Jump to content
Jason_Williams

Discussion of the Battle of Normandy Announcement

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Danziger said:

Except for the Ju52. The poor sales figures indicate nobody bought the Ju52 and it was a waste of resources.

 

I haven't, but was wondering how we know what the sales are like for each collectible plane? I think that the Ju52 is now the only plane I haven't bought after this last sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Danziger said:

The poor sales figures indicate nobody bought the Ju52 and it was a waste of resources.

I'd be interested in your source regarding this information as well. 

Share this post


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

 

I haven't, but was wondering how we know what the sales are like for each collectible plane? I think that the Ju52 is now the only plane I haven't bought after this last sale.

There was a guy that started up a whole Ju52 hate thread a while back claiming it was a horrible seller and waste of resources. Not a Ju52 fan at all. Pretty sure it was someone participating in the conversation here.

 

That's my source.

Edited by Danziger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sinned said:

 

I am glad you asked. 

 

Jason, can you help answer this question - why we were asked to buy 'everything that 1CGS has to offer'?  

Because you deluded yourself into thinking that buying a pair of modules means that 1CGS owes you PTO.

Newsflash: the money you pay them goes mostly to developing the module or collector you just bought. And that's before we get into the fact that there are far more important factors at play for what they choose to make then the demands of a loud forum minority.

At the end of the day buy or don't buy, but don't expect to be owed anything more then what you just paid for.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

I think the B-26 was pulled from the Pacific pretty early in the war as was the B-17. Not sure of the reasoning in the B-26's case. 

 

The 26s and 17s in the Pacific were simply used up, and with the war in Europe being the theater of main priority, no more were sent to the Pacific.  General Kenny had to make do with A20s until B25s could be spared from the European commitments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, everyone has their own bugaboos. Frankly, the turn around on production is amazingly fast, and the planes are always hitting the major models/types for the focus of the game. I don't see how anyone could be that unhappy, and I was (and still am) anxiously awaiting PTO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, sinned said:

 

I am glad you asked. 

 

Jason, can you help answer this question - why we were asked to buy 'everything that 1CGS has to offer'?  

Partly true, he did ask us but there was no promises.

Lesson learned, never buy what your're not interested in, also it can misslead developer regarding game direction.

That's why i didn't bought TC!

Share this post


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

also it can misslead developer regarding game direction.

They see what you are gaming. They know what is popular in terms of game time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, IV./JG51-H_Stiglitz said:

Hi, i'm Nobody

 

The point was allocation of resources. I bought it as well, but marginal cost vs. revenue may well suggest that it was unprofitable (I suspect that is was).

 

That - for a small team with an eye on opportunity cost - is a ‘waste of resources’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

The Arado flew over all 5 beach heads and photographed the allied landing sites in Normandy in the summer (early August) of 1944. There were 214 built and Arados flew many recon and bombing missions in the last year of the war - it is perfectly relevant for the Normandy (and Ardennes) maps.

 

No idea however, why the developers chose Ju88C-6 over the Ju-188.

 

My best guess is that the Ju-88C-6a will be much easier for them to do. Modify the exterior of a Ju88A-4 to add the sold nose and make some changes to the cockpit and it is basically done. Not sure if this factors in but the C-6a also had a career on the eastern front doing train hunting missions.

 

3 hours ago, ATAG_SKUD said:

 Can someone explain to me how the game engine restricts the use of 4 engine bombers but not 3 engine transports? I'm not getting it and can't find a post that explains this.

:salute:

skud

 

I don't think engine numbers are actually an issue in this way. The biggest problem is development time as you have to build 6-cockpits (1 actual cockpit and the rest are gun turrets) for a single aircraft. I'm guessing the development time to do that is substantial to the point of making it difficult for the team to do much of anything else and that then cuts down on other aircraft that can be done.

 

The technical issues are I think secondary but still relevant. Even an He111 with fewer stations can cause a bit of a drain on CPU once you throw a bunch of them together. Put a small formation of B-17's together and it'd probably be a slideshow. Others have tested to see how far that can go and IMHO I think the team could probably come up with some technical solutions to mitigate that.

 

They might ultimately take a risk and have a group like Digital Forms, who are doing the tanks for Tank Crew, to model a single bomber and sell it for what I imagine would be a high price. I don't know if that'd be a success or not. I think a lot of people are more interested in the intercepting a formation of B-17's than they are flying it.

 

And that comes to the final point in that at least half of the development effort for a B-17 would be to do the exterior, the damage model and the flight model.

 

So, while I don't think a B-17 or another four engine heavy bomber is impossible, I also don't think that most are giving full credit to just how difficult it would be for the team to do. I talked to Jason at FS Expo back in June and I could tell he'd really like to do an aircraft like the B-17 but there's real concerns about the finances of the whole thing and this is an industry and a developer that is constantly concerned about that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

The point was allocation of resources. I bought it as well, but marginal cost vs. revenue may well suggest that it was unprofitable (I suspect that is was).

 

That - for a small team with an eye on opportunity cost - is a ‘waste of resources’

I was just trolling the dude that started the thread about how nobody wanted or bought the Ju52.

3 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

My best guess is that the Ju-88C-6a will be much easier for them to do. Modify the exterior of a Ju88A-4 to add the sold nose and make some changes to the cockpit and it is basically done. Not sure if this factors in but the C-6a also had a career on the eastern front doing train hunting missions.

 

 

I don't think engine numbers are actually an issue in this way. The biggest problem is development time as you have to build 6-cockpits (1 actual cockpit and the rest are gun turrets) for a single aircraft. I'm guessing the development time to do that is substantial to the point of making it difficult for the team to do much of anything else and that then cuts down on other aircraft that can be done.

 

The technical issues are I think secondary but still relevant. Even an He111 with fewer stations can cause a bit of a drain on CPU once you throw a bunch of them together. Put a small formation of B-17's together and it'd probably be a slideshow. Others have tested to see how far that can go and IMHO I think the team could probably come up with some technical solutions to mitigate that.

 

They might ultimately take a risk and have a group like Digital Forms, who are doing the tanks for Tank Crew, to model a single bomber and sell it for what I imagine would be a high price. I don't know if that'd be a success or not. I think a lot of people are more interested in the intercepting a formation of B-17's than they are flying it.

 

And that comes to the final point in that at least half of the development effort for a B-17 would be to do the exterior, the damage model and the flight model.

 

So, while I don't think a B-17 or another four engine heavy bomber is impossible, I also don't think that most are giving full credit to just how difficult it would be for the team to do. I talked to Jason at FS Expo back in June and I could tell he'd really like to do an aircraft like the B-17 but there's real concerns about the finances of the whole thing and this is an industry and a developer that is constantly concerned about that.

There is also the question of how big of a plane can you stretch a 4096x4096 texture over and still have the details look good.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

And that comes to the final point in that at least half of the development effort for a B-17 would be to do the exterior, the damage model and the flight model.

 

 

To be honest this is not an excuse for a 90 USD game, while Heavy bombers are a significant portion of ww2. sure i get the risk issue but that can be mitigated, via kickstarting or pre orders. even current technical limitations are not an excuse to not try and solve those technical issues. however the biggest sin of all is that we do not have a solid official QnA on this very subject and is visible to all those who want or are invested in the sim.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

Explain how a transport aircraft is “more useful” than a combat aircraft in IL2 MP. About the only time I see it ever get used is in TAW lol

We use the transport plane all the time in our squad run Campaing. It is for more useful than any plane. Without it, front line airfields do not get resupply. Most MP server are just about I and not being a team. 

 

It just feels odd flying a ju-52 to resupply while being escorted by 2 spitfires. 

 

So there is your explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ju-88C6a was not soley used by Nachtjagdgeschwader; it was also used by long range Zerstoer Geschwader based in Brittany who would patrol the Biscay Bay area providing U-boats Kreigsmarine and merchant shipping with air-cover from RAF Coastal Command aircraft.

 

So it was in the late afternoon on D-Day that I./ZG.1 had orders to dispatch at least 8 a/c towards the Normandy bridgehead; they had the misfortune to run across 135 Wings Spitfire IXs and suffered heavily.

 

Ju-188s were employed largely at night (as with the majority of the Kampfgeschwader at this time of the war). Without any confirmed plans by Jason and team to implement Air interception Radar it would seem that night combat is not really to be represented for the Western theatres and thusly the -188 would be largely irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"To support this particular Great Battle, we plan to build numerous ground vehicles, tanks, paratroopers, artillery, bunkers, objects, obstacles, buildings, airfields and ships that will bring flying such dangerous missions to life."

 

Can't this also be used to finally get boots on the ground in Tank Crew?

Share this post


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

 

The 26s and 17s in the Pacific were simply used up, and with the war in Europe being the theater of main priority, no more were sent to the Pacific.  General Kenny had to make do with A20s until B25s could be spared from the European commitments.

 

Pacific got B-29s too. ETO didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BoN project offers a wealth of great opportunities. In the pre-invasion period the RAF “Circus”, “Rodeo”, “Rhubarb” operations, or the USAF attacks on the traffic infrastructure in Northern France. The actually invasion "Overlord" then the post-invasion campaign including the Falaise pocket (tank hunting with Typhoon, 9th AF ground attacks) and their associated recon flights. It would also be possible to simulate parts of the battle of England (if only to a limited extent). An Eldorado for campaign designers and certainly the joy of thousands of SPs, by far the largest group in our Sim Community. An excellent decision from 1CGS – congratulations !

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, =RvE=SirScorpion said:

 

To be honest this is not an excuse for a 90 USD game, while Heavy bombers are a significant portion of ww2. sure i get the risk issue but that can be mitigated, via kickstarting or pre orders. even current technical limitations are not an excuse to not try and solve those technical issues. however the biggest sin of all is that we do not have a solid official QnA on this very subject and is visible to all those who want or are invested in the sim.  

 

Heavies fly on rails, not very fun to use, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know some people are complaining about the price but honestly I think it's very fair. 10 aircraft, a map, new effects/coding, vehicles, etc, etc. $80 ÷ 12 aircraft = $6.66 each. I mean for the development, modellling, texturing, FM/DM then bug fixes + all the extra content it's hardly anything for the effort and work that is going to go in to creating it?

 

The only area I am hoping to see some work in is the visual effects so that the explosions, fire and flame along with smoke look a little less cartoonish. I have already pre-ordered mainly to support the developers and wait as progress continues to maybe Italy or the Pacific. 

 

(and the hope they can figure out a way of coding a B-17 or b-24 into the Ai engine)

 

Personally I think it's worth every penny of the investment, cheers, Mysticpuma

Edited by Mysticpuma
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Trog1odyte said:

 

Heavies fly on rails, not very fun to use, really.

still want :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Trog1odyte said:

 

Heavies fly on rails, not very fun to use, really.

 

Fun is subjective for one person to the other, I flew them in old IL2 in large and small formations and had lots of fun. but aside from that it self it is important for the overall game play, while the bombers them selves are not fun for some people, escorting and intercepting are eliminates of game play that provide a larger spectrum of fun to a larger group of players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Grancesc said:

The BoN project offers a wealth of great opportunities. In the pre-invasion period the RAF “Circus”, “Rodeo”, “Rhubarb” operations, or the USAF attacks on the traffic infrastructure in Northern France. The actually invasion "Overlord" then the post-invasion campaign including the Falaise pocket (tank hunting with Typhoon, 9th AF ground attacks) and their associated recon flights. It would also be possible to simulate parts of the battle of England (if only to a limited extent). An Eldorado for campaign designers and certainly the joy of thousands of SPs, by far the largest group in our Sim Community. An excellent decision from 1CGS – congratulations !

 

 

The Falaise pocket isn't even on the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, =RvE=SirScorpion said:

 

Fun is subjective for one person to the other, I flew them in old IL2 in large and small formations and had lots of fun. but aside from that it self it is important for the overall game play, while the bombers them selves are not fun for some people, escorting and intercepting are eliminates of game play that provide a larger spectrum of fun to a larger group of players.

 

Point regarding fun taken. Escort and intercept works also with mediums.

Edited by Trog1odyte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Yey, I will finally be able to finish my Bottisham Four 😄

 

Looking forward to Normandy. Especially the new ground attackers/heavy fighters. They will add some new and missing elements to the west front gameplay and complement BoBP really well. Of course, I am also still hoping to see the B-25, B-26, C-47 flyable. I quite enjoy bombers and transports. It would be a shame if they stay AI forever. 

 

Also, what is Bf 109G-6 "late" supposed to mean? There are so many variants of that plane. Any chance we will get some clarification soon?

 

Good luck with the development.

 

BlackHellHound1

:salute:

Edited by BlackHellHound1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Leifr said:

 

 

The Falaise pocket isn't even on the map.

Map size isn’t certain at this point, they could always extend a bit south and add it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, =RvE=SirScorpion said:

 

To be honest this is not an excuse for a 90 USD game, while Heavy bombers are a significant portion of ww2. sure i get the risk issue but that can be mitigated, via kickstarting or pre orders. even current technical limitations are not an excuse to not try and solve those technical issues. however the biggest sin of all is that we do not have a solid official QnA on this very subject and is visible to all those who want or are invested in the sim.  

 

The team do not need to make any "excuses".  It may be a "90 USD" game (I have spent much more than that!), but it is only purchased by (tens of?) thousands rather than millions of people.  If you compare the series with indie games that also have small player bases, the amount of technical and art content we get is huge. Actually, compared to many AAA games that do sell millions of copies, at high price points, this is also true. You do not have to play for long for these titles to become astonishingly good value for money, on a gold piece per hour basis.

 

So we have to accept that the team - and IC, the financial backers - have constraints, both technical and financial.  It is not reasonable to expect a running commentary on management decisions. We are customers, not shareholders.  Jason has been clear that he would like to do 4-engine bombers but they are not on with current technology: just take his word for it and move on.


  

 

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although i was warming up to the idea of going to the PTO, i like this add-on. Yes there is quite some overlap, but i don't mind that. I'm really looking forward to the 410. During the beginning of 44 it was still used as a night bomber which could be fun and interesting.

 

Grtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently there's two maps with the Falaise pocket coming.

 

I'd appreciate heavy bombers if and when they fix the technical issues with the engine. IL2 Battle over Germany has a nice ring to it, and those titanic battles between the Luftwaffe and the 8th Air Force fascinate me. As it currently stands, I'm more than happy to engage in the tactical air war aspect of the conflict while I wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Leifr said:

 

 

The Falaise pocket isn't even on the map.

 

Jason said: … We plan to have two versions of the map. There will be both pre-Invasion and post-Invasion versions.

 

I say: The Falaise pocket was the key battle of the post-Invasion period.

 

Edited by Grancesc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purchased BoN and the 3 collector planes. Now go and use my $125 on making the best flight sim better! :) Great plane set looking forward to flying all of these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We shouldn't obsess over the extent of the map. Its clearly just a general placeholder at the moment. The exact boundaries of the Bodenplatte map changed throughout development as well.

 

If they have to fudge the map a bit to fit in some locations and exclude others that would be too hard to do, I say go for it. All maps are approximations anyway, and by the necessity of projecting a curved surface onto a flat one, filled with distortions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait to fly over the channel in high freaking fidelity, I spent ages on modding il2 1946 to a point where I could enjoy that on a map this large, and the lack of detail and immersion still didn't completely sell it. This game just needs 1946's AI at this point and we can finally shelve it.

Share this post


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

No. No. No. Nobody bought it.

 

i did, and it's a good one too.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...