Theatres of operations and personal preferences

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Hi Padre, if I'm opening a new topic this is in order to stop the off topic elsewhere.

 

  

11 minutes ago, 334th_Padre* said:

Did you actually read my comment, because your response doesnt seem to address anything I said. You also make assumptions and attempt to school me on something I know very well. However, I will expand below on your comments, and how you dont even show them in any context. I'll give you that context.

Just because you like it, that doesn't mean that everyone does. It also doesn't mean your voice is the majority voice either. You like it, fair enough. Each to their own.

 

 

Padre, with respect, this is exactly what you were doing yourself. Regarding that PTO (Pacific theatre of operations) you said "Let's hope that is a long, long way off in the future. I have nightmares of awfully bleak and uninteresting one sided maps flying over nothing but water from IL-2 1946 days, not to mention those maps could empty a server in minutes." So please do not reproach me anything, I talked about the good memories I have from the years when a PTO was available in a modern flight sim... responding to the bad memories you had yourself. It's my preference vs your preference. We are equal. We are even.

 

 

11 minutes ago, 334th_Padre* said:

with European maps, with the vast amount of possible scenarios, some of which have still not even been covered in flight sims, the possibilities of historical missions is almost endless.

 

(bold type is mine)

 

I already said in other threads in this forum that I'd be happy with China '37, Poland '39, Finland '39, France '40...

 

 

11 minutes ago, 334th_Padre* said:

 

Also you have to look at the sheer numbers of nations who took part in the European and Mediterranean theatres. There was at least 30 different nations who had people serving in the RAF or USAAF. When you look at that fact, think about the many people from many different nations who had a relative who served there. This will seriously increase the potential numbers of people who would be interested in what their family members, or even countrymen, did for them and for all of Europe.

 

(bold type is mine)

 

And how many are being reenacted right now by the Great Battles series?

 

In the Asia/Pacific theatre of operations the involved nations, at least for the main battles and regions, would be the Japanese, the Chinese, the Americans, the British, the Dutch and the Soviets (again, the main involved nations). More or less the same than those that are being reenacted in Great Battles at present in Europe... even more.

 

 

11 minutes ago, 334th_Padre* said:

Now think of this business of choosing a scenario as being your business choice to make. Your money is there to invest.

Do you make something that potentially only a few people might be interested in and gets old very quickly?
Or do you make something that potentially lots more people will be interested in where the scenario possibilities are endless?

 

 

Each separately, both Jason Williams of 1CGS and Buzzsaw of TFS have stated that the Pacific would be a refunded investment.

 

 

11 minutes ago, 334th_Padre* said:

As for boring maps with endless water to fly over, it's no different to the BOS or BOM maps.

 

 

It's a matter of personal taste... If back in the 1940s Russia was a vast agricultural land with less populated cities than France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany or England... so be it, our flight sims do reflect that, that's all! As a simmer I like when flight sims stick to historical reality. Back in the early 1940s, pilots ferrying P-39s from the United States to the USSR via the Pacific and south Siberia... overflow huge spaces that were covered by uninhabited forrests and swamps. It's a fact. Same for the portion of Europe that Germany crossed before reaching the gates of Moscow, same for the Pacific.

 

 

11 minutes ago, 334th_Padre* said:

Do you make something that potentially only a few people might be interested in and gets old very quickly?
Or do you make something that potentially lots more people will be interested in where the scenario possibilities are endless?

 

 

I'm sorry if you were so disappointed by your own personal experience back in the days of the old good IL2-1946, but please look at my squadron tag: I was part of the virtual 343 kokutai from 2006 to 2014 and I spent years reenacting historical battles set in the Asia/Pacific theatres of operations... and the possibilities were endless as well.

 

 

11 minutes ago, 334th_Padre* said:

It's just unfortunate that the Great Battles game engine is so old and poor that it can not accomodate either Carriers or 4 Engine Bombers.

 

(bold type is mine)

 

If one more person says this fallacy I will ban them from the forum permanently. We will make 4 engine bombers when I have the personnel and resources to do it. EVERY flight sim has a limit as to how many aircraft, of any size that can be put in the sky at once.

 

Jason Williams (May 28 2021)

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, 334th_Padre* said:

I could go on, but that's another discussion.

 

 

As you see, I just created the thread... so keep going if you want Padre, I'll read your response. With pleasure.

 

Kindest regards,

 

Kintaro

[Padre*]

Yet again, you didn't read my comments or take it on board.

 

It was my experience as an ADMIN of what OTHER PEOPLE WERE DEMANDING.

That's twice now I've written that and still you insist our opinions are even (They are far from it) and that it's just my opinion (it was actually the opinion of the vast majority of people demanding that I as admin skip the boring Pacific maps)

Let's hope that it's 3rd time lucky and you actually get it this time.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I'm done with trying to make you understand that.

As for starting a whole thread just to continue the argument .... really? Why can't you actually just read what I wrote instead of making a knee-jerk reaction and posting a load of old rubbish?

By all means make a reply, I just won't bother to read it, let alone respond, so save your fingertips and try reading what's already been written. That would be a better use of your time.

Edited October 12, 2022 by 334th_Padre*
spelling

[343KKT_Kintaro]

2 minutes ago, 334th_Padre* said:

Yet again, you didn't read my comments or take it on board.

 

 

Yes I did it.

 

 

2 minutes ago, 334th_Padre* said:

It was my experience as an ADMIN of what OTHER PEOPLE WERE DEMANDING.

 

 

It doesn't change the essential fact that I'm for the idea that our more modern flight sims go to the Pacific... and that you are not for such an idea, which is the kernel of you were saying in a thread that deals with layered clouds in a midware named TrueSKY. You administrated a dogfight server years ago but this doesn't give you the right to be so rude nor to keep my mouth shut about my defense of a future Pacific simulator. Goodbye... padrecito.