Ta 152?

[oc2209]

10 hours ago, Pict said:

I not opposed to having a Meteor either, but I think you should speak for yourself rather than "we" when you say you would only want to fly the later version of the Meteor because it was a hotter ship.

 

I really like the idea of V1 hunting in a Meteor MK.I and the idea that it wasn't as good as the Meteor MK.III takes nothing from that whatsoever. It was there and it was shooting down V1's, which is both historically significant and challenging.

 

I would also like to see the Meteor MK.III, but not as a hot rod fighter, but in the role it actually played on the map we actually have.

 

The problem is that there were prop planes that were better at intercepting V1s than the Meteor I.

 

Flying a jet with a top speed in the low 400s (MPH) would have all the drawbacks of a jet (including lower overall agility versus a piston engine plane) with none of the advantages. Raw speed is the only advantage a jet has over a prop plane (at least in this tech era). Even the 262, much faster than the contemporary Meteor, still proved highly vulnerable to fast prop planes in certain circumstances. A Meteor fighting under the same conditions would be nothing but cannon fodder.

 

In practical game terms, this means early Meteors would be utterly useless in multiplayer, and in single player would be confined to V1 intercepts and not much else. Being intercepted by AI enemies during ground attack sorties would likely be almost as catastrophic as being attacked by humans in MP.

 

At least the Meteor III was fast enough to have a fighting chance (mainly to escape).

 

A Meteor I would have about as much survivability as an unarmed transport plane. Even a Po-2 or an Hs-129 has some agility for defense. Since this is a combat sim, the combat utility of any given plane is a consideration for its inclusion.

[Pict]

12 hours ago, oc2209 said:

The problem is that there were prop planes that were better at intercepting V1s than the Meteor I.

 

This where you fail to understand the point of view of people like me, as I simply don't see this as a problem and I'm far from being alone with that idea. I do see a problem with someone wanting to impart their viewpoint as the only viewpoint and therefore my viewpoint, so please express your ideas as your ideas and not those of all of us.

 

12 hours ago, oc2209 said:

In practical game terms, this means early Meteors would be utterly useless in multiplayer, and in single player would be confined to V1 intercepts and not much else. Being intercepted by AI enemies during ground attack sorties would likely be almost as catastrophic as being attacked by humans in MP.

 

So what?, so what? and again so what?

 

Most of what you say pitches all of the aircraft we have and any we would like to have as something that must be useful flying online in some kind of air quake™ server or be deemed useless.

 

That's ok...for you and for anyone who wants to use IL2 BOX for that purpose. But I don't and I don't want to see it being painted as the only way to use it.

 

I like the ability to simulate history in some way and I really enjoy IL2 BOX over other available "sims" depicting that time as it provides not just the hot-rods of the time, but many earlier types often deemed obsolete or not as good as the opposition back in the day. Flying them and the challenge that poses is part of the pleasure for me and goes some way to understanding what pilots of these "lesser" machines were faced with.

 

Pilots back then simply did not have the choice of what they flew or where or who the flew against and often they had no idea about how other aircraft performed neither freind or foe. This lavish information we have comes with 20/20 hindsight and decades of declassification. So from a historical point of view, how good my aircraft was compared to others so that I can make an informed selection is largely a moot point.

 

If we were to limit the aircraft inclusion to your "only if it's useful on-line" sort of benchmark, we wouldn't have much of a selection in the hangar.

 

In conclusion, if we have the Meteor, I can then fly it or shoot it down. You on the other hand would not be obliged to do either, same would apply to buying it, if it came as a collector plane. However, if we don not get it. Nobody can do anything with it.

 

It clearly would pose no threat to you in your on-line bubble and even possibly provide you with some (needed?) score padding, so what's the big problem with the rest us having the possibility to have the Meteor?

 

===============

 

And for the record, I'd be happy with a Ta-152H (as long as we have a map that it flew on to fly it on™.*)

 

* That last part is almost at a point where I would be happy to see an add-on that included some of the more rare birds regardless of the map**. Hot-rods too, like the Bearcat, Tigercat, Do-335, MB-5, I-185, Vampire jet-moped™ and stuff like this that just missed the boat but was definately not in the paper plane basket.

 

**Or maybe a few small  tiny maps thet cover test facilities, like Boscombe Down and a their allied and opposing equivelants, just to give some historical content and a place to put them though their paces.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Pict
Addition of Vampire jet-moped™

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, Pict said:

Pilots back then simply did not have the choice of what they flew or where or who the flew against and often they had no idea about how other aircraft performed neither freind or foe. This lavish information we have comes with 20/20 hindsight and decades of declassification. So from a historical point of view, how good my aircraft was compared to others so that I can make an informed selection is largely a moot point.

 

Pilots didn't, but their leadership did have some choice. There's a reason the Meteor was largely withheld from strenuous combat duties. It doesn't take hindsight to know that a jet with poor acceleration (which the 262 also suffered from) and agility, and a top speed that was below the best piston engine fighters of the day--that design is not going to be strongly competitive in air combat.

 

1 hour ago, Pict said:

It clearly would pose no threat to you in your on-line bubble and even possibly provide you with some (needed?) score padding, so what's the big problem with the rest us having the possibility to have the Meteor?

 

No need to get personal here. I find it funny that I'm accused of being a coward for not doing multiplayer by some, and now I'm being accused of being a multiplayer jock.

 

I don't do multiplayer. I've played it for exactly one day in the last year.

 

I mention MP, however, because if the devs can only make one mark of the Meteor, they should make it the most useful one they can. If you want a collector plane to sell well, you want it to be as widely appealing as possible. There are major exceptions to this rule, like transport planes, but by and large, collector planes are often pretty useful in combat (with their immediate contemporaries, at least). Ideally a plane, especially a collector plane, can find a niche in both single and multiplayer. 

 

A Meteor I would not have the same broad appeal as a Meteor III. I'd be tempted to buy the latter, but have zero interest in the former. That's my opinion, and you're welcome to disagree with it.

 

I just don't see the point in putting the weakest version of an already weak jet design into the sim, when there's a more powerful alternative of that same jet.

[Pict]

12 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

That's my opinion, and you're welcome to disagree with it.

 

That's about the only common ground we have here.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

I thought this thread was about the Ta-152 instead of the Meteor?

 

Anyway, I'd like to add that with these threads, it's not a question of "would you like the Ta-152 (or Meteor or whatever)?", but more like "would you rather have a [fill in an airplane] than [fill in a list of other airplanes]?". With the limited time the Devs have, if they make a Ta-152/Meteor, it automatically means they *won't* make a B-25 or B-26 or any of the other popularly requested planes.

Edited September 13, 2021 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Bremspropeller]

2 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

With the limited time the Devs have, if they make a Ta-152/Meteor, it automatically means they *won't* make a B-25 or B-26 or any of the other popularly requested planes.

 

Thanks for bringing back some common sense!

I  personally have nox axe to grind over late war wondaplanes, but I'd much rather have the aircraft (and theaters) painfully missing taken care of first, before my virtual pilot can fly a historical five-mission Ta 152H campaign.

[sevenless]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

With the limited time the Devs have, if they make a Ta-152/Meteor, it automatically means they *won't* make a B-25 or B-26 or any of the other popularly requested planes.

 

Well that depends what the devs think is commercially more sensible. Invest into two AI medium bombers B25 and B26 as flyable collectibles or invest in additional fighter planes as collectibles. My personal guess is they could sell more fighter planes with less associated developmental effort. But as I said, they decide what makes more sense for them.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

11 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Well that depends what the devs think is commercially more sensible. Invest into two AI medium bombers B25 and B26 as flyable collectibles or invest in additional fighter planes as collectibles. My personal guess is they could sell more fighter planes with less associated developmental effort. But as I said, they decide what makes more sense for them.

The B25 and B26 are just examples, because these two are often requested

 

Basically, every collector plane they develop means that they cannot develop another one (at least not within a couple of years). Sure, a fighter might require less overall development effort, but this effort doesn't grow linearly with the size of the plane. A larger plane requires especially more 3d modeling work and a bit of programming for the additional stations, but on the other hand hardly any extra time will have to be spent on research or flight modelling (if at all).

 

My point therefore still stands: this is a choice *between* aircraft, rather than for a single one. I would definitely like to see the Ta-152, but like Bremspropeller I think there's a couple of aircraft the series could use more urgently.

[sevenless]

3 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

My point therefore still stands: this is a choice *between* aircraft, rather than for a single one. I would definitely like to see the Ta-152, but like Bremspropeller I think there's a couple of aircraft the series could use more urgently.

 

Sure, we agree on that point. However, I guess we can also agree, that everyone has his/her own priorities as for possible collector planes. Some like early war stuff, some like unicorn planes, some like late war stuff and some even like "what if" planes. All what we can do is to tell them what we would like to have. The final call is on them.

[Pict]

4 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I thought this thread was about the Ta-152 instead of the Meteor?

 

Anyway, I'd like to add that with these threads, it's not a question of "would you like the Ta-152 (or Meteor or whatever)?", but more like "would you rather have a [fill in an airplane] than [fill in a list of other airplanes]?". With the limited time the Devs have, if they make a Ta-152/Meteor, it automatically means they *won't* make a B-25 or B-26 or any of the other popularly requested planes.

 

Sure it's about the Ta-152, you are not wrong, but then the title "Ta152? would give that away pretty quick.

 

"these threads" abound all over the boards and I doubt that most of the people taking part in the coversations really think seriously for a moment that any of it has a major impact on what is finaly on offer from the developer. Ok possibly a few do, but it ain't a crime either way.

 

That shouldn't stop people from having an opinion about what they think should or shouln't be added, should it? Or should everyone just sit back an say nothing? They could shut down the forums then and put that cash to building yet another plane.

 

Personally I find these threads are a great scource of information and entertainment and I'm persuaded that they even offer a measure of release for some in a safety valve kind of fashion...I might be wrong.

 

Your case for one or the other due to lack of resoursces on the developer side automatically assumes that everything is done at the same time. While this makes sense if you do try and do everything at the same time, it is not the only option for time and resource mangement.

[[F.Circus]FrangibleCover]

10 hours ago, Pict said:

If we were to limit the aircraft inclusion to your "only if it's useful on-line" sort of benchmark, we wouldn't have much of a selection in the hangar.

 

In conclusion, if we have the Meteor, I can then fly it or shoot it down. You on the other hand would not be obliged to do either, same would apply to buying it, if it came as a collector plane. However, if we don not get it. Nobody can do anything with it.

 

It clearly would pose no threat to you in your on-line bubble and even possibly provide you with some (needed?) score padding, so what's the big problem with the rest us having the possibility to have the Meteor?

Frankly it doesn't matter it the Meatbox Mk.I can compete with the 262 and Bf 109K-4 in multiplayer. If it can't, just don't put it in the scenarios where it's no use. As long as an aircraft is not significantly worse than the worst aircraft in the sim (IAR.80, I-16 Type 24, Macchi) and not significantly better than the best aircraft in the sim (Tempest, K-4, Mustang, 262, D-9) there's probably somewhere that it can have interesting and balanced dogfights even in a purely airquake context.

 

10 hours ago, Pict said:

**Or maybe a few small  tiny maps thet cover test facilities, like Boscombe Down and a their allied and opposing equivelants, just to give some historical content and a place to put them though their paces.

Well, the last indicative map we had for Normandy included RAE Farnborough, and if we get a map that includes Neustadt-Glewitz for the Ta 152H and He 162 operations in the area it'll also include Erprobungsstelle Rechlin! The RAE hosted Britain's Enemy Aircraft Flight, so we can fly all the German prototypes we want from it too.

[oc2209]

8 hours ago, sevenless said:

Well that depends what the devs think is commercially more sensible. Invest into two AI medium bombers B25 and B26 as flyable collectibles or invest in additional fighter planes as collectibles. My personal guess is they could sell more fighter planes with less associated developmental effort. But as I said, they decide what makes more sense for them.

 

I would agree with this assessment.

 

Precedent in collector planes shows the following trends:

 

17 planes currently available.

 

Including the pre-order Skytrain, 4 of those planes are twin engine. 1 is a heavy fighter (P-38), 1 is a dedicated ground attack plane (Hs-129). 2 are transports.

 

A bomber with multiple gun positions is going to be more effort than any of the above.

 

The rest of the planes are all (barring the U-2) high performance single engine fighters.

 

This doesn't mean something like the B-25 can't or shouldn't be made into a collector plane. But it does mean that we're much more likely to get fighters than bombers as collector planes.

 

Which, in turn, means that every fighter made does not eliminate a bomber from being made, as there was never a 1:1 parity of fighters made to bombers, and there likely never will be.

 

*Edit:

 

Forgot to mention the latest collector planes, the Spit and the Blitz. The latter adds another twin engine plane, but as it's single seat, it might as well be a P-38.

 

Also forgot to mention the upcoming IAR, yet another single engine fighter. With the new additions, it comes out to 15 fighters (counting the P-38 as a fighter), 1 small biplane, 1 ground attack single-seater, 2 transport planes, and 1 single-seat bomber. That's a pretty clear indicator that the devs have an aversion to making multi-station bombers into collector planes, for whatever reasons.

Edited September 13, 2021 by oc2209

[Pict]

12 hours ago, [F.Circus]FrangibleCover said:

Frankly it doesn't matter it the Meatbox Mk.I can compete with the 262 and Bf 109K-4 in multiplayer. If it can't, just don't put it in the scenarios where it's no use. As long as an aircraft is not significantly worse than the worst aircraft in the sim (IAR.80, I-16 Type 24, Macchi) and not significantly better than the best aircraft in the sim (Tempest, K-4, Mustang, 262, D-9) there's probably somewhere that it can have interesting and balanced dogfights even in a purely airquake context.

 

I agree with this.

 

My point was just that it is not the only appllication for any aircraft we have so it shouldn't be a benchmark for any aircraft we might want or get down the track.

 

12 hours ago, [F.Circus]FrangibleCover said:

Well, the last indicative map we had for Normandy included RAE Farnborough, and if we get a map that includes Neustadt-Glewitz for the Ta 152H and He 162 operations in the area it'll also include Erprobungsstelle Rechlin! The RAE hosted Britain's Enemy Aircraft Flight, so we can fly all the German prototypes we want from it too.

 

Indeed, Farnborough looks to be a possibility on the Normandy map, but will it be there even if the area is covered? They had all the gear for catapult tesing and deck arrested cables for deck landing trials on the runway...could be a fun place down the track.

 

Where is "Neustadt-Glewitz"? Try as a may I can't locate this place on a map.

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by Pict

[ZachariasX]

9 hours ago, Pict said:

Where is "Neustadt-Glewitz"? Try as a may I can't locate this place on a map.

You probably mean Glewe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neustadt-Glewe The airfield was there as well as some FockeWulf factories along with the KZ Neustadt-Glewe to "house" the workers.

 

Rechlin is just a bit east of that town.