Japanese Aircraft

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The postponement, or worse, of the Pacific was heartbreaking for many of us. And I’m sure heart-rending for Jason.

 

I’m just curious, from a strictly player point of view, what level of fidelity is acceptable in this or any other sim in regard to the Japanese AC? I know the developers point of view – as close to 100% as possible regarding documentation and nothing less will do. They strive for excellence in all that they do and I (we) appreciate it immensely.

 

But……..

 

What do we, as users, find acceptable from OUR point of view? I’m sure the fuselages, wireframes, etc will always be excellent based upon past examples from this team. Visually I’m sure they can knock it out of the park with only some 1970’s Airfix kits as reference.

 

I remember the comparison of the CloD Spitfire to the one being produced by 1CGS when it was being brought onboard BoX. The two were pretty close and I doubt many users really knew this or that parameter was off by a centimeter or two when they were playing it in CloD. It was clearly a Spitfire to both casual and more hardcore gamers – visually.

 

I’m sure most, if not all, of the Tony’s, Frank’s, Val’s and Zero’s have good to excellent documentation regarding them. Less so the Nell’s, Judy’s and Jake’s, probably. Internal ribbing and stringers, pilot and crew panels, gauges, etc are probably some of the harder component items. Wing roots, planform and airfoils are probably tough as well.

 

Airspeeds, turn rates, roll etc are very fluid even with primary sources – between manufacturers specs, acceptance test results, and captured AC. If the speeds and times are within 2-3% of generally accepted figures is that, “close enough?” I think DM’s and weapons can reasonably be simulated/extrapolated from within the game. We know how much filler is in a given shell and Alclad is, generally, Alclad,. Fabric and wood skin are, generally, fabric and wood. Flammability and toughness are elusive concepts at best. It's not like we don't argue these points to death already, anyway.

 

So the question is this;

 

What level of fidelity would keep the game, “pure,” for you, as a, “pilot,” and still let us advance into the Pacific? What level of authoritative but not original documentation works for you as resources – particularly if there are NO original sources? Not the elusive, “needs interpretation,” but actually little to nothing in the archives? What level of extrapolation and educated guesses are acceptable?There literally is no AC in the WWII arena that doesn’t have multiple printed sources. A branch thought might be, what would you consider credible sources within THAT arena as well?

 

The Devs have an engineer on staff and there are several in the community who do physics simulations and aircraft testing (to what degree of accuracy I have no idea) already. With the number of non-primary sources and the level of understanding both professionally and in the community I would think we could get really close in most respects. Like CloD, the average user and casual rivet counter probably wouldn’t notice in the overall scheme but what is required for a satisfying simulation of combat flight and the associated visuals/feels?

 

The dream is the Pacific. What are your demands for getting there as a pilot/user and what are you willing to overlook?

 

Please keep in mind, this has no actual bearing on the Dev’s or any decision they might make going forward.

Edited February 24, 2020 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[BraveSirRobin]

The people who will spend most of their waking hours on this forum complaining about the Japanese-ish aircraft probably won't post on this thread.  Or at least not honestly.  But check out the Alby/Camel FM wars on the RoF forum if you want to see how it will go.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Just now, BraveSirRobin said:

The people who will spend most of their waking hours on this forum complaining about the Japanese-ish aircraft probably won't post on this thread.  Or at least not honestly.  But check out the Alby/Camel FM wars on the RoF forum if you want to see how it will go.

 

[Ribbon]

I'm sure general specification data for Japs planes is available, translations might be a problem but il2GB doesn't have clickpits so there is no need for detailed aircraft systems modeling.

 

Il2 already have good general FM so even with some assumptions i'm sure planes would be top notch and 99,9999% playerbase wouldn't notice if anything is off.

Also unlike so far there wouldn't be forum whining cos nobody from community have translated materials they can reffer to! ??

 

Looking at those performance details and their accuracy community usually applies for fighters and Zero is perfectly documented with some of them still flying around the world.

Dive bombers and torpedo bombers are....well...stiffer.... regarding FM so modeling fidelity is less noticable.

Also devs don't need to go for 5 IJN planes +5 USN planes.

If Midway is going to be first pto dlc than 3 planes for IJN side is enough (Zero, dive bomber, torpedo bomber), same can go for USN (or add few army/inland ac).

 

Also carriers and ships doesn't need to be modeled with 100% historical accuracy since we dont drive those ships and we fly past them in high speeds....nobody will notice if something isn't as it was.

Even if ships data is fully available why spend time and resources to perfectly model something nobody will give attention.

 

So i'm perfectly fine with some assumptions on IJN planes and i'm pretty sure they would be top notch!

[Feathered_IV]

If the outside performance parameters are within reasonable limits, I have no problem whatsoever with them guessing at the particulars.  It’s a video game for goodness sake.  

[JtD]

Imho the problem is not with exactly matching numbers, it is with getting the concept right. It is particularly difficult if you go for aircraft of a different nation and/or different culture. You can see this for instance with the current engine time damage model - US aircraft are messed up, because the US concepts of power settings based on thoughts of maintenance and engine life don't translate well to the Eastern front concept of 20 hour life expectancies and thus appear to have been lost in translation.

 

The risk for concept errors goes up if you have fewer, in particular fewer original sources. The risk is not really with getting stall speeds accurate down to the last knot, or climb rates or top speeds or anything. It's about what "agile" means, what "harsh" means, what "safe" means - which either requires a full set of numbers, or to understand the thoughts of the designers, or a good mix thereof.

[Stoopy]

9 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

If the outside performance parameters are within reasonable limits, I have no problem whatsoever with them guessing at the particulars.  It’s a video game for goodness sake.  

 

This.  And the lack of available info for the desired level of fidelity is where the argument starts to break down.  If there's no info to show what maximum manifold pressure was for the Tony, or what the shape of the throttle quadrant housing was on the Kate, there's also no info that anyone can point at to say it was modeled incorrectly.  I'm sure the publisher wants to avoid any decisions that might appear to be revisionist, but seriously, this team gets my vote as the best qualified to make a SWAG where needed and I'll gladly pay for their best guess at this point!

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by =[TIA]=Stoopy

[Guster]

9 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

If the outside performance parameters are within reasonable limits, I have no problem whatsoever with them guessing at the particulars.  It’s a video game for goodness sake.  

 

This. Using Wikipedia for reference would be good enough for me actually. But then again, I'm a casual gamer/simmer.

 

That said, I'm perfectly happy with what we have, and if the devs think a certain level of fidelity and authenticity is needed, then I trust their wit.

[Lusekofte]

For me it would be enough if the zeke perform against its opponents as it did. 
What will make me uninstall this game is if the Dauntless get the same treatment as P 47. 
if a wing fell off a Dauntless caused by anything else than lawn darting into a concrete wall I will show you how a grown man cry. 
performance wise this sim come off in general pretty much with historical outcome. 
I do not expect historical precise modeling in all aspects. But I like it to have the cons and pros of every plane

 

To me no pto and the silence about it was devastating. I went into a only DCS state of mind in pure spite. 
And that was a good thing, a brake made me remember the good things of what we have

Edited February 24, 2020 by LuseKofte

[GarandM1]

I totally agree with the sentiment here. I want the PTO to happen more than any other theater even with the knowledge that Japanese aircraft would not be a 100% perfect representation of their real life counterparts. Same goes for ships. I'm not going to care if a gauge is held in with the wrong type of screw or the number of planks on Akagi's deck aren't exactly right. I won't know the difference and neither will anyone else.

 

What I will care about is finally getting the chance to experience carrier battles in my favorite sim of all time. I will be forming memories of planting bombs on Hiryu and hitting Yorktown with torpedoes, not rivet counting every plane model. 

 

I hope the devs have enough confidence in themselves to consider making this happen. They have done an incredible job on all of our existing planes and I'm sure they have already had to make educated guess in places that we haven't even noticed. I have a great amount of faith in their ability to fill the gaps as necessary to make these planes a reality. I really think they could make things well enough that we would not notice or care about any inconsistencies. 

 

Just my two cents. 

[CrazyDuck]

Seeing what IL-2 dev team can do, I'll take any "ACRARA" (As Close To Reality As Reasonably Achievable ) aircraft they produce! If there is anyone on Earth these days more suitable than IL2 devs to guesstimate the missing parameters for Japanese warbirds, there aren't many. Consequently, not only I wouldn't mind, I'd even encourage and expect them to make informed estimations, extrapolations and even guesses. Hell, even current, well researched aircraft need constant tweaking from the beginning on.

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by CrazyDuck

[FoxbatRU]

I am ready to survive some assumptions in the reproduction of the cabin. Visually, models should look like public drawings. It's enough. But ... the main thing is to have an interesting game. For me, first of all offline. Mandatory career. Otherwise, IMHO, this will not be a fully-functional module, like TC or FC.

 

[Toppaso]

I think the question might be a little ill put...

 

We are all going to say that we care about the "important stuff" and are willing to close an eye on the "details"... but where does one end and the other start?

 

For me, minor visual discrepancies or best guesses in details of 3D models are completely acceptable,

FM and plane performances follow the law of physics and with a bit of basic data (engine power, max speed, climb rate etc) I trust the dev to extrapolate and obtain a reasonable FM, that could be further tweaked in the future if more data becomes available.

If there is something MAJOR that affects the plane functionality or mode of operation, then maybe they should make the plane AI only until they have enough info and perhaps release it as premium if they manage to finish it.

 

So yes, I would accept their best effort taking into account the above points, and i would be willing to accept that they stray from the 5/5 planeset for this one, as I imagine would most of the community.

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

3/3 planeset would work just fine initially.

 

Zeke

Val

Kate

Wildcat

Dauntless

Devastator

[GarandM1]

9 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

3/3 planeset would work just fine initially.

 

Zeke

Val

Kate

Wildcat

Dauntless

Devastator

 

Exactly. I would hope that the difficulty in modeling Japanese planes and ships could be at least partially offset by a smaller plane set. I imagine the U.S. planes would be pretty straightforward since they are well documented. Plus, that set includes everything really absolutely necessary for Coral Sea/Midway and we could largely avoid the "why is this plane included but not this one" discussion that naturally comes with each new expansion. 

[CountZero]

57 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

3/3 planeset would work just fine initially.

 

Zeke

Val

Kate

Wildcat

Dauntless

Devastator

 

Then they would have to have DLC for less price then now for 10 airplanes as its only 6 airplanes, just see how ppl complained about only 10$ incress BoN come with, 6 airplanes for same price would be bad and not many would see reason for it.

 

They can go 3vs7 if US airplanes are not problem, then you have a6m that is said its not problem, so your left with 2 airplanes that are problem val and kate, and who cares if they are not fully correct they are just bomber airplanes, no one complianes about bomber airplanes performance mutch or missing futures on ones we already have, most complains come regarding fighter airplanes ass they are more played by and focused by players, so if they have data for zero then they can manage with other 2 being even 50% of what they can do and no one would care mutch.

 

Then there is problem of making ships, do anyone realy care if they are made to airplane or tank standards, probably no, what standard they make ships now in game or wors is ok.

 

So why not make PTO then i dont understand whats that big hold up or what standards are there to be met that its so hard, but it seams its not coming for some time, so im rdy for some same as now , stay at europe war

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, GarandM1 said:

Exactly. I would hope that the difficulty in modeling Japanese planes and ships could be at least partially offset by a smaller plane set. I imagine the U.S. planes would be pretty straightforward since they are well documented.

 

All of the U.S. planes, yes, except the Devastator. There's good info here and there, but there's some critical info out there that's still missing or stuffed away in some archive. It certainly doesn't help that the majority of them ended their days at the bottom of the ocean.  

[zan64]

doesnt some organization out in the american west have a zero with the real engine? 

22 minutes ago, CountZero said:

 

Then they would have to have DLC for less price then now for 10 airplanes as its only 6 airplanes, just see how ppl complained about only 10$ incress BoN come with, 6 airplanes for same price would be bad and not many would see reason for it.

 

They can go 3vs7 if US airplanes are not problem, then you have a6m that is said its not problem, so your left with 2 airplanes that are problem val and kate, and who cares if they are not fully correct they are just bomber airplanes, no one complianes about bomber airplanes performance mutch or missing futures on ones we already have, most complains come regarding fighter airplanes ass they are more played by and focused by players, so if they have data for zero then they can manage with other 2 being even 50% of what they can do and no one would care mutch.

 

 

why limit with planes? make the theater in a place with a lot of islands and throw in some PT boats to make up for it, we got tanks on the ostfront. that would be kinda of fun i think American and Japanese torpedo boats zooming around island chains and lagoons 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Esel_kong

[Nolly]

Its worth considering that if the making of one Pacific pack is a problem, what next?

 

If 1 is hard, the second will be impossible, meaning you're back to the ETO, with one reduced quality Pacific pack off by itself.

 

If things are as jason says then no pto is the right call. It's a diminishing return lowering standards to meet whimsical desires. The agreement to lower standards would be quickly forgotten once PTO mania takes hold, and the negative dickbags have a turkeyshoot. The unfulfillable demands for a second Pacific module would be deafening.

 

Let's get over it and move on. There are other opportunities for the devs to pursue.

Edited February 24, 2020 by -RS-Nolly

[CountZero]

16 minutes ago, Esel_kong said:

doesnt some organization out in the american west have a zero with the real engine? 

why limit with planes? make the theater in a place with a lot of islands and throw in some PT boats to make up for it, we got tanks on the ostfront. that would be kinda of fun i think American and Japanese torpedo boats zooming around island chains and lagoons 

Then they have to make thouse ships to higher standard as now players can control them insted just being AI, tanks in tank crew are mutch more detaled then free ones we had before. I would rather they stick with airplanes in this game.

 

16 minutes ago, -RS-Nolly said:

Its worth considering that if the making of one Pacific pack is a problem, what next?

 

If 1 is hard, the second will be impossible, meaning you're back to the ETO, with one reduced quality Pacific pack off by itself.

 

If things are as jason says then no pto is the right call. It's a diminishing return lowering standards to meet whimsical desires. The agreement to lower standards would be quickly forgotten once PTO mania takes hold, and the negative dickbags have a turkeyshoot. The unfulfillable demands for a second Pacific module would be deafening.

 

Let's get over it and move on. There are other opportunities for the devs to pursue.

 

Yes thats big problem when they can get only data for a6m, making more then one dlc then is mision imposible. I have no problem if they just stick to euro part of war for next few years and near end try one pto dlc as last hura, how its now it realy would not make any sence to try one and then what...

[=621=Samikatz]

They should only do the Pacific if they can do it well, imo. Reduces the quality of the sim to have guesswork planes and incomplete theatres when there are still plenty of battles and fronts they could do at a higher standard

[Feathered_IV]

“Dear pilots,  today we are proud to reveal the first images of the 3D model for our next aircraft; the Ki-61.   As you can see,  work on the exterior model is almost complete.  Our programers are also hard at work on the flight model, which is based upon the FM of our existing Collector’s Aircraft, The Macchi MC.202.  Due to the limited data on the Ki-61, this offers us the best starting point to bring this exciting and iconic aircraft to you.  The new FM will however feature a number of very important changes.   Some of which are outlined below...”

[ww2fighter20]

I understand the main problem with lack of documentation for midway would be the TBD, D3A and B5N so how about another theatre like New Guinea like suggested by Davesteu here :

If some aircraft lack documentation they could potentially be swapped with another which you can't do with Midway (A6M2/B5N/D3A/F1M).

B25 could be swapped with an B26 or an Hudson.

Ki43 or Ki61 with an second A6M version.

Ki48 with the Ki51 or another japanese bomber listed below.

G4M, I might be wrong but as far as I know Ki21, Ki49 and G3M where also used from New Britain/Rabaul airfields so there are several options.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Topic is starting to drift to dream plane sets and alternatives. Stay on topic please.

[SvAF/F16_Dark_P]

If they cant do the PTO planeset to the same level as we have now then it is a no go for me.

 

Maybe they could do a more arcady stand alone game?

 

The BOX games should be as acurate as possible IMHO.

[Luftschiff]

As someone already pointed out there's a ton of adjustments to existing FM's anyway, and I imagine some guesstimation had to be done for certain RoF planes as well back in the day. I'd have no issues with a slightly lower accuracy if it brought Japan into the fight. Some quibbles could arise I suppose, but there's nothing this forum wouldn't start arguments about given the chance, so it's kind of moot.

[ciderworm]

My guess is that when Jason approaches sources for info the integrity of the game plays a big part in getting agreement for info transfer / access.

 

His description of the effort required to obtain access to the Tempest hints at this.

 

Reducing this integrity (for maybe good reasons) could have a negative affect in the future.

[Caudron431]

4 hours ago, Dark_P said:

If they cant do the PTO planeset to the same level as we have now then it is a no go for me.

 

[...]

 

The BOX games should be as acurate as possible IMHO.

Exactly.

 

When you have the good people at 1CGS that tell you they miss important data on the aircraft in the PTO it is not just any other piece of information.

 

It is critical information.

 

They can't do the work as accurately, and if you respect their professionalism you can not ask them to do something like a new battle below their standards.

 

No, this game is not just a video game as some say. It is far more than that even if it is not advanced civil or military simulator or reality.  The amount of quality in this sim is fantastic.

 

It is really honest on their part and shows how those "details" are important to them. You can't ask a professional to do things unprofessionally, they would not do it with all their heart anyway. They actually dismiss the idea of making money on something not as accurate as their products. What about that? That speaks a lot for them.

 

What a great team, i hope they will find data somehow eventually. If not well, i'm already so grateful for what we have!

 

Thank you 1CGS

[sniperton]

4 hours ago, Dark_P said:

If they cant do the PTO planeset to the same level as we have now then it is a no go for me.

...

The BOX games should be as acurate as possible IMHO.

The question is whether you would accept if PTO were done just as accurate as possible, even though not to the same level of accuracy as we have now.

 

The point is that you would never know that, say, the variometer is wrongly placed in the cockpit of the Val, because there are no evidences to prove the contrary.

 

For me a bit of guesswork is fully acceptable as long as there's no contradicting evidence and the result is not against common sense.

Edited February 25, 2020 by sniperton

[Toppaso]

12 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

All of the U.S. planes, yes, except the Devastator. There's good info here and there, but there's some critical info out there that's still missing or stuffed away in some archive. It certainly doesn't help that the majority of them ended their days at the bottom of the ocean.  

 

Just out of curiosity, what is considered "critical info" for the devs?

What are those pieces of info without which it is considered just "not doable"?

Is it visual details? performance tests? Engine modes of operation?

 

I can see IL-2:GB is really a level (or two) above the old IL2:1946 in terms of simulation details;

I'm just curious to know what type of info has been used in IL2:1946 that today would just be considered not good enough for the level of detail they have to reproduce.

 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The critical details are probably those I listed; internal details for the visuals as well as performance parameters, coefficient of lift, turn rates, climb rates, engine limits, etc, - most likely.

 

I suspect most of the data used in '46 is not usable in any modern sim. It was an excellent game in it's day but as a true simulator it leaves much to be desired in a modern iteration.

 

*This is all conjecture on my part.

[6FG_Big_Al]

We haven't even received the first update from BoN and people' s eyes are again focused on the Pacific. Wow^^
I don't think that fantasy values and guesses do justice to the Pacific or the developers who have made the best possible effort so far for its modules. Jason has theoretically implied that he has already gathered a small collection of data, but it is not enough. We have no idea (apart from the A6M) which types are extremely poorly documented and therefore not feasible. It could be the D3A1 or the B5N2 or even the Ki-61, Ki-43 etc. We do not know.  And at the moment I don't think we need to know, since we are now heading for Europe 44. So I'd rather have Normandy and (a possible other western or eastern European scenario) before I worry about PTO coming. Because with enough time and work, I'm sure they can find the required information. So let's give them that time after all.

 

[cardboard_killer]

16 minutes ago, 6FG_Big_Al said:

We haven't even received the first update from BoN and people' s eyes are again focused on the Pacific.

 

I would have said, BoBp is hardly out and we're again focusing on PTO. But, to be fair, we were talking about PTO before BoBp came out and before BoN was announced, so it seems not surprising at all.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

1 hour ago, 6FG_Big_Al said:

We haven't even received the first update from BoN and people' s eyes are again focused on the Pacific. Wow^^
I don't think that fantasy values and guesses do justice to the Pacific or the developers who have made the best possible effort so far for its modules. Jason has theoretically implied that he has already gathered a small collection of data, but it is not enough. We have no idea (apart from the A6M) which types are extremely poorly documented and therefore not feasible. It could be the D3A1 or the B5N2 or even the Ki-61, Ki-43 etc. We do not know.  And at the moment I don't think we need to know, since we are now heading for Europe 44. So I'd rather have Normandy and (a possible other western or eastern European scenario) before I worry about PTO coming. Because with enough time and work, I'm sure they can find the required information. So let's give them that time after all.

 

 

I think you should read the OP again before accusing anyone of desiring or accepting fantasy values for any parameters. And this post was postulated prior to the PTO retraction from Jason. I just didn't get it posted before that announcement.

[twilson37]

 

     It seems a Pacific set of BoX is not a question of if but when.  In the end which is likely to sell more copies Battle Of Midway where we have 8 all new aircraft types or say at Battle of Kursk with variants of aircraft we already have.  I expect we will have one more variant of the Western Europe Front after BoN but I expect eventually we will see a game in the Far East.  That being said, I applaud the team for their attention to realism, and their willingness to hold back until they have all the information available to make the Pacific Theater every bit as realistic as the European Theater.  To that end I suggest if we truly want a realistic Pacific Theater we as a community offer our support to that end, and assist 1C in gathering any information they require, perhaps there are some of us in the community who have access to data that the 1C team does not.

Edited February 25, 2020 by twilson37

[Blitzen]

Maybe this modeler can help...His Zero:

http://www.rojasbazan.com/models/a6m2-zero-part-2.html

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, Toppaso said:

Just out of curiosity, what is considered "critical info" for the devs?

What are those pieces of info without which it is considered just "not doable"?

Is it visual details? performance tests? Engine modes of operation?

 

6 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

The critical details are probably those I listed; internal details for the visuals as well as performance parameters, coefficient of lift, turn rates, climb rates, engine limits, etc, - most likely.

 

It's certain internal details, like the bombardier / torpedo aiming compartment in the middle of the plane, certain details in the pilot's compartment, etc. It's been a while since I've looked at the internal photos that I've collected over the years, but my educated guess is you're looking at about ~20-25% of the internals that are still not well-documented. Beyond that, it's structural details of the plane (e.g., detailed design blueprints) that are apparently out there somewhere, but whoever has them just isn't sharing them right now.

 

Performance figures are fairly well-known, as the pilot's operating handbook has been available for some time.

Edited February 25, 2020 by LukeFF

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

24 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

 

It's certain internal details, like the bombardier / torpedo aiming compartment in the middle of the plane, certain details in the pilot's compartment, etc. It's been a while since I've looked at the internal photos that I've collected over the years, but my educated guess is you're looking at about ~20-25% of the internals that are still not well-documented. Beyond that, it's structural details of the plane (e.g., detailed design blueprints) that are apparently out there somewhere, but whoever has them just isn't sharing them right now.

 

Performance figures are fairly well-known, as the pilot's operating handbook has been available for some time.

 

That is fairly in line with my expectations. On a side note, it’s good to get back to arguing and being part of this community. Ive largely been away for a while and I missed interacting with you guys here and in-game.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Even performance figures can be a difficult area, as the IJN and IJAAF used different testing regimes than those that the western powers used.  This reared it's head during the old Pacific Fighters days.  Japanese fighter top speeds in manuals are often typically their speed at max continuous power, not all out maximum power.  This issue was never fully sorted out either. This is one of the things that is a consequence of the Japanese manuals and blueprints of the day are all in old technical Japanese, which is not the Japanese that is spoken today.

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, twilson37 said:

 

  ...  In the end which is likely to sell more copies Battle Of Midway where we have 8 all new aircraft types or say at Battle of Kursk with variants of aircraft we already have.   ...

 

There's sales and then there is return on investment.  The initial foray into the Pacific is going to be very costly for 1C.  I know nothing about 1C's financials but I can see why such a move might be daunting.  I also don't know anything about Pacific vs. Europe theatre sales but I can't help but think that European theatre sells more copy.  

 

I am more Europe oriented myself, but hopefully Pacific happens.  Maybe some crowd funding?