Jump to content
Jason_Williams

Discussion of the Battle of Normandy Announcement

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, LF_Gallahad said:

So much drama... those guys are just being vocal. When the Razorbacks come they will be buying BON for sure. I love the REEEEEE! It's not the Pacific! I won't play!

 

Also I love the "but this graphics engine can't do that..." Well It wasn't able to render long distances and here we are. It wasn't able to render distant buildings and here we are. It wasn't able to fix the cloud bug and here we are, working on it. The Mirror and jet tech? Developed too. Oh c'mon if there is one thing that is sure is that the team does his best and always suprise working on the title.

Yep, ever since I bought Il2 a few years ago all I see is naysayers proven wrong time and time again. Just when everyone says it can't be done the devs say hold my beer and they get it done.

 

People said we'd never see western Europe yet the devs gave us Bodenplatte.

They said we'd never see Normandy yet here we are.

They said it's impossible for long view distances, but the Devs said F that and gave us longer view distances.

Etc. Etc.

 

How about we just be patient for once and see what the devs deliver. They've surprised us so many times before and over delivered, I'm sure they'll do it again.

 

 

9 hours ago, Alexmarine28 said:

 

Stupid Sexy P-51B

B.E.-Photo-credit-The-Friedkin-Group-DAY_002.jpg

 

Such a beauty. My favorite P-51 variant.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking forward to some bomber hunting in the c4 or me 410.

 

My son's namesake was part of a ground crew for a Typhoon pilot.  Should be good fun.

Share this post


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

 

I see it as a $80 Mosquito

 

I don't quite agree but even if it was the case, I would gladly pay $80 just for the mosquito.

 

Or a flyable B26 or C47.

Edited by danielprates
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, danielprates said:

 

I don't quite agree but even if it was the case, I would gladly pay $80 just for the mosquito.

 

Or a flyable B26 or C47.

 

I meant that as a joke. My family has this joke that when you buy a house and sign the contract your buying a $200'000 pen and getting a free house. 😉

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have an immense respect for IL2 team and products. Own and have enjoyed each single one since the 2000´s original IL2 Sturmovik, except Flying Circus (only because already had Rise of Flight). But really don´t understand pricing and content of Normandy, which for me is anticlimatic after Bodenplatte . Essentially, what´s offere is a somewhat smaller map than Bodenplatte (sans London), mostly early versions of Bodenplatte planes, at a $10 premium ? Will surely buy the Ar 234 and Spit XIV collector planes as soon as made available, since both will integrate nicely into Bodebplatte. And will buy Normandy later at a discount, while badly missing the Mosquito in the meantime. Finally, will surely buy Pacific as soon as (any scenario) is offered, looking forward for carrier ops and settings like Guadalcanal, Phillipines and New Guinea.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Yep, ever since I bought Il2 a few years ago all I see is naysayers proven wrong time and time again. Just when everyone says it can't be done the devs say hold my beer and they get it done.

 

People said we'd never see western Europe yet the devs gave us Bodenplatte.

They said we'd never see Normandy yet here we are.

They said it's impossible for long view distances, but the Devs said F that and gave us longer view distances.

Etc. Etc.

 

How about we just be patient for once and see what the devs deliver. They've surprised us so many times before and over delivered, I'm sure they'll do it again.

 

 

 

Such a beauty. My favorite P-51 variant.

My feelings exactly, I'd upvote you, but I'm on recharge

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normandy was the scenario I was looking for. Pacific Theater came (close) second. I am very anxious to fly the Typhoon, the Mosquito and the Me410, but the Ar-234 does not belong to BON, seriously, what is this all about, it was not a factor in Normandy... But It will be a nice addition to Bodenplatte...Nonetheless, I will purchase this, I will buy BON to support the devs. The Pacific theater (with multiple chapters I hope), the Vistula, Bagration, Kursk will come next I assume (In my dreams, lol). Isn't this a great sim ? Well, just support it... (not at full price though, haha)

Edited by Beurling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The JU52 was a static model in the game right from the start and people asked for a flyable version......they got it. Relax people, if all goes well I am sure the devs will make the B-25 etc flyable. I am pretty sure they will drop it in a surprise announcement. They often have a holiday surprise and I am pretty sure they are working on the B25 as we speak.

 

This is why I think its important to support everything they produce because it opens up opportunities to create more flyable models and maps....including the pacific. If you all want the pacific so bad then you need to support the DEV team by buying the stuff they create. Don't sit and whine that its not fair and you've been deceived etc. You wouldn't be posting here if you did not care so exercise patience and think positive and show your positivity by supporting the DEV team.

 

I hate tanks but dang it I am even considering buying Tank Crew just to throw cash at the team. OK, maybe when its on a sale.

 

These guys are working day and night to keep their jobs and their and our dreams alive. The only way this will happen is if their products are a success. IL2 is the closest chance we have of getting amazing theatres recreated and for that alone I think they deserve our support.  

 

If you support a dream then there is a really good chance it will become a reality. If you sit and whine and radiate negativity you just make it harder for everyone to achieve goals and dreams.

Edited by =EXPEND=Dendro
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

Normandy was the scenario I was looking for. Pacific Theater came (close) second. I am very anxious to fly the Typhoon, the Mosquito and the Me410, but the Ar-234 does not belong to BON, seriously, what is this all about, it was not a factor in Normandy... But It will be a nice addition to Bodenplatte...Nonetheless, I will purchase this, I will buy BON to support the devs. The Pacific theater (with multiple chapters I hope), the Vistula, Bagration, Kursk will come next I assume (In my dreams, lol). Isn't this a great sim ? Well, just support it... (not at full price though, haha)

 

hm, i decide to spare money for upcoming Flightsimulator 2020 and for 1-2 DCS models which i´m waiting for like MI-24 and P47.

The BoBP and BoK offers a good planeset and different areas to enjoy this a bit old getting game.

Edited by kubanloewe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, =EXPEND=Dendro said:

The JU52 was a static model in the game right from the start and people asked for a flyable version......they got it. Relax people, if all goes well I am sure the devs will make the B-25 etc flyable.

 

The truth is there was none Ju52 in the game you could just see a Ju52 in the Single-Player Campaign Cinematics. So people started to ask after the Ju52 why we see this plane Single-Player Campaign Cinematics but when we play this part in the Campaign there is none Ju52. It took some time but in the End we received a Ju52 as Ai plane but then people started to ask make it flyable. It took some time and they made it flyable for the player.

 

-> I don't expect more Ai planes will be turned into flyable planes. The Ju52 was created under =FB=LOFT lead and the Ju52 was just a Single-Player Campaign Cinematics..................

Share this post


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

 

The truth is there was none Ju52 in the game you could just see a Ju52 in the Single-Player Campaign Cinematics. So people started to ask after the Ju52 why we see this plane Single-Player Campaign Cinematics but when we play this part in the Campaign there is none Ju52. It took some time but in the End we received a Ju52 as Ai plane but then people started to ask make it flyable. It took some time and they made it flyable for the player.

 

-> I don't expect more Ai planes will be turned into flyable planes. The Ju52 was created under =FB=LOFT lead and the Ju52 was just a Single-Player Campaign Cinematics..................

The devs did say they would like to make the B-25 flyable, it all depends on the resources. If they make the B-25 flyable I have no doubt that they can do the same for the C-47 and B-26.

 

Imo it would be a worthwhile investment and would give the allies some true medium bombers and a much needed transport. They would also be able to release them as collectors I think and make some profit hopefully.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BB5000 said:

Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen ...”The Channel Dash”

 

I've also thought about that. It would be so interesting.

But we need TORPEDOS!

Can the Devs with the present technology make them?

 

We need more bombers, even if AI at first: Do217 (for later Do17) and some Soviets.

 

We also need to increase the number of maps at a faster pace. There are enough planes for many other scenarios. Maybe smaller DLSs with a new map and just two new planes missing in that map/time. It would be a faster way for customers to get new toys and the company some profit.

 

IMHO it takes to long to a new title. We also need sth in the short time.

 

In short, the most important right now Maps and Torpedoes.

Edited by Freelance_Spartan_
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only concern with BoN is, that the map will be as sterile as the Rhineland map. While I'm totally aware that the majority of the recourses of the development of BoBP was shifted towards the all new Aircrafts and technology like jet engines etc, I wholeheartedly hope that they will put way more love in the map development this time since most of the planes we get are more or less variants we already have. 

The map has really to be spot on this time since it's all about ground pounding in the Bocage and beyond. 

And nothing would be more immersion breaking than an empty coastline while after the 6th of June there has to be a whole army at the shore with a Navy ashore and Balloons and Mulberrys, tons of rubble at the beaches, destroyed Atlantikwall fortifications, Pointe Du Hoc, Battery of Azeville, Pegasus Bridge etc etc etc..... 

The DCS Normandy Map is a joke. Please do this one right! 

Edited by Blooddawn1942
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Blooddawn1942 said:

DCS Normandy Map is a joke.

It is indeed liveless, but IMHO the focus of DCS is plane modelling, far more than IL-2 that offers me an all-in-one wartime experience.

In general I personally love the IL-2 maps more than those of DCS but nevertheless the DCS Normandy map is quite detailed ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, simfan2015 said:

It is indeed liveless, but IMHO the focus of DCS is plane modelling, far more than IL-2 that offers me an all-in-one wartime experience.

In general I personally love the IL-2 maps more than those of DCS but nevertheless the DCS Normandy map is quite detailed ! 

Don't get me wrong and maybe the term "joke" was to harsh. I'm a long time DCS User and own every single module (and know how to operate them all btw) and maps. 

But the Normandy map is the only DCS map, I really dislike for several reasons. Despite the detailed landmarks like Pointe Du Hoc, the overall look of the map is in some way totally unconvincing to my eyes. 

Yes, there are villages, farms and powerlines which we desperately need on the Rhineland map. But something is just not right with the feel of the map and the colors. Hopefully with the implementation of speed tree things will get better. 

 

But I don't wanted to turn this into a thread where we discuss a competitors product. But in my opinion GB has the chance to deliver a way better Channel Map, than we have right now with DCS and CloD and show the competitors, how a Channel Map can look like in 2020.

I have high expectations and moderate hope on this. 

 

Edit :

On a side note. Despite of it's age, I even prefer the new textured CloD Channel Map over the DCS Channel Map. 

Edited by Blooddawn1942

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

 Thanks for your service! Hopefully someone will buy your equipment as soon as possible.

I know you from old IL2 and for many years.....Its pathetic what youv become in older days. You must be really an ***** to react like that to a community member of IL2 who was there when IL2 demo was released. But, you always had that weird, sick sense of "humour".

Edited by =VARP=Tvrdi

Share this post


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

The Ju52 was created under =FB=LOFT lead.

 

Incorrect as usual.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Channel map is the No.1 reason i'm going to purchase BoN, flying from/to England over the channel 😍 and fighting over it.

I hope London will be included if possible, if not it's ok but channel with England coast and inland is a must for me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Channel map is the No.1 reason i'm going to purchase BoN, flying from/to England over the channel 😍 and fighting over it.

I hope London will be included if possible, if not it's ok but channel with England coast and inland is a must for me!

 

I´m pretty sure the map will end along the line CROYDON - ROCHESTER. At least the proposal in the announcement suggests that. However the decision certainly is not final.

 

 

london.jpg

Edited by sevenless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

I´m pretty sure the map will end along the line CROYDON - ROCHESTER. At least the proposal in the announcement suggests that. However the decision certainly is not final.

 

 

london.jpg

Well, at least i hope it'll stay that way if london is out of options.

This looks pretty good to me

 

BON_Map_Announcement_EN.thumb.jpg.e90a3d5cd82a760a8ccf1d64d26e1691.jpg

This map alone is worth 80$ imo!

Edited by EAF_Ribbon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Well, at least i hope it'll stay that way if london is out of options.

This looks pretty good to me

 

This map alone is worth 80$ imo!

 


Croydon is part of London, so we are getting part of London :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And means they have just snuck Biggin Hill on there! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sublime said:

Same with drop tanks.. I think its cool theyre adding them, but I havent seen a plane yet that really would need drop tanks for any map in game. 

 

We were forced to add 109-focused airfields on a few missions in Combat Box because they don't have the fuel for a useful time on station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

And means they have just snuck Biggin Hill on there! 

 

My guess is that they analyse which airfields are needed for singleplayer career modes of both sides and adapt the map accordingly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

We were forced to add 109-focused airfields on a few missions in Combat Box because they don't have the fuel for a useful time on station.

 

I add to Talon remark than in the career mode almost all 109s equipped units have to execute mission at their maximum range with minimum ToT left. Even manually controlling the RPM I was still forced to divert on another Gruppe Airfield. In the end I just transferred my pilot to a FW unit :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wheeee!!! 

 

Payday. I've finally got money in my bank account.

 

Aaaaaaaaaand, they're gone....

 

Curse you, Great Batlles series!!!

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:


Croydon is part of London, so we are getting part of London :)

 

I wonder if it will be like moscow, which you can only see from afar.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

Wheeee!!! 

 

Payday. I've finally got money in my bank account.

 

Aaaaaaaaaand, they're gone....

 

Curse you, Great Batlles series!!!

Don't forget the collector planes :):dance:.

 

Have a nice day.

 

:salute:

Share this post


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

Don't forget the collector planes :):dance:.

 

Have a nice day.

 

:salute:

Of course not. Got 'em all in one go.

 

71rMlKc57ZL._SY741_.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

We were forced to add 109-focused airfields on a few missions in Combat Box because they don't have the fuel for a useful time on station.

Fair enough. I almost mentioned the 109.

However - lets be serious.  The 109 and spit have pretty short legs.

I also seem to recall the luftwaffe had a lot of problems gettimg drop tanks right and they were never common like they were for USAAF or RAF.

You know why I mentioned them semantics aside - they were developed because the bombers. The P51 saga is.. bombers.  Almost half the planes including the way the FW gets heavier and heavier is because... bombers.

I said it before but Ill say it again. They made 35k 109s. Most of any plane. Im not sure how many Il2s but tens of ks.  The ONLY other planes built in such high numbers were C47s and B17s/24s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sublime said:

I said it before but Ill say it again. They made 35k 109s. Most of any plane. Im not sure how many Il2s but tens of ks.  The ONLY other planes built in such high numbers were C47s and B17s/24s

 

First, air war always is and was about bombers. There's no point for any side to deploy fighters just so they can go up and shoot at other fighters. Recon aircraft can also be relevant, but fighters are just tools to achieve something that counts - i.e. bombers dropping their load or not.

 

Secondly, even if you said it before and got away with it, there's a ton of aircraft that was built as high numbers as C-47 (10k), B-17's (12k) or B-24's (18k) during WW2. For instance, and just looking at fighters here

P-38 (10k)

P-39 (10k)

P-40 (14k)

P-47 (16k)

P-51 (16k)

F6F (12k)

F4U (13k)

A6M (11k)

Spitfire (20k)

Hurricane (14k)

La-5 (10k)

Yak-9 (17k)

Fw190 (20k)

Bascially every main US fighter (except for the F4F (8k)) was produced as or more often as a C-47, most of them as or more often as a B-17 and only the B-24, which was the most produced US aircraft of WW2, exceeds average production figures for most front line fighters.

 

Edit: For further education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-produced_aircraft

Edited by JtD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sublime said:

 Same with drop tanks.. I think its cool theyre adding them, but I havent seen a plane yet that really would need drop tanks for any map in game. 


IIRC the Luftwaffe needed to use them in order to reach the targets of Bodenplatte.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idea of airplanes for Normandy

 

Three of the plans that would be good to have on the Pre-Normandy map would be these of the images.

 

Bf-109 E4 or E3 / Hurricane I or II / Spitfire MKI

 

 

0-Bf-109E-JG26 - (- + - Adolf-Galland-WNr-5819-France-1940-0C.jpg

Hurricane-and-Spitfire-10-15-e1540418187830.jpg

Edited by 1/JSpan_Guerrero
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sublime said:

I also seem to recall the luftwaffe had a lot of problems gettimg drop tanks right and they were never common like they were for USAAF or RAF.

You know why I mentioned them semantics aside - they were developed because the bombers. The P51 saga is.. bombers.  Almost half the planes including the way the FW gets heavier and heavier is because... bombers.

I said it before but Ill say it again. They made 35k 109s. Most of any plane. Im not sure how many Il2s but tens of ks.  The ONLY other planes built in such high numbers were C47s and B17s/24s


You recall wrongly as the 109E7 was the first operational plane using drop tanks and not, there was no issues with them.
And also you're wrong about the 190, nothing to do with bombers (except the R8) but evolution in production and operational needs.
The 190 gained 800kg in it's evolution(A1-A9) Keeping it's weight ratio constant at 2.2kg/ps. The spitfire as example gained 1190kg (Mk1-MK14) going from 2.6kg/hp to 1.9kg/hp (numbers with small error marge due to data differences depending on sources)
the 190 wasn't the Fat-dog as it represented with the A8, it was a very nimble and agile airplane through all versions, just the roll-rate was slightly increased or decreased depending on the wing guns presence or lack of it...

Anyway, droptanks are really needed in the game.

Share this post


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

 

We were forced to add 109-focused airfields on a few missions in Combat Box because they don't have the fuel for a useful time on station.

They better make it so when you take droptanks your fuel % selection is automaticly set to only 100% and not posible to adjust. As in Il-2 1946 you could always see 109s or p-51s with Droptanks and 20-30% fuel. Online where useal sortie is 20-30min to max 1h droptanks are there just for one purpose and thats to take DT to have long range and have low fuel amount so when you drop DT you can DF like zero. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 1/JSpan_Guerrero said:

Idea de aviones para Normandía

 

Tres de los planos que sería bueno tener en el mapa de Pre-Normandía serían estas de las imágenes.

 

Bf-109 E4 o E3 / Hurricane I o II / Spitfire MKI

 

 

I think a collector pack as Jason mentioned could be a great idea. Hurricane II is already on it's way.


Creo que como comentó Jason, estaría bien un pack de aviones. El Hurricane II ya está en proceso.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

First, air war always is and was about bombers. There's no point for any side to deploy fighters just so they can go up and shoot at other fighters. Recon aircraft can also be relevant, but fighters are just tools to achieve something that counts - i.e. bombers dropping their load or not.

 

Secondly, even if you said it before and got away with it, there's a ton of aircraft that was built as high numbers as C-47 (10k), B-17's (12k) or B-24's (18k) during WW2. For instance, and just looking at fighters here

P-38 (10k)

P-39 (10k)

P-40 (14k)

P-47 (16k)

P-51 (16k)

F6F (12k)

F4U (13k)

A6M (11k)

Spitfire (20k)

Hurricane (14k)

La-5 (10k)

Yak-9 (17k)

Fw190 (20k)

Bascially every main US fighter (except for the F4F (8k)) was produced as or more often as a C-47, most of them as or more often as a B-17 and only the B-24, which was the most produced US aircraft of WW2, exceeds average production figures for most front line fighters.

 

Edit: For further education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-produced_aircraft

to add to the list:

IL-2....36183 pcs 

U-2 (Po-2)....33528 pcs

  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...