Jump to content
II/JG17_HerrMurf

Japanese Aircraft

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

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 (...)

 

My line of thinking lies about there also. The main reason given for PTO postponement, viz, handling of accurate period data and info, is probably just a simplification, or say, merely a "front" reason. There are other topics less palatable to discuss, but very true nonetheless to justify the risky investment on a PTO sim, like: a) long flights over a featureless ocean being a source of buyer disapointment; b) the fact that navigation would become much harder, also raising buyer complaints; c) need of modeling more accurate radio nav, which is not everybody's cup of tea; d) modelling ships to an extent never tried before, specially carrier to land on, which threatens to be very costly and, even so., raise nothing but complaints.... etc.

 

Think of the Rheinland map for instance. I myself created a topic to compliment it, and it became a venue for complaints about the map. Can we really blame the developer from postponing a project wich we all want, but for sure (or so this forum's history leads me to beleive so), would be an utter magnet of complaints? For sure a costly one? If I were they, I would look for more tested and proven venues, lest I spend 3 times the usual investment to find out everybody dislikes this or that feature. 

 

 

Edited by danielprates
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The intention of this topic was the demand of accuracy we will set. 

PTO is sensitive topic, to me it was like a kick in the groins when I understood it as abandoned. 
What Luke say make sense and is pretty much expected, I did not realize the magnitude of info needed for making a plane. 
Or understood that this was the level of quality they work by. 
PTO will attract the rest of fence sitters. How many is very unclear

Edited by LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2020 at 4:08 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

3/3 planeset would work just fine initially.

 

Zeke

Val

Kate

Wildcat

Dauntless

Devastator

see the only 2 planes we really need high fidelity with are the zero and the wildcat. obviously we want the best that can be done with the dive bombers and torpedo bombers, but, dog fighting in the bombers isn't really practical. static carriers are probably what we would get for now, and I think would be acceptable. 

Edited by gimpy117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gimpy117 said:

see the only 2 planes we really need high fidelity with are the zero and the wildcat. obviously we want the best that can be done with the dive bombers and torpedo bombers, but, dog fighting in the bombers isn't really practical. static carriers are probably what we would get for now, and I think would be acceptable. 

 

There's quite a few on the forums who would want to make sure that the others were feeling as realistic as possible too. Both SDB and D3A were pressed into occasional use in the fighter role so we would be dogfighting them too :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

There's quite a few on the forums who would want to make sure that the others were feeling as realistic as possible too. Both SDB and D3A were pressed into occasional use in the fighter role so we would be dogfighting them too :)

oh i fully agree with fidelity, but we would theoretically have to curb expectations with resources available to the devs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

see the only 2 planes we really need high fidelity with are the zero and the wildcat. obviously we want the best that can be done with the dive bombers and torpedo bombers, but, dog fighting in the bombers isn't really practical. static carriers are probably what we would get for now, and I think would be acceptable. 

 

I know this may come as a shock, but there's more to the game than just dogfighting.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd buy it with good looking airframes, reasonably close flight models and largely made up instruments and internal modeling. Call it 75% of what we expect.

 

However, I'd never ask the dev's to change their approach or standards, and I'll buy most anything else they put out that flies, BoN and beyond. They're not losing any business from me for not taking on the Pacific.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not buy anything unless we get this modeled to 100% accuracy.

 

19e1b17cc944fa316ca1b7b04f87c8e0.jpg

 

I'm kidding of course. I'll buy any Pacific expansion that this team releases!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day we are all saying the same thing.  We all want the simulation to be as realistic as possible.  

 

Lacking any available information to the contrary, this team has the provenance, skills and capability more than any other to give us the most qualified result that is as realistic "as possible".

 

Question is if you want (undocumented and thus subjective) perfection to stand in the way of progress.  

 

Edited by =[TIA]=Stoopy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

oh i fully agree with fidelity, but we would theoretically have to curb expectations with resources available to the devs.

Funds and time shouldn't be a problem, they had it for 3 titles at once....."resources" as available info on IJN planes is different story!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there is more information on the D4Y than the D3A. Maybe a mid/late war scenario like the Marianas would be more feasible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

I know this may come as a shock, but there's more to the game than just dogfighting.

I agree, I fly bombers a lot...but IMO the immediate need would a zero and wildcat flying pretty close to reality. I think you're taking me out of context here...I want aircraft to be modeled 100% correct at the time of a launch but judging on what Jason has said I do not expect it immediately.  Do you guys want a pacific add-on or not? because right now with lack of data and money, unless we accept a few thing we're never gonna get one. Lets not hoist the community on it's own petard here. 

10 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Funds and time shouldn't be a problem, they had it for 3 titles at once....."resources" as available info on IJN planes is different story!

we don't know the operating budget of the company. maybe those 3 titles are what are making them short on funds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not expecting any upcoming offerings that don't include German aircraft. Look for a Battle of Berlin. If the series could be weaned from this dependence we might get more interesting titles. I would be more enthused  over a "Mig Alley" reboot than a PTO scenario for several reasons including similar potential carrier operations and more available info for AC modeling but I think that such an offering is a non-starter for the same reason. I don't see that the risks incurred in attempting either PTO or Korean War title would make them likely for the foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2020 at 1:47 PM, 216th_LuseKofte said:

The intention of this topic was the demand of accuracy we will set. 

 

I personally am fine with them getting within 4% accuracy of the flight performance (i.e. what can be reconstructed without detailed flight test information).

I am also fine with them basing some parts of the cockpit off of similar aircraft (i.e. if no cockpit photos of the instrument panel survive).

 

My overall standards have grown as a result of the ever increasing fidelity, but if the data doesn't exist - it is more accurate to have a historically common plane with a bit of guesswork than to not have it at all.

 

On 2/25/2020 at 11:57 PM, gimpy117 said:

see the only 2 planes we really need high fidelity with are the zero and the wildcat. obviously we want the best that can be done with the dive bombers and torpedo bombers, but, dog fighting in the bombers isn't really practical. static carriers are probably what we would get for now, and I think would be acceptable. 

 

I wouldn't be part of the market for this. I might pick up a Ki-43 collector plane... but I never developed an interest in the American carrier fighters (despite a brief love affair with the top speed of the F4U when I was a kid)!

 

Battle of Normandy is perfect for me because of the variety of roles it offers - not just dogfighting online - but ground attack (Typhoon), Intruder (Mosquito & Ju-88C), oversized somewhat challenging fighter (Ju-88C), high speed recon (Ar-234) etc.

 

For a Pacific sim to appeal to me I have to be able to fly a torpedo bomber, and a dive bomber... for it to get me really excited I'd have to be able to do recon/spotting (doable in a bomber, but ideally the inclusion of a catapult launched seaplane in order to spot for a warship doing bombardment would be ideal). I've been flying sims for years, and the variety of new experiences is the draw.

 

I'm clearly not representative of the market as a whole (I'm eccentric)... but I do think that part of the success of BoN was that it included a variety of roles, and a few oddball aircraft, along with a couple of competitive high-performance fighters to use online... it had something for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

but ideally the inclusion of a catapult launched seaplane

 

Oh yeah. E13A and OS2U ftw! 

Share this post


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

I'm not expecting any upcoming offerings that don't include German aircraft.

 

I'm sure Italy would be fairly doable?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I'm clearly not representative of the market as a whole (I'm eccentric)... but I do think that part of the success of BoN was that it included a variety of roles, and a few oddball aircraft, along with a couple of competitive high-performance fighters to use online... it had something for everyone.

 

Not to pick on this or anything but since this product is only in the pre-order stage and will not see the light of day for some time,  how has its success already been determined, and isn't it a bit premature to talk about it in the past tense?

 

 

Edited by =[TIA]=Stoopy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

Not to pick on this or anything but since this product is only in the pre-order stage and will not see the light of day for some time,  how has its success already been determined, and isn't it a bit premature to talk about it in the past tense?

 

Jason stated that it had exceeded expectations in initial sales. Of course, first-week pre-order sales are not necessarily indicative of overall success, and do not necessarily represent the whole market. But I was referring to his comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2020 at 5:57 AM, gimpy117 said:

see the only 2 planes we really need high fidelity with are the zero and the wildcat. obviously we want the best that can be done with the dive bombers and torpedo bombers, but, dog fighting in the bombers isn't really practical. static carriers are probably what we would get for now, and I think would be acceptable. 

I would br delighted getting a Zero as a collector plane. 
I get furious if they build a pack not focusing on the most important planes in Midway. 
I will do perfectly with best they can do. But it must contain a minimum of types present there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Jason stated that it had exceeded expectations in initial sales. Of course, first-week pre-order sales are not necessarily indicative of overall success, and do not necessarily represent the whole market. But I was referring to his comment.

 

I think starting the pre-order after just releasing a new product is the way to go. People are amped up and really feeling the love with the new product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

I would br delighted getting a Zero as a collector plane. 
I get furious if they build a pack not focusing on the most important planes in Midway. 
I will do perfectly with best they can do. But it must contain a minimum of types present there

 

There is no way they have an initial release of any PTO crates as collector planes. They make their money on full releases. Jason has said they will stay true to this business model many times.

 

Back on topic fellas.

 

Luke, did you say there is limited documentation on the Devestator as well? 

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Luke, did you say there is limited documentation on the Devastator as well? 

 

Yes, there is some documentation out there. The pilot's manual (available from here, if anyone's interested) gives pretty good flight performance info. Unfortunately, that's about the only documentation I've seen on its flight performance (but still, it's fairly thorough and would probably meet the development team's standards). 

 

EDIT: there is also this book, but who knows what sort of info is inside it. I might have to just pick up a used copy and see.

 

EDIT2: it seems this book by Steve Ginter is "the" book on the TBD, but my goodness, the used prices for it are insane!

 

EDIT3: what the heck, I have a gift card from Amazon. I'll pick up the one used copy there that doesn't cost a king's ransom. 😄 From what I've read online, this seems to be a really detailed book. 

 

The tough part comes with the internals. If I had to make an estimate in terms of complete info, I would say the front cockpit is 80-90%; the middle cockpit 60-75%, and the rear gunner's cockpit 85-90%. What's really missing is detailed info on the bombardier / torpedo officer's controls for that middle cockpit section.

 

So, with a really strong bit of effort (like what was done to get the needed info on the Tempest), it probably could be done. My guess is that the USN has the requisite info in one of their archives. Who knows what old files have survived all the corporate changes Douglas went through after the war.

Edited by LukeFF
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, there is some documentation out there. The pilot's manual (available from here, if anyone's interested) gives pretty good flight performance info. Unfortunately, that's about the only documentation I've seen on its flight performance (but still, it's fairly thorough and would probably meet the development team's standards). 

 

The tough part comes with the internals. If I had to make an estimate in terms of complete info, I would say the front cockpit is 80-90%; the middle cockpit 60-75%, and the rear gunner's cockpit 85-90%. What's really missing is detailed info on the bombardier / torpedo officer's controls for that middle cockpit section.

 

So, with a really strong bit of effort (like what was done to get the needed info on the Tempest), it probably could be done. My guess is that the USN has the requisite info in one of their archives. Who knows what old files have survived all the corporate changes Douglas went through after the war.

 

Is it possible to request all of that information from the USN archives? I'm curious if they have some good information on Japanese planes. I'd imagine they have information on any planes the captured and tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captured planes are rarely in good shape. The Zero tested in 1942 (landed in Alaska by pilot accidentally IIRC) was never pushed as hard as pilots in the field pushed Zeros. I think they only got to within 20mph of what the Japanese said was the top speed.

 

 

Share this post


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

Captured planes are rarely in good shape. The Zero tested in 1942 (landed in Alaska by pilot accidentally IIRC) was never pushed as hard as pilots in the field pushed Zeros. I think they only got to within 20mph of what the Japanese said was the top speed.

 

 

That's a shame, but I understand. Still, is it possible that US documentation on captured Japanese aircraft could provide us with information on the cockpit layouts of these planes? I think that is something the devs have said they are struggling with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what other planes the US tested and what the docs look like. Jason has said that they could make a Zero already, but other planes elude them. The Alaskan zero was pretty famous. Considering the vulnerability of the Kate and Val, I wonder if they bothered to rigorously test any captured versions. Why endanger yourself testing planes that high wind friction caused to catch fire :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2020 at 8:57 PM, gimpy117 said:

see the only 2 planes we really need high fidelity with are the zero and the wildcat. obviously we want the best that can be done with the dive bombers and torpedo bombers, but, dog fighting in the bombers isn't really practical. static carriers are probably what we would get for now, and I think would be acceptable. 

 

Even though I authored this post based upon what level of fidelity do you require, I can’t agree with this premise. On the visuals, I’m willing to bet there are extensive pictures taken of captured examples of the Kate and Val. Performance figures can be extrapolated but the docs, manufacturer’s or otherwise, need to be found first. Much of what is needed is out there. It just needs to be found.

 

Tapping into various other topics in this thread; I don’t think we need to crowdsource any monies, and Jason has already said in other posts he is opposed to that approach anyway, but this community is knowledgeable and some are pretty dogged. We need members to attack the gathering of primary docs and crowdsource the data if we are going to assist the team in this (Pacific) endeavor.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

Even though I authored this post based upon what level of fidelity do you require, I can’t agree with this premise. On the visuals, I’m willing to bet there are extensive pictures taken of captured examples of the Kate and Val. Performance figures can be extrapolated but the docs, manufacturer’s or otherwise, need to be found first. Much of what is needed is out there. It just needs to be found.

 

Tapping into various other topics in this thread; I don’t think we need to crowdsource any monies, and Jason has already said in other posts he is opposed to that approach anyway, but this community is knowledgeable and some are pretty dogged. We need members to attack the gathering of primary docs and crowdsource the data if we are going to assist the team in this (Pacific) endeavor.

 

I'd love to help in my free time, I'm just not sure how or where to look. As I mentioned earlier, I am curious if US Navy archives (or archives of any allied country that participated in the Pacific theater) might be of some use here. Maybe there is an inquiry process available to the public of those countries. I will try to find out when I have some time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I don't know what other planes the US tested and what the docs look like. Jason has said that they could make a Zero already, but other planes elude them. The Alaskan zero was pretty famous. Considering the vulnerability of the Kate and Val, I wonder if they bothered to rigorously test any captured versions. Why endanger yourself testing planes that high wind friction caused to catch fire :)

 

The Kate and Val were hardy naval aviation assets and, utilized within an excellent scheme, romped across the Pacific and Far East for quite a while. They were approaching the end of their respective service lives when the war was initiated but I doubt they were studied with anything other than professionalism by any engineers or test pilots who may have gotten their hands on them. Western services who disrespected them and their crews at the time paid a terrible price. Don’t let those past biases creep into your current analysis.

1 minute ago, GarandM1 said:

 

I'd love to help in my free time, I'm just not sure how or where to look. As I mentioned earlier, I am curious if US Navy archives (or archives of any allied country that participated in the Pacific theater) might be of some use here. Maybe there is an inquiry process available to the public of those countries. I will try to find out when I have some time.

 

Im not quite retired but will be headed to the east coast in a little over a years time to settle down. If anyone can point me in the right direction I’d be more than happy to spend a few says in DC or other points east to do some digging.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Im not quite retired but will be headed to the east coast in a little over a years time to settle down. If anyone can point me in the right direction I’d be more than happy to spend a few says in DC or other points east to do some digging.

 

Pensacola is where the big US Navy museum is that, so that would be the first place I would look. 

Share this post


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

 

Jason stated that it had exceeded expectations in initial sales. Of course, first-week pre-order sales are not necessarily indicative of overall success, and do not necessarily represent the whole market. But I was referring to his comment.

 

Understood.  And if that's the first litmus test, then the great news is that 1CGS can have two successes on their hands by also taking pre-orders for a PTO edition, we'll wait!  Judging by the undying threads expressing interest in it, it'd seem a sure bet that just as many if not more potential customers have credit cards at the ready... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

 

Understood.  And if that's the first litmus test, then the great news is that 1CGS can have two successes on their hands by also taking pre-orders for a PTO edition, we'll wait!  Judging by the undying threads expressing interest in it, it'd seem a sure bet that just as many if not more potential customers have credit cards at the ready... 

 

 

Ar the risk of diverging off topic again; If you read between the lines, taking on three projects at the same time nearly killed this team (figuratively). Even with the subcontracting teams it was far more complicated than it appeared at first blush. I doubt we will see more than one concurrent BoX project and an alternate project at a time going forward. This includes ROF, PTO, Han’s pet (Korea), tanks or whatever secrets Jason has up his sleeve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I was perfectly happy with Val and Kate in old IL 2. Flew them a lot. 
If their made after best ability and sources available. Who is there to oppose by the result. 
Sure we got already a bunch of nitpickers. 
But I really do not buy the argument of blueprint as a soul reason for delay / abandonment. 
I believe it is mainly economical risk preventing 

this to happened
 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

 I was perfectly happy with Val and Kate in old IL 2. Flew them a lot. 
If their made after best ability and sources available. Who is there to oppose by the result. 
Sure we got already a bunch of nitpickers. 
But I really do not buy the argument of blueprint as a soul reason for delay / abandonment. 
I believe it is mainly economical risk preventing 

this to happened
 

I used to love lucasarts' TIE fighter. The FM of the TIE interceptor was amazing. It's a pity they don't have the historical documents for the tie bomber because its FM sucked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2020 at 9:36 AM, Majakowski said:

Oh yeah. E13A and OS2U ftw! 

 

One could also have an Ar-196 for Kuban... and if FC gets taken up again... someday a Short Type-184 or a Friedrichshafen FF.33 flying off a German Armed Merchant raider and capturing fast merchants by threatening to bomb them...

3 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

I used to love lucasarts' TIE fighter. The FM of the TIE interceptor was amazing. It's a pity they don't have the historical documents for the tie bomber because its FM sucked

 

Honestly, I thoroughly enjoyed them... it was a different kind of challenge altogether! I just wish the campaign had more moderate difficulty missions so one could get to see more of them (rather than escalating into the most advanced types right away).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

 I was perfectly happy with Val and Kate in old IL 2. Flew them a lot. 
If their made after best ability and sources available. Who is there to oppose by the result. 
Sure we got already a bunch of nitpickers. 
But I really do not buy the argument of blueprint as a soul reason for delay / abandonment. 
I believe it is mainly economical risk preventing 

this to happened
 

I think you are correct in suggesting that the economic risk of a PTO product is key. Even assuming announcement of a PTO product there would be immediate disagreement  as to what scenario would be best, thus fracturing the assumed large group of potential PTO customers. No one handling the purse strings is likely to be willing to volunteer to take on those headaches for very uncertain reward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

I think you are correct in suggesting that the economic risk of a PTO product is key. Even assuming announcement of a PTO product there would be immediate disagreement  as to what scenario would be best, thus fracturing the assumed large group of potential PTO customers. No one handling the purse strings is likely to be willing to volunteer to take on those headaches for very uncertain reward.

 

You mean like going to Bodenplatte as opposed to a fourth iteration of the Eastern Front? I’m sure many Eastern Europeans didn’t make the jump but that was offset by gaining American and Western European pilots waiting to get their western Allied AC. I don’t think doing Japanese expansion (Pearl, Wake, Midway, etc) as opposed to an Island or late war Pacific campaign will fracture the community as much as you fear. We may lose some European pilots but likely will pick up Japanese, Chinese and other Asian pilots. Not to mention adding Naval aviation aficionados in the states and abroad. Moving about in campaigns will always be risk vs reward. Outside of a couple very early stumbles, under Jason and Co, this team has made good choices for where we set our orbit and hasn’t put a foot wrong since.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We who remember hyperlobby. Of course a gazillion more players. My impression was that the theatres was pretty evenly shared. 
I might have been blind since I myself had preferences shared by many

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

You mean like going to Bodenplatte as opposed to a fourth iteration of the Eastern Front? I’m sure many Eastern Europeans didn’t make the jump but that was offset by gaining American and Western European pilots waiting to get their western Allied AC. I don’t think doing Japanese expansion (Pearl, Wake, Midway, etc) as opposed to an Island or late war Pacific campaign will fracture the community as much as you fear. We may lose some European pilots but likely will pick up Japanese, Chinese and other Asian pilots. Not to mention adding Naval aviation aficionados in the states and abroad. Moving about in campaigns will always be risk vs reward. Outside of a couple very early stumbles, under Jason and Co, this team has made good choices for where we set our orbit and hasn’t put a foot wrong since.

Reading around the forum, it almost seems like passing on a PTO expansion next time around would be riskier than doing it. People are clamoring for it constantly and I think there is some fatigue setting in with 5 expansions now featuring 109s and 190s and the like. At some point they will need to move on. Of course there is also Italian planes they could do, but it really seems like people are generally more interested in the PTO. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well over 99% of the playerbase wouldn't even know if the planes were "accurate enough".  If they were close to generally accepted figures, most people would just blindly heap praise on the game and hail its accuracy.

 

It's not like they're going to have documents to cite in the Flight Model Complaints section of the forum.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...