Do we have the planeset to create the invasion of Italy? (Wondering if that could be the next expansion)

[ITAF_Rani]

If Italy will come again on plans, they could consider a little part of the Italy map (Operation Avalanche)....

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by ITAF_Rani

[Enceladus828]

12 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Hopefully sooner rather than later. ?

Luke, unless the announcement will be in a month, could the devs have two announcements: the first one for where it will be, the timeframe and the planeset, the second for all the new features?

[6./ZG26_Loke]

Next big thing is Combat Pilot, with carries, Japanese planes and torpedos. 

Edited August 17, 2023 by LukeFF
no slurs whatsoever are permitted

[FuriousMeow]

The name Combat Pilot sounds very arcadey. With Jason at lead hopefully it won't be, but depends who pulls the money strings. 

 

Also, they just began so that is also a ways off. Probably further off than the next project here because I'm not sure they have an established engine that can accommodate air combat Sims. That could also hit a snag and quietly go the way of sims that even though they looked pretty far along they were shelved like Desert Fighters.

 

Either way, years not months for both.

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Enceladus said:

Luke, unless the announcement will be in a month, could the devs have two announcements: the first one for where it will be, the timeframe and the planeset, the second for all the new features?

 

Sure, anything is possible, but that's up to marketing, not me. ?

[Avimimus]

9 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

In Italy? ?

 

Well... there Me-262 and Ar-234 over Northern Italy, and the first P-80A squadron to go operational was also in Italy, so... almost... like, if you've had a bit too much, and squint really hard out of the side of your eye it almost appears possible.

[Blitzen]

On 8/15/2023 at 1:46 PM, Hoss said:

Flyable B-25 and B-26 for the Allies would be nice, maybe a Beaufighter, new P-38, Gloster Gladiator, Hudson, Boston, Me-323.... Guided He-111 weapons...

Yep!

( A little out of school :The Beaufighter as is the Gladiator, in CLOD is a really attractive Beast- nicely modeled too!)

Edited August 17, 2023 by Blitzen

[DBFlyguy]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Sure, anything is possible, but that's up to marketing, not me. ?

Wait...so, your saying there IS a marketing team? My next question for that team would be....

 

 

??

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, DBFlyguy said:

Wait...so, your saying there IS a marketing team? My next question for that team would be....

 

 

??

 

He (meaning one of the marketing team members) does quite a lot for the team and is one of those responsible for ensuring new builds are released to you all in a timely manner, thank you very much. ?

[blockheadgreen_]

I just need to see an extended-wing Spitfire in a sim before I perish lol. Italy is the place for it with the early F Mk VIII and the Merlin 63 (if a Mk VII isn't made for the Channel front theatre that is).

[kraut1]

I have flown some 12 missions with my EMG adaption:

With JSOflyer's terrain:
https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/82471-spanish-and-italian-war-modpack/?do=findComment&comment=1279688

 

[Hoss]

@LukeFF, don't take it personally, it's not your fault information is slim to none. Everyone wants to shoot the messenger, that's why they send one... LOL

@Lythronax I'd like to see a high fidelity, Tigercat, Bearcat, Panther, Skyraider (other guys).... A-26, B-26, B-25..... maybe I should send them a round tuit................

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Hoss

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

the first P-80A squadron to go operational was also in Italy

If you call a grand total of two semi-prototype aircraft a "squadron," then yes

 

Anyhow, the P-80 is a bit of a stretch, very far beyond a Gloster Meteor or even a Heinkel 162, but the Italian peninsula is certainly a very interesting area and there's enough to do there, with quite a few exotic planes around That said, I believe the Devs already said that the next "project" won't be in Italy?

[Bonnot]

On 8/17/2023 at 1:38 PM, NachtJaeger110 said:

Can't wait to finally preorder whatever it will be^^

......a dangerous statement -in my opinion-   ?

 

[Avimimus]

16 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

If you call a grand total of two semi-prototype aircraft a "squadron," then yes

 

Anyhow, the P-80 is a bit of a stretch, very far beyond a Gloster Meteor or even a Heinkel 162, but the Italian peninsula is certainly a very interesting area and there's enough to do there, with quite a few exotic planes around That said, I believe the Devs already said that the next "project" won't be in Italy?

 

So you are saying I can justify my He-162?  That is what I'm hearing! My chosen take-away. ? 

 

P.S. I just thought it was funny to actually talks jets in Italy.

[LukeFF]

I still remember going to the Yanks Air Museum here in SoCal in December 2002, along with the guy who modeled IL2's YP-80, to take close-up photographs of their F-80 on display. Very nice guy, but I have no idea what became of him.

 

Some photos from that day (we also went to the adjacent Planes of Fame Air Museum on that day):

 

Spoiler

 

[2./SG2_assadoc]

8 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Ain't it young Clay Morrow from SAMCRO ?

 

 

[Hoss]

On 8/18/2023 at 8:42 AM, Avimimus said:

 

So you are saying I can justify my He-162?  That is what I'm hearing! My chosen take-away. ? 

 

P.S. I just thought it was funny to actually talks jets in Italy.

There were also two in England, but there was an accident with one and they never saw anything close to getting involved with the war. They did fly operationally in Italy... No enemy action though.

[Enceladus828]

If we don’t get Sicily then I hope it’s an Eastern Front installment where we get another flyable Russian bomber like the IL-4, SB or Tu-2.

[R33GZ]

1 hour ago, Enceladus said:

If we don’t get Sicily then I hope it’s an Eastern Front installment where we get another flyable Russian bomber like the IL-4, SB or Tu-2.

The IL4 had 5 crew stations didn't it? That's a bridge to far for the team apparently

[LukeFF]

30 minutes ago, R33GZ said:

The IL4 had 5 crew stations didn't it? That's a bridge to far for the team apparently

 

The issue with modeling new bombers has never, ever been about the number of crewmembers inside the plane. It's always been about the time needed to model such large and complex planes.

[Avimimus]

We also already have some aircraft with that many crew stations (one of the He-111 variants has between four and eight stations - depending on how you count it).

[Avimimus]

6 hours ago, Enceladus said:

If we don’t get Sicily then I hope it’s an Eastern Front installment where we get another flyable Russian bomber like the IL-4, SB or Tu-2.

 

The Il-4 or Tu-2 would give the Soviets a bomber with a larger bombload. I gather that the Il-4 seems to have been largely used for hitting targets well behind the lines (so quite a bit of flying over some maps, but without being based or routinely bombing them). I'm a bit of a fan of it, but I've kind-of accepted that - if such a module were ever to enter development - the Tu-2 is the most likely choice.

 

The SB-2 has a nice low wing-loading, and while most of them were destroyed early in the war, records do seem to support some remaining in service (e.g. into 1943 even).

 

Perhaps a Russian speaker (or someone who has done more research on this) can go into more detail? It seems like handfuls of Su-2, R-10, SB-2, Yak-2 etc. continued on for quite some time.

 

P.S. Yak-9B

[Juri_JS]

At this point I am much more interested in new maps than in new aircraft.

 

With the planeset we already have in the game and the aircraft in development, dozens of new scenarios would be possible, without the need to add new planes, especially in the 1942 - 1944 time frame. I really wish the devs or the community could create some additional maps. It's a real pity that creating maps in the game does take so much time.

 

Just a few examples of maps that could be done:

 

- Kursk 1943
- Kharkov 1942/1943
- Crimea 1942 and 1944
- Demyansk 1942
- Murmansk 1941 - 1944
- Alsace/Lorraine 1944/1945

[R33GZ]

10 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

The issue with modeling new bombers has never, ever been about the number of crewmembers inside the plane. It's always been about the time needed to model such large and complex planes.

It wasn't specificaly the number of crew I was referring too... it was the crew stations they inhabit - although, the 2 are obviously directly related... more crew stations surely require much more modelling and detail? Otherwise, we'd have flyable B-25/26 well before something like an IL4?

 

 

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, R33GZ said:

It wasn't specificaly the number of crew I was referring too... it was the crew stations they inhabit - although, the 2 are obviously directly related... more crew stations surely require much more modelling and detail? Otherwise, we'd have flyable B-25/26 well before something like an IL4?

 

Yes, it's both the number of crew stations and how complex they are to build. That is a major contributing factor in not having a flyable B-25: the complexity of the gun turrets that would need to be modeled. The belly turret of the C/D model was a complicated affair that doesn't have a lot of great surviving documentation; the surviving B-25s are not much help in this matter, since most of them are J models, and that series had a different defensive layout. 

 

My guess (and it is only a guess ?) is that an Il-4 would be an easier plane to model, given the team's ability to access original Russian-language documentation and the interior not being as complicated to create. 

[CountZero]

if the crew numbers and the way AI for them works in this game is not problem (compared in ones where we can have many bombers), why then we cant have big number of bombers in game now without expiriancing problems in SP and MP, we have B-25 AI, and just check how many are posible to be in air on server that main goal is attacks on bombers, server have to be half of capacity to make small number of AI bombers work without big problems for players and host.

 

If game could handle big numbers of airplanes in one area there would be need to show that and make B-17... but when you could have at best 10 of them without problems, why bather making them and show how bad it would look

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, R33GZ said:

It wasn't specificaly the number of crew I was referring too... it was the crew stations they inhabit - although, the 2 are obviously directly related... more crew stations surely require much more modelling and detail? Otherwise, we'd have flyable B-25/26 well before something like an IL4?

 

If you want to take that further  - the Avro Lancaster B Mk.I Special has just the pilot, bombardier, and tail-gunner... just three positions.

 

 

5 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

At this point I am much more interested in new maps than in new aircraft.

 

With the planeset we already have in the game and the aircraft in development, dozens of new scenarios would be possible, without the need to add new planes, especially in the 1942 - 1944 time frame. I really wish the devs or the community could create some additional maps. It's a real pity that creating maps in the game does take so much time.

 

Just a few examples of maps that could be done:

 

- Kursk 1943
- Kharkov 1942/1943
- Crimea 1942 and 1944
- Demyansk 1942
- Murmansk 1941 - 1944
- Alsace/Lorraine 1944/1945

 

True. It seems that map development is a bigger issue than aircraft development - the need to cover such a large area, attempt to back-date it to how it was during the war etc. In any case, there are enough aircraft that aren't modelled for the eastern European theatres that it would be possible to create one or two additional modules. Theoretically anyway.

 

One of the neat things is that, once one has several modules from one theatre, any new additions often benefit multiple modules (e.g. BoN filled in gaps in BoBP, the I-153 and IAR-80/81 fill in gaps in multiple modules etc.) It is one reason why it would be exciting if they added a couple more Collector Planes at this point

[Mysticpuma]

9 hours ago, CountZero said:

if the crew numbers and the way AI for them works in this game is not problem (compared in ones where we can have many bombers), why then we cant have big number of bombers in game now without expiriancing problems in SP and MP, we have B-25 AI, and just check how many are posible to be in air on server that main goal is attacks on bombers, server have to be half of capacity to make small number of AI bombers work without big problems for players and host.

 

If game could handle big numbers of airplanes in one area there would be need to show that and make B-17... but when you could have at best 10 of them without problems, why bather making them and show how bad it would look

I mean.... wouldn't something like this be great in VR? 

 

[Avimimus]

My preferred Italy map (33600 sq km - so quite a bit smaller than some of our existing maps):

I suspect that an actual map would be a little bit wider and shorter. But there are some really interesting landmarks on this one.

 

...maybe a third party someday? One can dream...? Unlikely, but still a sweet dream.

[FuriousMeow]

12 hours ago, CountZero said:

if the crew numbers and the way AI for them works in this game is not problem (compared in ones where we can have many bombers), why then we cant have big number of bombers in game now without expiriancing problems in SP and MP

 

 

I'm sure there is an added amount of calculations with a bombers vs fighter because each gunner doing their target tracking, but the FM/DM calculations are far greater. All game/sims with "large" (36 or greater) formations either had simple table based FMs like EAW or they had tricks to give the illusion of large formations. Yes, visibly the 3d model was there but there were either very simple FM/DM or none at all until the bombers were in the player's proximity bubble.

 

Replace those same bombers with AI fighters and the performance issue is still there. 

Edited August 20, 2023 by FuriousMeow

[Enceladus828]

On 8/20/2023 at 1:47 AM, LukeFF said:

That is a major contributing factor in not having a flyable B-25: the complexity of the gun turrets that would need to be modeled. The belly turret of the C/D model was a complicated affair that doesn't have a lot of great surviving documentation; the surviving B-25s are not much help in this matter, since most of them are J models, and that series had a different defensive layout. 

If a team does decide to make the B-25C/D flyable they could just skip that. Same with waist gunner positions on the B-17 and B-24, it takes a mammoth effort to make the planes even non-flyable, pretty much the same effort to make flyable and since those positions were less effective than the Top, Tail and Ball gunner, why model the interior of the stations.

[Algherghez]

I don’t understand anything anymore ?, everyone is contradicting the others.

fixed points are no pacific, no Korea, no Italy right?

another Russian map would be, as far as I’m concerned, the most boring thing. No BoB, battle of france and Spanish war look a bit too early. No Africa. What does this leave? Malta? Balkans? I’m at loss ?. Also I’m struggling to understand what the community heart would want. Personally Italy would be my number one: southern Sicily, tunisia and malta, with iconic planes like the macchi 200 and the sm-79 (god we miss those) 

[JG27_Steini]

1 hour ago, Algherghez said:

I don’t understand anything anymore ?, everyone is contradicting the others.

fixed points are no pacific, no Korea, no Italy right?

another Russian map would be, as far as I’m concerned, the most boring thing. No BoB, battle of france and Spanish war look a bit too early. No Africa. What does this leave? Malta? Balkans? I’m at loss ?. Also I’m struggling to understand what the community heart would want. Personally Italy would be my number one: southern Sicily, tunisia and malta, with iconic planes like the macchi 200 and the sm-79 (god we miss those) 

 

The community is departed. Since the earliest IL2 we had only western or pacific conflicts. Now we do have many interessting theatres and economical aspects to consider. I am sure that if we would have a clear community accordance the team would have made it. I think italy would be interessting. What were the main (fighter) opponents in the air? You can not make a good product if one side is totally outclassed by number and/or performances.

[Algherghez]

37 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

The community is departed. Since the earliest IL2 we had only western or pacific conflicts. Now we do have many interessting theatres and economical aspects to consider. I am sure that if we would have a clear community accordance the team would have made it. I think italy would be interessting. What were the main (fighter) opponents in the air? You can not make a good product if one side is totally outclassed by number and/or performances.

I don’t agree with one side being outclassed by the other in the Italian theater, if that’s what you meant.

while it’s true that in reality Italians were poorly equipped, it was due to an almost  not existent production line and political choices, not for the lack of good designs.

let’s take for example an hypothetical Malta scenario:

 

The CR.42 would be the perfect match for the gladiator in early war scenarios, even outperforming it.

Likewise the macchi 200 would compete against the hurricane and the tomahawk only at a slight disadvantage due to the poor armament. 

 

The macchi 202 would give spits a run for their money. 
 

The SM 79 would make a great torpedo bomber, decently fast and really agile.

 

The G.50 is indeed garbage, no need to defend that.

 

Even bomb armed RE 2002 would do great.

 

 

[Trooper117]

They have already said it won't be Italy, so we can all forget that... might as well get used to thinking it will be Korea, and that would be a great choice.

[Algherghez]

8 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

They have already said it won't be Italy, so we can all forget that... might as well get used to thinking it will be Korea, and that would be a great choice.

But it’s piston engine themed, so no Korea either.

[dburne]

I just love all these months of pure speculation!

The "New Project" LOL.

Edited August 23, 2023 by dburne

[JG27_Steini]

58 minutes ago, Algherghez said:

I don’t agree with one side being outclassed by the other in the Italian theater, if that’s what you meant.

while it’s true that in reality Italians were poorly equipped, it was due to an almost  not existent production line and political choices, not for the lack of good designs.

let’s take for example an hypothetical Malta scenario:

 

The CR.42 would be the perfect match for the gladiator in early war scenarios, even outperforming it.

Likewise the macchi 200 would compete against the hurricane and the tomahawk only at a slight disadvantage due to the poor armament. 

 

The macchi 202 would give spits a run for their money. 
 

The SM 79 would make a great torpedo bomber, decently fast and really agile.

 

The G.50 is indeed garbage, no need to defend that.

 

Even bomb armed RE 2002 would do great.

 

 

 

Thx, i am total noobish at italian air war and planes. Are there any good resources online for sneak preview?

8 minutes ago, dburne said:

I just love all these months of pure speculation!

The "New Project" LOL.

 

Those speculations are keeping many of us alive ?

[Algherghez]

10 minutes ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

Thx, i am total noobish at italian air war and planes. Are there any good resources online for sneak preview?

 

Those speculations are keeping many of us alive ?

I’m not sure what you mean, most of my knowledge is based on Italian pilots memoirs, that while not being like a study paper can give you a sound general idea.