogfight for 30. And on the other hand ju52 missions in the career pretty much take 2h or so to fly with cargo and then back. Not sure what would be so bad about doing exactly same thing with Zero flying one way for 1h just to get somewhere. We already have long missions with bombers and transport.

 

I never said everyone, I said most.

It may have escaped your notice that I built a bomber campaign with some decent flight times. 

 

The actual meaning of the words that I typed with my keyboard may also have escaped your notice. You know, the ones that describe building long missions, testing, player feedback...all that.

 

 Flying  an hour each way with the Zero is exactly what I was talking about with the map I described earlier. It’s reasonable all things considered, the Zero is slower, flight times will be longer. I was simply applying some empirical data with regard to building and testing.

 

I never said that not a single player wants to fly for 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours one way. Just not very many.

 

[sevenless]

21 minutes ago, -LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor said:

 

This so much. 109's just don't look right without a drop tank below them.

 

Fw 190 A8s neither. Let´s see when they get this integraded.

[InProgress]

23 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I never said everyone, I said most.

It may have escaped your notice that I built a bomber campaign with some decent flight times. 

 

The actual meaning of the words that I typed with my keyboard may also have escaped your notice. You know, the ones that describe building long missions, testing, player feedback...all that.

 

 Flying  an hour each way with the Zero is exactly what I was talking about with the map I described earlier. It’s reasonable all things considered, the Zero is slower, flight times will be longer. I was simply applying some empirical data with regard to building and testing.

 

I never said that not a single player wants to fly for 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours one way. Just not very many.

 

But i was not talking about you in my first post, but to the guy who said no one wants to fly for 2h. I was aslo refering to career not scripted missions.

[Diddlestyx]

Personally, I think a good next step for the devs would be a Mediterranean map covering Tunisia, Malta and Sicily.  This allows them to use some existing aircraft plus room for additions and gives them a place to develop aircraft carrier combat.  Battles like Kasserine Pass, Invasion of Sicily lots of anti shipping missions and air raids on Malta could be included.  Also a desert environment is not one we have seen yet in the Great Battles series. 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Diddlestyx

[Gambit21]

24 minutes ago, InProgress said:

But i was not talking about you in my first post, but to the guy who said no one wants to fly for 2h. I was aslo refering to career not scripted missions.

 

I see - you quoted my post thus the confusion.

 

An hour each way in a Zero is reasonable all things considered. I still don’t want to build/test that campaign though.

Not to say that I won’t.

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

You must be made of stronger stuff...

 

?

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 hour ago, Diddlestyx said:

Personally, I think a good next step for the devs would be a Mediterranean map covering Tunisia, Malta and Sicily.  This allows them to use some existing aircraft plus room for additions and gives them a place to develop aircraft carrier combat.  Battles like Kasserine Pass, Invasion of Sicily lots of anti shipping missions and air raids on Malta could be included.  Also a desert environment is not one we have seen yet in the Great Battles series. 

 

If they're going to deal with the development of carrier operations, they might as well go all the way with it.  Otherwise it will be an underdeveloped/underutilized side show like naval operations in Kuban.

Edited November 16, 2019 by J28w-Broccoli

[cardboard_killer]

2 hours ago, Diddlestyx said:

Also a desert environment is not one we have seen yet in the Great Battles series. 

 

Most of the Tunisia campaign occurred during winter. Poor airfields with rain and MUD caused the allies a lot of problems, and a lot of non-flyable days. Tunisia, at least the part fought over, is not really desert. However,  it is still new terrain, and I'm all for it.

[Praetor]

Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but what is the limitation with the game that prevents inclusion of 4 engine bombers?

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Praetor said:

Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but what is the limitation with the game that prevents inclusion of 4 engine bombers?

Its nothing they could not overcome if they have to, but as of now its combo of complex AI, the more AI stations are in airplane more performance hungry that airplane is, then you add time it takes to make one big airplane with all thouse stations compared to fighter. Atleast this is how i understand it, its not so mutch about number of engines on airplane. 

[Hoss]

On 11/15/2019 at 4:46 AM, Trooper117 said:

Jason said the first Pacific battle would be Midway, so it's carrier warfare... usually long flight times.

There are a few pacific purists that want those long flights to make it feel real for them.

 

 

Well I hope they get Hayrake modeled correctly so we can Radio Navigate our way back to the ships

 

 

Hoss

23 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

How about P-51,  P-47?  They flew over Italy.  And I guarantee that they’d sell.  

Yeah, P-51B and P-47D-22 and earlier P-38.

 

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, 77.CountZero said:

 Atleast this is how i understand it, its not so mutch about number of engines on airplane. 

 

Yes, I understood it that way too. It is the number of crew positions. 10 men for B17 or B24 and 7 men for Lancaster or Halifax eating up CPU cycles if done in high fidelity. Because of that a reduced fidelity with believable AI behaviour would be necessary to make it feasable. Bombers like in IL-2 1946 would do the trick for me. To do it correctly you need 20-40ish per bomber box to keep the immersion. We can only dream...

[Pikestance]

1 hour ago, 77.CountZero said:

Its nothing they could not overcome if they have to, but as of now its combo of complex AI, the more AI stations are in airplane more performance hungry that airplane is, then you add time it takes to make one big airplane with all thouse stations compared to fighter. Atleast this is how i understand it, its not so mutch about number of engines on airplane. 

 

3 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Yes, I understood it that way too. It is the number of crew positions. 10 men for B17 or B24 and 7 men for Lancaster or Halifax eating up CPU cycles if done in high fidelity. Because of that a reduced fidelity with believable AI behaviour would be necessary to make it feasable. Bombers like in IL-2 1946 would do the trick for me. To do it correctly you need 20-40ish per bomber box to keep the immersion. We can only dream...

 

So it is more of a resource cost than a development cost? 

 

It would be cool see,...

 

[ww2fighter20]

44 minutes ago, IV./JG51-Lanze_vonHaltung said:

 

 

So it is more of a resource cost than a development cost? 

 

It would be cool see,...

 

In general an heavy bomber takes more time to make because of all the extra turret positions that have to be researched and created which often also are different from each other.

Other positions like bombardeer/radio would likely not be modelled for 1st person if located in seperate position (Like nose bombardeer position of current A20).

 

With ai the problem (as far as I know) is that each turret is operated by an seperate ai gunner so each gunner can track and attack there own targets which has an effect on performance.

other positions like navigator/bombardier/radio are likely covered by the pilot ai.

 

Another issue is that british/american heavy bombers mostly operated only from britain and in the bodenplatte timeframe targets where mostly outside of the map.

Don't know about eastern front heavy bombers (TB3/Pe8/Fw200).

 

I do want to point out the devs in devblog 227 mentioned the P51/Tempest/P38 and ai version of B25 where the most complex and difficult objects they had to create in their teams history.

While this does show how difficult the B25 is, it also shows single engine aircraft like the P51 and tempest where more difficult to create then the He111/Ju88/Pe2 which all have several turrets.

[cardboard_killer]

I say they do the Guerra del 41. It's about time we had some South American map spaces, and I've always wanted to fly for the Peruvian air force.

[InProgress]

16 hours ago, Diddlestyx said:

Personally, I think a good next step for the devs would be a Mediterranean map covering Tunisia, Malta and Sicily.  This allows them to use some existing aircraft plus room for additions and gives them a place to develop aircraft carrier combat.  Battles like Kasserine Pass, Invasion of Sicily lots of anti shipping missions and air raids on Malta could be included.  Also a desert environment is not one we have seen yet in the Great Battles series. 

Do you realize how big is that? Sicily it self is 370km long. That map of yours is like 1000-1500km lol

 

I think they could easly do some night based expansion on the west that would include west germany. They could drop that 10 planes bad idea already. We would get AI B17, halifax, lancaster etc. And some night fighters for germans, bf110, he111, ju88 etc. So you have 4 engine bombers flying around at night, no need for big formations and you can just hunt them with radars. Then it could also work with some later war day combat with planes from BOBP.

 

Spoiler

 

 

I will keep dreaming but having nightfighters would be so great

Edited November 17, 2019 by InProgress

[Megalax]

21 hours ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

In my experience, most people my age who would be interested in playing flight sims tend to focus on the Eastern Front.

 

Funny how that works...most people I know who fly sims would rather fly Western Front.

[Cybermat47]

10 minutes ago, Megalax said:

 

Funny how that works...most people I know who fly sims would rather fly Western Front.

What age range are they in, though? I’m talking about zoomers.

[ShamrockOneFive]

14 hours ago, Praetor said:

Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but what is the limitation with the game that prevents inclusion of 4 engine bombers?

 

There's a lot of noise on this subject but the biggest issue is simply a matter of developer time. Complex multi-station bombers take a lot of development time and the team doesn't think they can do one.

 

As a community we've also suggested that things like AI (multiple gunner stations means multiple AI actors per plane at a level we don't have) could cause problems too. I feel like the devs might be able to solve that one with some clever trickery.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 hour ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

What age range are they in, though? I’m talking about zoomers.

 

Well if they want to fly eastern front they've got three titles to choose from already.

Edited November 17, 2019 by J28w-Broccoli

[InProgress]

5 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

Well if they want to fly eastern front they've got three titles to choose from already.

And having 4th is even better.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

4 minutes ago, InProgress said:

And having 4th is even better.

 

That was very rude. Thank you very much for all of us who dream about a module in the Pacific. You'll get 36 different theatres of operations in Eastern Europe. Ok, and so?

Edited November 17, 2019 by 343KKT_Kintaro
orth.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

11 minutes ago, InProgress said:

And having 4th is even better.

 

If only the devs hadn't thrown away all that time and energy on the failure that is Bodenplatte.  What idiots they've been.  They should have known that what the wider audience of potential customers *really* wanted was more eastern front.

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by J28w-Broccoli

[cardboard_killer]

So that's a no on Peru and Ecuador?

[Megalax]

1 hour ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

What age range are they in, though? I’m talking about zoomers.

 

The age range varies. But most peeps I know who want to fly in this sim are waiting for Typhoons, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters.

[cardboard_killer]

40 minutes ago, Megalax said:

But most peeps I know who want to fly in this sim are waiting for Typhoons, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters.

 

Really? They won't play the sim until Typhoons, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters are included? Really?

 

So when IL-2 Battle of Moscow was available for 13 USD, they said to themselves, "nope, holding out until I get my Typhoons, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters."  When it rains, are they in danger of drowning if they leave the house?

[Pikestance]

Well, it was 20.00, but I jumped on it like a cheap prostitute. I had every intention, after playing BOS and BOK of buying BOM, but the sale caught me. I got the "Ok" from the wifey to buy BOBP. Originally, I was planning on buying into the series when it went to pacific, but with the game at 75%, only a fool who aren't interested in History an or aviation would pass that up. 

 

I just spent as hour just taking off and had a blast. Why anyone would care if they can or cannot fly one particular plane is beyond me. That is a very specific interest. 

[AndytotheD]

3 hours ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

What age range are they in, though? I’m talking about zoomers.

Where do you live? I’m 23 and can’t find a single person my age, who’s into combat flight sims, who cares about the Eastern front at all.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Staying on a specific topic: so, a crew of ten on board a bomber would be too time consuming for 1C Game Studios… Understood. But... what if they went into developping 3D-modelled ships like carriers, battleships, destroyers, bulk cargo ships, etc? big ships are FULL of guns and crewmen… but they are not fast vehicles like aircraft. How long would take to model the essential ships of the two enemy fleets in the Pacific in the 1940s? IL-2 was first released in 2001 and Pacific Fighters was released in 2004 after 1 or 2 years of development...

 

 

[cardboard_killer]

44 minutes ago, AndytotheD said:

I’m 23 and can’t find a single person my age, who’s into combat flight sims, who cares about the Eastern front at all.

 

I remember how excited I got at 11 years old when I found Squad Leader at my local game shop and half of it was dedicated to the Soviet side of the war. T-34s and Su-122s!

 

 

[Megalax]

1 hour ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

Really? They won't play the sim until Typhoons, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters are included? Really?

 

So when IL-2 Battle of Moscow was available for 13 USD, they said to themselves, "nope, holding out until I get my Typhoons, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters."  When it rains, are they in danger of drowning if they leave the house?

 

I'm not their mom.

[Bremspropeller]

23 hours ago, Pre said:

Battle of (whatever gets us a Typhoon and Mosquito), please. 

 

Battle of the Phillippines, then?

[Ribbon]

58 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Staying on a specific topic: so, a crew of ten on board a bomber would be too time consuming for 1C Game Studios… Understood. But... what if they went into developping 3D-modelled ships like carriers, battleships, destroyers, bulk cargo ships, etc? big ships are FULL of guns and crewmen… but they are not fast vehicles like aircraft. How long would take to model the essential ships of the two enemy fleets in the Pacific in the 1940s? IL-2 was first released in 2001 and Pacific Fighters was released in 2004 after 1 or 2 years of development...

 

 

Ships and their AA posts are not player controlable so they don't need details to model and bring them into functionality as bombers do, that's the difference.

AI Ships/vehicle gunners are rough 3D model with adjusted ballistics and DM, no need to to model every bolt, engine parameters and such.

 

Also devs are not referring only to number of gunner posts in bomber as a problem, game engine running parameters for 4 aircraft engines at the same time would be cpu hungry i believe....since they model engines to it's finest functionality.

Edited November 17, 2019 by EAF_Ribbon

[Trooper117]

3 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

So that's a no on Peru and Ecuador?

 

You is right!!!

[cardboard_killer]

1 hour ago, Megalax said:

I'm not their mom.

 

I don't think anyone is.

[Gambit21]

7 hours ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

What age range are they in, though? I’m talking about zoomers.

 

Most guys I know who are into WWII aviation, including a few family members, friends, guys I go to air shows with etc are 50+.

 

They don’t know squat about the Eastern Front. In fact I don’t know anyone in my immediate circle who can name 3 Russian WWII fighters. It’s just not what they grew up learning about, watching movies about etc.

 

If they’re flying a sim it sure isn’t going to be set in Russia.

 

I would rather fly Eastern Front than no front, but given a choice I’ll spend maybe 15% of my time there. 

 

[dburne]

Hmm I am thinking Dec 7th would be a good date for them to announce the Pacific...