What is the next collectors aircraft you will buy?

[BraveSirRobin]

27 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It does all those things. And I think it probably glides better than the real one did.  I just find it boring.  It's a single use throw away aircraft, for a very limited use scenario.

I know there are some who like it, and that is fine, but for me, I can't see using more than the one flight I've tried it in.

So it’s pretty much what gliders were in real life.  A single use throwaway aircraft.  Did you not know that before your purchase?

 

Anyhow, at least you didn’t waste much money.

[Enceladus828]

We were expecting more SP content with the WACO and to be a more interesting plane in the game than what we got. Price of it should be dropped to $10.

[BraveSirRobin]

9 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

We were expecting more SP content with the WACO and to be a more interesting plane in the game than what we got. Price of it should be dropped to $10.

You think everything in the game should be cheaper.

[Enceladus828]

20 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

You think everything in the game should be cheaper.

No. You can do more with the Bf-109G-6/AS, La-5F and Spitfire Mk. XIV Teardrop canopy than the WACO glider. That’s why I feel it’s price should be dropped to $10.

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, Enceladus828 said:

No. You can do more with the Bf-109G-6/AS, La-5F and Spitfire Mk. XIV Teardrop canopy than the WACO glider. That’s why I feel it’s price should be dropped to $10.

You can’t glide into a field with a squad of troops in any of those aircraft.  The price is just fine.

[Enceladus828]

3 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

The price is just fine.

[BraveSirRobin]

12 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

Well, don’t buy it.  Problem solved.

[Enceladus828]

35 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Well, don’t buy it.  Problem solved.

A lot of us did and we regret it.

 

Anyway, how about you to figure out what the capital of Assyria is.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Enceladus828

[BraveSirRobin]

4 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

A lot of us did 

Then the price is just right.

[King_Franky]

5 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Packaged with the F-84 and F-86?

 

 

Ah yeah, why not.

But I'm also not disappointed when some more planes from SWOTL will appear. ?

[Avimimus]

16 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

We were expecting more SP content with the WACO and to be a more interesting plane in the game than what we got. Price of it should be dropped to $10.

 

I didn't. It is hard to imagine more single player content. They were only used in a couple of combat operations, so... what could there be? A few more single player missions? Maybe two or three more?

 

17 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I know there are some who like it, and that is fine, but for me, I can't see using more than the one flight I've tried it in.

 

Have you tried landing it on the roof-top of a fort yet? It is definitely worth at least two flights ?

 

Anyway, I'd personally enjoy an SG 38 training glider, and that'd be cheaper to develop. However, I'd expect to pay the same price - partly because I figure the sales of gliders are going to be a bit lower than those of combat aircraft, so fewer buyers mean a higher price. I'd also love a 1930s era high performance sailplane (something with about twice the gliding distance and able to soar). The fact is that these devs do an exceptional job, so I'm usually able to find some appeal in whatever they produce.

 

The exceptions are the cockpit variations for already very common aircraft (Bf-109G-6AS, Spit XIV late, La-5F, Spit-IXc). While I feel like some of these variants are good to have for historical realism, these are also aircraft that already have three to six variants (except the La-5, which only has two). I'd love to see some aircraft that only have one variant modelled get a second variant (e.g. LaGG-3, P-39, P-40, A-20, Ju-87 all have only one variant)... but I find it hard to get excited about another Bf-109

A glider though... well... that adds something new in terms of gameplay.

 

P.S. We also don't have to like what others like. Not every aspect of a sim series has to cater to us personally, and options/variety are good things to have.

  

12 hours ago, King_Franky said:

Ah yeah, why not.

But I'm also not disappointed when some more planes from SWOTL will appear. ?

 

What are we missing at this point? Maybe the P-38J (instead of L), the B-17, the He-162, Do-335, and Go-229? Oh! The P-80 and Me-163! I think that is it? Everything else we have? Well, except the SWOTL style campaign. I'd personally enjoy the He-162 a lot.

 

By the way, one airplane and four scenarios cost $110 (correcting for inflation)... and each aircraft consisted of about sixteen views of it in pixel art etc.

 

Compare this to the quality of art and flight modelling we get today! The developers have also been very good about having more affordable sale prices, and no one is being forced to buy expansions - so there is also the option of waiting and getting it on sale if people don't want to pay the full price (for something that doesn't have an engine and guns).

[BornToBattle]

On 12/21/2023 at 11:07 AM, MAJ_stug41 said:

B25 or B26 ?

Agreed. Model in place. Just make it flyable already.

[Pict]

15 hours ago, Blitzen said:

Hmmm...too right...we'll need those as well...then...

 

Seems to be a popular idea people don't want to Lego™ of  

[Avimimus]

19 hours ago, LukeFF said:

LoL yeah, about the closest I ever came to that is that Jason used to message me and ask what I thought were the best planes for a given map. So, for those who don't like the Bodenplatte plane lineup, for instance, you can partially blame me. ? 

 

Oh, will do than! I did appreciate having two British aircraft... but that module was all fighters! The Fw-190F-8 was the closest we got to a bomber or attacker. No other roles either. I actually stopped following development for a year or so (nothing other than late war single-seat fighters)?! ?

[Pict]

17 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It does all those things. And I think it probably glides better than the real one did.  I just find it boring.  It's a single use throw away aircraft, for a very limited use scenario.

I know there are some who like it, and that is fine, but for me, I can't see using more than the one flight I've tried it in.

 

This is pretty easy to understand if we llok simply from the single player quick combat angle.

 

I bought the Waco myself and only flew it twice...so far. Both times I couldn't get the cable to release and resorted to dragging the gooney bird into a spin to break free  

 

I discovered later that it was a hardware issue on my end that was stopping the cable release and I have yet to get around to trying again, but I'm looking forward to less stressful test.

 

However, all of that said, I think that the real potential for gliders in IL-2 will be realised on a well put together multiplayer server, like for example TAW, where the glider will not only require the co-operation of another player in a C-47, but will be able to effect the land battle if landed intact on the right LZ

 

This I am looking forward to and although that's gonna take time to become available, I'm gonna need the practice with both glider & tug  

 

I also hope that they push on with the glider theme and make more from other nations like but not limmited to the German DFS-230, which was also used in the efforts to supply Stalingrad

 

For single player we need inventive and challenging missions to get the most out a glider

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

What is the next collectors aircraft you will buy?

Every aeroplane from great war period.

[Trooper117]

For people who like gliders, there are some great sims out there where you can soar to your hearts content... just saying!

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

41 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

For people who like gliders, there are some great sims out there where you can soar to your hearts content... just saying!

I fly the Camel in glider mode (engine destroyed by pushing it too hard) quite often.  I don't understand what the excitement is all about.  ?

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

For people who like gliders, there are some great sims out there where you can soar to your hearts content... just saying!

 

With this level of quality though? I don't think so. I made a bunch of interwar gliders in X-Plane... but it doesn't hold up as well... for one thing, I'm not that great a 3d modeller... but also, it has to be recognised that civil sims generally lag behind in terms of low altitude terrain detail and in terms of flight model fidelity.

[Gambit21]

4 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

I fly the Camel in glider mode (engine destroyed by pushing it too hard) quite often.  I don't understand what the excitement is all about.  ?

This made me laugh.

Turn the engine off = instant glider and many to choose from, and with guns to boot. ? 

[AndyJWest]

25 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

This made me laugh.

Turn the engine off = instant glider and many to choose from, and with guns to boot. ? 

 

Not even necessary to turn the engine off. I've lost count of the number of times I've killed an engine while colliding with wreckage from a target.

 

I should probably stop using unarmed Ju-52s for target practice, or learn to break away earlier...?

[MajorMagee]

They've proven the concept with the Waco, so now we can have this.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by MajorMagee

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

With this level of quality though? I don't think so. I made a bunch of interwar gliders in X-Plane... but it doesn't hold up as well... for one thing, I'm not that great a 3d modeller... but also, it has to be recognised that civil sims generally lag behind in terms of low altitude terrain detail and in terms of flight model fidelity.

 

I've not heard anything really negative about the gliders in MSFS, but then again, most people there are focused on a handful of super-detailed airliners or GA planes.

 

7 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Oh, will do than! I did appreciate having two British aircraft... but that module was all fighters! The Fw-190F-8 was the closest we got to a bomber or attacker. No other roles either. I actually stopped following development for a year or so (nothing other than late war single-seat fighters)?! ?

 

? Fair enough. Even back then I think Jason knew that people were not going to like the announcement of no flyable bombers for BoBP. But even back then there was a realization that building a flyable B-26 or B-25 would suck up a lot of time and resources since the interiors would have to be built from scratch. 

[Avimimus]

46 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

? Fair enough. Even back then I think Jason knew that people were not going to like the announcement of no flyable bombers for BoBP. But even back then there was a realization that building a flyable B-26 or B-25 would suck up a lot of time and resources since the interiors would have to be built from scratch. 

 

Reasonable enough. It is a bit of an inevitable problem given the theatre. I suppose the Typhoon, Mosquito, B-25/B-26/A-26 would be candidates. Also, a German bomber (e.g. Ju-188) could fit - albeit only used at night (as was the case for every German twin-engined bomber on the Western Front after 1942 - excepting the Ar-234).

 

I'm honestly not sure why people find it a more interesting theatre than the Battle of France ? But, we have the Normandy planeset, so I'm happy now and shant get grumpy.

 

  

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

This made me laugh.

Turn the engine off = instant glider and many to choose from, and with guns to boot. ? 

 

In the old Il-2 some aircraft could have their engines shot away entirely... so sometimes combat damage could render them entirely engineless!

 

Still, glide-ratios aren't great.

 

Anyone have the glide ratio for the Ta-152H or Ar-234B? Those look like possibly decent gliders.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Reasonable enough. It is a bit of an inevitable problem given the theatre. I suppose the Typhoon, Mosquito, B-25/B-26/A-26 would be candidates. Also, a German bomber (e.g. Ju-188) could fit - albeit only used at night (as was the case for every German twin-engined bomber on the Western Front after 1942 - excepting the Ar-234).

 

IIRC I suggested a late-model Ju 88S or 188, but that faced much the same challenges as the other bombers - having to rebuild them entirely since they were so different fro the earlier A-series models. I can also imagine the outcry as well over "yet another German bomber." ? There's also the reality that the conventional German bomber force was largely dismantled in the fall of 1944 and about the only ones still flying bomber missions were KG 76 with the Ar 234.

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

IIRC I suggested a late-model Ju 88S or 188, but that faced much the same challenges as the other bombers - having to rebuild them entirely since they were so different fro the earlier A-series models. I can also imagine the outcry as well over "yet another German bomber." ? There's also the reality that the conventional German bomber force was largely dismantled in the fall of 1944 and about the only ones still flying bomber missions were KG 76 with the Ar 234.

 

Well, all is forgiven then ?

 

Yeah, I get the impression that the conventional bomber force was dismantled in the fall of 1944 (with He-177 and Do-217 units being withdrawn). I gather that night attacks persisted with the Ju-88 derivatives and I have a vague impression that they still had a tendency to activate anything which could carry bombs when they felt it was necessary. I recall coming a way with a distinct impression that some Ju-88G night fighters were even being used as sporadically bombers in 1945. I'd double check that though to make sure I'm not mistaken. Anyway, it is an interesting topic.

 

There is also a shortage of intact examples of German bombers generally, although I gather the photographic records for the Ju-188 are pretty good.

[BigC208]

22 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

You think everything in the game should be cheaper.

Not everything but vehicles/aircraft I don’t plan on using much gets bought on sale. That bubble top Spitfire is a, let’s wait until it gets below $10 buy, same as the glider. Used to buy everything, including the tanks and AAA as support but not sure what I’m supporting these days. Going to wait until the new course is announced before paying full price again for content I plan on barely using.

Edited December 29, 2023 by BigC208
Grammar

[Enceladus828]

On 12/27/2023 at 1:49 PM, LukeFF said:

So, for those who don't like the Bodenplatte plane lineup, for instance, you can partially blame me. ? 

I totally disagree, the Bodenplatte plane lineup was a great choice and none of them felt they weren’t worth making and another plane should’ve been made in its place. Really the only plane that could be axed in favour of another is the B-25. And what non-BoN plane would you replace it with that would be just as good as the B-25? None. Most (imo) would prefer an AI B-25 to a flyable Ju-88 version or Ju-188.

 

The only planeset I don’t like is BoM with the MC.202. Yes, the P-40E gets used more and is better than the P-40C but unless there’s an MTO installment than it didn’t make sense to me for the C.202 to be included as it saw very limited action at Stalingrad. Although most people feel Korea is next, I’m still hoping we’ll get Sicily and use the C.202 for Malta Ops from 1941-42 as we have the planeset for that.

 

[357th_KW]

I don’t really have a problem with the AI only bombers, apart from the fact that we never got a B-17/B-24.  That said, we really do need a late war flyable bomber for the Allies.  An A-20 or A-26 with options for the glass nose or strafing nose would really fill that gap nicely, and both are relatively small and have limited gunner positions - more in line with the existing bombers in game.

[ITAF_Rani]

5 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

 I’m still hoping we’ll get Sicily and use the C.202 for Malta Ops from 1941-42 as we have the planeset for that.

 

MTO in my opinion would be the natural development of IL2 GB.

We could use many planes already existing along with the new italians,british and US.

When the say Italy is not possible due to the density of towns, is not really true.

In the 1943 Italy had really few big towns as Milan, Rome and Naples. The rest was no more than villages.

We don t need the Devs represent  100% in fidelety the  Colosseum in Rome, they have to concentrate their attention instead in the main targets as train stations or ports..

Could be helpful to represent only south Italy from Naple to Sicily and we could have a great theatre with a lot of fun in operations over the sea and the land...

 

My two cents

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by ITAF_Rani

[danielprates]

5 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said:

MTO in my opinion would be the natural development of IL2 GB.

We could use many planes already existing along with the new italians,british and US.

When the say Italy is not possible due to the density of towns, is not really true.

In the 1943 Italy had really few big towns as Milan, Rome and Naples. The rest was no more than villages.

We don t need the Devs represent  100% in fidelety the  Colosseum in Rome, they have to concentrate their attention instead in the main targets as train stations or ports..

Could be helpful to represent only south Italy from Naple to Sicily and we could have a great theatre with a lot of fun in operations over the sea and the land...

 

My two cents

 

 

I so wish they would go this way. Wonderful scenery, familiar planes, mid to late war period. And there are so many places and times to choose from. 

[sevenless]

6 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said:

MTO in my opinion would be the natural development of IL2 GB.

We could use many planes already existing along with the new italians,british and US.

When the say Italy is not possible due to the density of towns, is not really true.

In the 1943 Italy had really few big towns as Milan, Rome and Naples. The rest was no more than villages.

We don t need the Devs represent  100% in fidelety the  Colosseum in Rome, they have to concentrate their attention instead in the main targets as train stations or ports..

Could be helpful to represent only south Italy from Naple to Sicily and we could have a great theatre with a lot of fun in operations over the sea and the land...

 

My two cents

 

 

Yeah, that would be my best case scenario. 1943 Tunisia/Sicily/Malta. However we have to wait and see until they announce what the next project will be about. If Korea, that will be the first one I will pass. No interest in that.

[Koziolek]

8 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said:

MTO in my opinion would be the natural development of IL2 GB.

We could use many planes already existing along with the new italians,british and US.

When the say Italy is not possible due to the density of towns, is not really true.

In the 1943 Italy had really few big towns as Milan, Rome and Naples. The rest was no more than villages.

We don t need the Devs represent  100% in fidelety the  Colosseum in Rome, they have to concentrate their attention instead in the main targets as train stations or ports..

Could be helpful to represent only south Italy from Naple to Sicily and we could have a great theatre with a lot of fun in operations over the sea and the land...

 

My two cents

 

Do not forget that TF already announced Sicily and Malta. I do not see both of them going the same direction. On the other hand I do not expect  TF 8.0 coming anytime soon

[Gambit21]

8 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said:

MTO in my opinion would be the natural development of IL2 GB.

We could use many planes already existing along with the new italians,british and US.

When the say Italy is not possible due to the density of towns, is not really true.

In the 1943 Italy had really few big towns as Milan, Rome and Naples. The rest was no more than villages.

We don t need the Devs represent  100% in fidelety the  Colosseum in Rome, they have to concentrate their attention instead in the main targets as train stations or ports..

Could be helpful to represent only south Italy from Naple to Sicily and we could have a great theatre with a lot of fun in operations over the sea and the land...

 

My two cents

 

I truly hope you get what you want someday. Perhaps a dedicated 3rd party team will create the map.

 

[OrLoK]

(as promised)

 

flew the glider, had oodles of fun. its one of the "better" non combat aircraft in terms of simply flying.

 

being towed and keeping on a decent vector can be really challenging if one adds some turbulence.

 

the model is a bit *meh*, a recent trend I've noticed. but even so was a decent buy for me, ymmv.

[DD_Crash]

The next collectors for me depends on what happens with our squad. More and more Dangerdogz are moving to DCS even though in my opinion GBS is more suited to coops. I might go for the Waco as we used to fly a coop to capture the Pegasus Bridge in 1946 using mods.

[EAF19_Marsh]

I-153. Or Ta-152, later based on morbid curiosity.

 

But I would not have asked for the latter and if it were not realized that’s fine with me.

[PatrickAWlson]

8 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

I-153. Or Ta-152, later based on morbid curiosity.

 

But I would not have asked for the latter and if it were not realized that’s fine with me.

 

Need both at the same time so they can dogfight each other ?

[EAF19_Marsh]

Bit unfair on the Ta.

[Luftgangster]

On 12/29/2023 at 10:10 AM, sevenless said:

 

Yeah, that would be my best case scenario. 1943 Tunisia/Sicily/Malta. However we have to wait and see until they announce what the next project will be about. If Korea, that will be the first one I will pass. No interest in that.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you. If I wanted Korea I would play DCS or War Thunder. IL-2 has always offered something unique in regards to simulating WW2 aerial combat so for them to move away from that would be a damn shame.