Il-2 Battle of Normandy - Planes Visualized

[Motherbrain]

Just now, Gambit21 said:

I'm saying that having it AI only is nevertheless far from pointless...stop moving the goal posts.

 

I don't disagree with you, and yes, something is better then nothing.

 

But still, come on. Don't tell me I have no grounds for maybe a little inconsequential frustration. I'm still buying the expansion.

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, Motherbrain said:

 

I don't disagree with you, and yes, something is better then nothing.

 

But still, come on. Don't tell me I have no grounds for maybe a little inconsequential frustration. I'm still buying the expansion.

 

I get it.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

14 minutes ago, Motherbrain said:

 

Oh please, they can make two versions of the He-111 flyable, two versions of the Pe-2 flyable, and a Ju53 flyable, the first two don't even have any airworthy examples anymore.

 

But they can't model a plane that is still being used to this day, and is still flying by the dozens, and is iconic? That's asking too much? That's too tough? ?

 

 

 

Do you actually think that they're not capable of modeling this aircraft?

[LukeFF]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Do you actually think that they're not capable of modeling this aircraft?

 

The concepts of time, money, and realistic expectations are still foreign concepts to many here.

 

A flyable C-47 would of course be great, but there's not a flyable plane in the initial lineup for BoN that I would sacrifice in order to make the C-47 flyable. 

[Motherbrain]

44 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

The concepts of time, money, and realistic expectations are still foreign concepts to many here.

 

We can't have four engine bombers. We can't have Japanese planes, or Italian planes. Or a lot of things other combat sims have had in the past.

 

Because they have decided to pander to what I think is the REAL unrealistic expectation. That everything is 100% realistic and accurate.

 

I've believed this from day 1. They have shot themselves in the foot with this. Running Il-2 on RoFs engine was a mistake. And limiting yourself to only things that are well documented is a mistake.

 

There needs to be a balance between quality and content.

 

Warthunder is a good example of the other extreme of content over quality.

 

But... it's a moot issue. It is what it is. And I can find a lot to like about it. And there isn't really an alternative.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Motherbrain

[BraveSirRobin]

53 minutes ago, Motherbrain said:

 

And there isn't really an alternative.

 

Sure there is.  You appear to be an expert in combat flight sim design and development.  Apparently this dev team has made lots of mistakes.  It should be easy for you to develop a game without those mistakes.

[adonys]

I can bet you right now that actually DC3 will be a high priced collector's plane (see the Ju52)..

[Motherbrain]

23 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Sure there is.  You appear to be an expert in combat flight sim design and development.  Apparently this dev team has made lots of mistakes.  It should be easy for you to develop a game without those mistakes.

 

I mean Il2 1946 would basically be it just with modern graphics. Warthunder would be fine if it wasn't a shitty FTP MMO with repetitive, grindy gameplay.

 

If I had the money and had the education in game development, I'd sure as hell make a kick ass combat flight sim.

 

But I'm busy fixing real airplanes for a living. Since I decided to get my A&P and not a degree in game development.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Motherbrain

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, Motherbrain said:

If I had the money and had the education in game develop games, I'd sure as hell make a kick ass combat flight sim.

 

But I'm busy fixing real airplanes for a living so...

 

So...  you don't know what you're talking about?   

 

Lots of people think they can make kick ass combat flight sims.  And yet, our only options are so flawed that even someone with absolutely no training or ability is convinced that he could do better.  

[Motherbrain]

6 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

So...  you don't know what you're talking about?   

 

Lots of people think they can make kick ass combat flight sims.  And yet, our only options are so flawed that even someone with absolutely no training or ability is convinced that he could do better.  

 

I don't need to be a chef to know my chicken is cold and tastes like excrement. And I have every right to point out that I don't like my chicken cold and taste like excrement.

 

And you're no Chris Robert's either I'd imagine.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Motherbrain

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, Motherbrain said:

 

I don't need to be a chef to know my chicken is cold and tastes like excrement.

 

And you're no Chris Robert's either I'd imagine.

 

But you do need to be a chef to know how to make chicken that you can sell to other people.  And you have already admitted that you don't even know how to boil water.

 

Also, if you think the chicken is cold and tastes like excrement, it's very odd that you keep eating it.

[Motherbrain]

3 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

But you do need to be a chef to know how to make chicken that you can sell to other people.  And you have already admitted that you don't even know how to boil water.

 

So I can't have opinions and ideas about something? If that annoys you that's your problem.

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, Motherbrain said:

 

So I can't have opinions and ideas about something? If that annoys you that's your problem.

 

No one said that you can't have opinions.  In fact, your post about how they made a mistake in using the RoF engine as the basis for this GB series led me to believe that you were a game design expert and would be rectifying this terrible situation.  Sadly, it turns out that you're just grandstanding.  There are no rules against that, so carry on with more uninformed opinions.  

[morron76]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

but there's not a flyable plane in the initial lineup for BoN that I would sacrifice in order to make the C-47 flyable. 

 

Meh....I'd trade a 109 G-6 for the 47, just on general principle, really. Doubt I'd ever play much with a Skytrain, but would be nice to have a twin wasp modeled in the game, for future purposes.

 

Sacrifice-wise, though?....I'd rip the still-beating hearts out of the G-6 and the 234, smear their warm oil all over my chest and face, and do whatever dance is needed to curry the favor of the developers & convince them to do a Do 217 instead. And I might do things to a poor, innocent little Do 217-- in exchange for a flyable B-26 -- that I can't even mention in a public forum.

[Motherbrain]

Just now, BraveSirRobin said:

 

No one said that you can't have opinions.  In fact, your post about how they made a mistake in using the RoF engine as the basis for this GB series led me to believe that you were a game design expert and would be rectifying this terrible situation.  Sadly, it turns out that you're just grandstanding.  There are no rules against that, so carry on with more uninformed opinions.  

 

I never attacked you man. What's your problem?

 

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, Motherbrain said:

 

I never attacked you man. What's your problem?

 

 

No problem here.  I'm just posting my opinion.  Same as you.  

[Motherbrain]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

No problem here.  I'm just posting my opinion.  Same as you.  

 

My opinion is about games. Your opinion is about me. There is a difference here.

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, Motherbrain said:

 

My opinion is about games. Your opinion is about me. There is a difference here.

 

You're taking cheap shots at the developer.  I figured you must be an expert to make statements like the one below.  It turns out that you're not.   I'm not sure why that bothers you.

 

"they can't model a plane that is still being used to this day, and is still flying by the dozens, and is iconic? That's asking too much? That's too tough?"

 

 

[Motherbrain]

3 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

You're taking cheap shots at the developer.  I figured you must be an expert to make statements like the one below.  It turns out that you're not.   I'm not sure why that bothers you.

 

"they can't model a plane that is still being used to this day, and is still flying by the dozens, and is iconic? That's asking too much? That's too tough?"

 

 

 

I'm frustrated they are adding more AI only planes, especially when their usual "data isn't available" explanation doesn't fly.

 

Doesn't mean I'm not glad they are adding it at all.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Motherbrain

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, Motherbrain said:

 

I'm frustrated they are adding more AI only planes, especially when their usual "data isn't available" explanation doesn't fly.

 

Doesn't mean I'm not glad they are adding it at all.

 

"data isn't available" has never been used as the reason for making an AI plane.  The reason for AI planes is that they don't currently have the budget for modeling the cockpit and gun positions.  

[Motherbrain]

2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

The reason for AI planes is that they don't currently have the budget for modeling the cockpit and gun positions.  

 

Whole conversation could have been avoided with that alone.

 

They are tight on money because flight aims are a niche thing. Can't argue with that.

 

That's understandable and makes sense.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Motherbrain

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, Motherbrain said:

 

Whole conversation could have been avoided with that alone.

 

That's understandable and makes sense.

 

Actually, it could have been avoided by you not taking cheap shots at the developer.  Try not to start out a post by assuming that they're stupid.  Assume that there is a good reason for something and that you just don't understand what it is.  

[Motherbrain]

Just now, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Actually, it could have been avoided by you not taking cheap shots at the developer.  Try not to start out a post by assuming that they're stupid.  Assume that there is a good reason for something and that you just don't understand what it is.  

 

Alright then. I'm sorry.

[Rolling_Thunder]

2 minutes ago, Motherbrain said:

 

Alright then. I'm sorry.

An apology! Pretty rare around here. Good for you.

[Ribbon]

1 hour ago, Motherbrain said:

 

We can't have four engine bombers. We can't have Japanese planes, or Italian planes. Or a lot of things other combat sims have had in the past.

 

Because they have decided to pander to what I think is the REAL unrealistic expectation. That everything is 100% realistic and accurate.

 

I've believed this from day 1. They have shot themselves in the foot with this. Running Il-2 on RoFs engine was a mistake. And limiting yourself to only things that are well documented is a mistake.

 

There needs to be a balance between quality and content.

 

Warthunder is a good example of the other extreme of content over quality.

 

But... it's a moot issue. It is what it is. And I can find a lot to like about it. And there isn't really an alternative.

I agree with some things but we should take in consideration other factors such as developing new engine how much would it take, time,resources and having publisher on your back with deadlines and expected profit.

 

Yes going everything by the book is limiting yourself while there are other things non realistic in game but i also understand things you did good and realistic once are hard to dumb down once you set your standards.

Yet a lot of planes and battles we wont see in il2 if those standards are strictly followed which is sad, some assumptions are fine to be made imo.

 

This is their fourth il2 title with things improving a lot since Kuban development and playerbase expanding, few years ago forum was dead so i wouldn't give up my hopes for some things....it's not over until it's over!

 

 

S!

22 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

"data isn't available" has never been used as the reason for making an AI plane.  The reason for AI planes is that they don't currently have the budget for modeling the cockpit and gun positions.  

More like they don't have manpower while big project is in front of them and some unfinished things on the table, they did planes (he111,a20..etc)with much less popular theatres and sales/budget.

If BoK,BoBp and BoN didn't get them funds than nothing will...unless TC and FC made da hole in that bag.

Good news is they're hiring more ppl into the team....so eventually c47 and b25/26 i'm sure will come (they are too iconic not to be made flyable)....right now problem is our patience.

[[I./JG62]steppa]

8 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Wait, aren´t you the guy who knew so much better than the devs which fuel the spitfire 9 needed?

Or am i mixing something up?

[ww2fighter20]

27 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

The concepts of time, money, and realistic expectations are still foreign concepts to many here.

 

Which is why they have chosen Normandy since it's the most famous theatre of ww2 but this also brings me to the next point.

39 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

A flyable C-47 would of course be great, but there's not a flyable plane in the initial lineup for BoN that I would sacrifice in order to make the C-47 flyable. 

When it comes to aircraft in the Normandy campaign there is not 1 single aircraft more popular and more associated to Normandy then the C-47, you see it in almost every movie/game/tv show/military anniversaries/airshows about the Normandy invasion even in basic history lessons in college.

 

For historical accuracy the rare griffon Spitfire (which should have been an IXc which was common) would be the perfect plane to swap with but since the Spitfire is of the most famous planes of ww2 any variant will be popular.

 

From the 5 aircraft from the allies for Normandy the Mosquito or the Typhoon are the least famous, both are barely if not at all present in games/movies/military anniversaries/airshows (compared to the Spitfire/P51/P47/C47) so either of the 2 could be replaced with the C47.

I do admit they are relevant from an historical standpoint to the Normandy invasion especailly the Typhoon.

 

What would even be better would be swapping one of the german aircraft with the C47 of which most ideal would be either the Ju88C6, Ar234 or the Me410.

 

Ju88C6 because the vast majority of people doesn't even know of it's existence, most when they read Ju88 expect an bomber, not an heavy fighter with barely any bombs.

And for the people that know Ju88 was also used as an heavy fighter (for example people that visited the RAF Museum) expect the nightfighter version with requires radar.

For historical accuracy the Ju88C6 useage in Normandy was very limited to almost non existant.

 

Ar234 while more famous because it's the first jetbomber, it's mostly overshadowed by the Me262 and almost nobody associates it with Normandy.

For historical accuracy the only Ar234's that where used where recon prototypes which couldn't carry any bombs, it also fits much better as seperate collectorplane for Bodenplatte or could be used for an 1944/1945 eastern front release.

 

Me410, while an fun aircraft I very much am an fan off it's not very famous and again not really associated or relevant with the Normandy invasion, it's also mostly associated with attacking heavy bombers.

Compared to the Ju88C6 the Me410 is much better in most ways (especially 1944) which makes it more fun for gameplay and is more important to the pre-invasion.

 

Don't get me wrong I don't dislike any of them and am glad they are included but from an famous and historical standpoint especially for Normandy these are the least popular or least important.

 

 

I do understand the main problem of the C47 is it's playability since you can't do dogfight/ground attack/bombing which many players enjoy.

But there is an entire section of flightsimmers that fly mostly commercial aircraft that might be very attracted to IL2 if they could fly the C47 over Normandy in an combat environment.

Also it isn't really much different compared to the Ar234 which can only carry 3 bombs, has no guns/turrets and the gun modification it might get is only limited to fixed rear firing guns which are going to be almost completly useless or the nightfighter version with would require radar.

[BraveSirRobin]

15 minutes ago, [I./JG62]steppa said:

Wait, aren´t you the guy who knew so much better than the devs which fuel the spitfire 9 needed?

Or am i mixing something up?

 

Not me.  But even if it was, there is no problem with having opinions.  Or thinking that the devs made a bad decision (see unlockables).  But acting like the devs are stupid when you don't even know why they did something is definitely a problem.

[LukeFF]

55 minutes ago, ww2fighter20 said:

I do understand the main problem of the C47 is it's playability since you can't do dogfight/ground attack/bombing which many players enjoy.

 

Well, there you go - just because an aircraft is famous doesn't mean it's going to instantly be a good choice to include as a "first flyable" in the planeset. 

 

55 minutes ago, ww2fighter20 said:

But there is an entire section of flightsimmers that fly mostly commercial aircraft that might be very attracted to IL2 if they could fly the C47 over Normandy in an combat environment.

 

Sure, but at the end of the day, the sector of flight simmers who want to shoot guns or drop bombs in a combat flight sim is going to dwarf those who don't. Doesn't mean a C-47 wouldn't be viable, but planes like that are always going to be of secondary importance overall in a combat flight sim.

Edited December 14, 2019 by LukeFF

[Eagle-OnePirabee]

After the book (and yeah the movie) 633 Squadron, I'd do anything to fly the Mosquito Lol!

 

And here's proof: woke this morning and dashed to the IL-2 website to purchase a copy of BON, only to find to my frustration and chagrin that I couldn't - and nothing I tried worked, right until I found out from my profile page I'd already paid up for the item as far back as 2nd December. Shows you, eh...hahaha! 

After the book (and yeah the movie) 633 Squadron, I'd do anything to fly the Mosquito Lol!

 

And here's proof: woke this morning and dashed to the IL-2 website to purchase a copy of BON, only to find to my frustration and chagrin that I couldn't - and nothing I tried worked, right until I found out from my profile page I'd already paid up for the item as far back as 2nd December. Shows you, eh...hahaha! 

[sevenless]

8 hours ago, ww2fighter20 said:

From the 5 aircraft from the allies for Normandy the Mosquito or the Typhoon are the least famous, both are barely if not at all present in games/movies/military anniversaries/airshows (compared to the Spitfire/P51/P47/C47) so either of the 2 could be replaced with the C47.

 

N U T S !

 

Anthony McAuliffe, 22 Dec 1944

[Lusekofte]

8 hours ago, ww2fighter20 said:

From the 5 aircraft from the allies for Normandy the Mosquito or the Typhoon are the least famous, both are barely if not at all present in games/movies/military anniversaries/airshows (compared to the Spitfire/P51/P47/C47) so either of the 2 could be replaced with the C47.

I do admit they are relevant from an historical standpoint to the Normandy invasion especailly the Typhoon.

Mosquito have a worldwide fanbase. If you had a poll about favorite plane in historical aviation groups it would be on top among P 51 , Spitfire, Corsair every time. Its importance and the way it was adopted by RAF has really made it legendary. It surpass Typhoon big time. 
But a fast effective allied bomber is needed and is very important to make Normandy a fair cfs battle ground. I can not see the devs do it any different
 

[[I./JG62]steppa]

8 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Ok, nevermind. Not exactly my opinion, but eh.

You are quit good at, and engaged in the art of forum warfare. I hope i´m not too impolite, but may i ask you what you did for work? My guess would be that it was something which included a lot of arguing with stupid or undiscerning people. Maybe a cop?

[DD_Arthur]

9 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

....right now problem is our patience.

 

This seems to sum it up nicely....

[Lusekofte]

Actually this pack contain a huge dilemma for me. No time to fly them all and I honestly cant decide between them

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I'm getting it for the Razorback and late G-6.

[CountZero]

16 hours ago, Fafnir_6 said:

I always thought it was weird that they had the Spitfire XIV and Ar234B-2 as premium planes for BoN.  They are much more BoBP aircraft.  I would have rather seen a Spitfire IXc (1943/44) or Beaufighter or A-20G and Ju188E or Do217M-1 as premiums for BoN.

 

Cheers,

 

Fafnir_6

 

 

Better to get spit 14 then just spit9c, we have 9e you can use, differances are minimal.

Mosquito is more asked for then beau so when you have choice betwen 2 its right choice to go for what they go for, and you can level Beau for Italy for example, same with A-20G. 

Ju188 Do-217 they can add with late war east front that is most likely to come after BoN, so keep asking for them and more chance they will have them, just look planes with BoN most are on most wonted list on forum...

They have to select airplanes that fit and leve some that can fit other DLCs... even if they have all data for them.

Also before BoN is finished they will probably have 1 or 2 more collector airplanes out, maybe B-25 or B-26 or easy to do Spit9c from existing 9e. 

[352ndOscar]

For those who are questioning the inclusion of the V-1 in the BoN package, I refer you to the 100’s of Operation Crossbow missions flown by both USAAF (8th & 9th AF) and the RAF (BC, FC and 2TAF) both before and long after D-Day to eliminate these sites and remove the threat to England.  These missions were flown from both England and the Normandy ALG’s.  And, Yes, the Luftwaffe contested these missions.  There is more than enough reason to include them. 

 

 

[cardboard_killer]

4 minutes ago, 352ndOscar said:

or those who are questioning the inclusion of the V-1 in the BoN package, I refer you to the 100’s of Operation Crossbow missions flown by both USAAF (8th & 9th AF) and the RAF (BC, FC and 2TAF) both before and long after D-Day to eliminate these sites and remove the threat to England.  These missions were flown from both England and the Normandy ALG’s.  And, Yes, the Luftwaffe contested these missions.  There is more than enough reason to include them. 

 

I don't particularly care, but you could have the missions of bombing the launch sites and not include the actual unguided missile, so your logic is really just a non-sequitur.

[352ndOscar]

I said nothing comedic or irrelevant.....