Korea?

[Avimimus]

 

On 5/27/2024 at 5:18 PM, Enceladus828 said:

But as far as I know FC is being developed by a 3rd party, Ugra Media, and while yes they do more than simply bring the RoF planes and maps over here like assist with the maps and made the U-2, Li-2 and the C-47 flyable, they can still help with the new project (Korea) and add the Channel Map and seaplanes which at the very least is one map and 3 planes. With some of the devs’ comments about further WW1 development after FC4 “We have no plans” it indicates to me that Ugra is done with FC and any further development will have to be by the devs.

 

I wouldn't read too much into it. We only have what LukeFF said he is aware of, plans change all the time etc.

 

My personal supsicion is that maps are less likely than Collector Planes, as maps are expensive to develop and unmonetised. That said, we have two Great Battles maps in development by third parties (so a 'map first, planes later' passion project is theoretically possible). Also, if Ugra moves on to other projects it might make room for another third party.

 

But this is just speculation on my part. We don't really know.

[DD_Arthur]

On 5/24/2024 at 8:25 PM, Enceladus828 said:

I’m tired of the Western Front, let alone France, being overly represented; the Eastern Front and Italian Front to name a few played an important role in the Entente victory 

 

The collapse of the eastern front in 1917 enabled the Germans to mount a Spring offensive in 1918 and the Italian campaign against Austria was a pointless sideshow that consumed thousands of lives for pasture rights in the Alps.

 

The important role these campaigns played was to delay entente victory….

[Avimimus]

9 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

What happened in MP was probably just a sample of overall sales.  Lots of MP players did not buy it.  I don’t know of any reason why more SP players would have bought it.  In fact, I would expect the percentage of sales to be higher among MP players, because they really on had 1 server to fly on towards the end of RoF’s life.  Instead they chose to go do something else instead of buying the Channel map.

 

The developers know what the sales numbers were.  And so far they have no plans for a GB Channel map.  It’s not difficult to draw conclusions from that.

 

So the fact that they were offered to take over the Il-2 Sturmovik series and had to retool a WWI sim engine to make Battle of Stalingrad had nothing to do with it? Look at the timeline.

 

You are making a lot of leaps here - that multiplayer numbers represent overall sales, that it was the return on investment of Channel Battles (and not taking over Il-2) which caused them to stop Rise of Flight etc.

 

In the former - I don't know (and neither does any of us). In the latter, well - Honestly, if it hadn't been for Il-2 I wouldn't be surprised if we'd have gotten a few more aircraft (Roland D.VI, Rumpler C.IV, Caudron G.IV, Airco D.H.5 all come to mind as possibilities).

 

 

9 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

The collapse of the eastern front in 1917 enabled the Germans to mount a Spring offensive in 1918 and the Italian campaign against Austria was a pointless sideshow that consumed thousands of lives for pasture rights in the Alps.

 

The important role these campaigns played was to delay entente victory….

 

As was most of WWI. Trench warfare consuming thousands of lives and pointlessly delaying Entente victory. IMHO, the ilItalian campaigns are significant in their contribution to the breaking up of the Austro-Hungarian empire, (a process which also helped start WWI). It might not seem that significant to someone a century later and from outside of centeal Europe, but the fall of the Empire was monumental.

 

That said, for us it'd be a chance for mountain flying, skimming over the gulf of Venice, flying single-seat floatplane fighters, and twin boomed trimotor bombers, while using cannons and submachineguns from aircraft... very scenic and very exotic. Eye catching to say the least!

 

Not thatvlikely to happen, but very interesting, and likely profitable.

[Jaegermeister]

6 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

Or more likely, not done at all.

 

Or less likely, but more possible... done by a community team.

[DD_Arthur]

On 5/27/2024 at 10:47 PM, Avimimus said:

As was most of WWI. Trench warfare consuming thousands of lives and pointlessly delaying Entente victory. IMHO, the ilItalian campaigns are significant in their contribution to the breaking up of the Austro-Hungarian empire, (a process which also helped start WWI). It might not seem that significant to someone a century later and from outside of centeal Europe, but the fall of the Empire was monumental.

 

That said, for us it'd be a chance for mountain flying, skimming over the gulf of Venice, flying single-seat floatplane fighters, and twin boomed trimotor bombers, while using cannons and submachineguns from aircraft... very scenic and very exotic. Eye catching to say the least!

 

Not thatvlikely to happen, but very interesting, and likely profitable.

The break up of the Austrian empire was a process started by Napoleon, accelerated by the events of 1866 and completed by the Austrians themselves in July/August 1914.  
It also had very little bearing on the outbreak of WW2 - if that’s what your trying to say?

That was much, much more about the provisions of the treaty on Germany. Hitler and all those proceeding leaders of the Weimar Republic had no desire to reconstitute someone else’s empire.

[KodiakJac]

On 5/26/2024 at 4:48 PM, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

I might be in the minority, but if I can pick just one thing all I want are more WW2 fighter planes.

 

I might be in the minority, but if I can pick just one thing, all I want are more early WWI aircraft.  Lots of 2-seaters for the Eindecker and DH.2 to hunt down.  Not more late WWI aircraft that only saw service in the last months of the war, but early war aircraft that were produced by the hundreds or thousands.

 

Korea?  I think it is a huge risk for 1C to produce.  I will enjoy it, but Korea is a niche war that has been long forgotten by many.  But Korea is poorly represented in combat flight simulators, and that may bode well for 1C.  Hopefully.

 

Edit:

P.S.  I also want a B-25 to fly on the Normandy and Bodenplatte maps.  We have no medium bomber to fly on those maps.

 

Edited May 28, 2024 by KodiakJac

[Trooper117]

Korea... it will be great, be sure 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Why has Korea been so neglected and forgotten all these years by plane history buffs? Its the transition period between the last of the props, and jets becoming the mainstream, so it seems like a natural point of interest to me for people into planes blowing up other planes?

[Avimimus]

A quick announcement based on some recent discussions:

 

Speculation based about the financial returns of past projects (or future projects for that matter) is inappropriate on this forum. This is especially true if there is no evidence to support it. As this is an informal rule, there are no penalties applied - however, any posts with such speculations may be hidden or edited.

 

There are two exceptions:

 

1) If the developers themselves talk about finances (e.g. in a Briefing Room update), then discussion of this is permitted in the associated topic.

 

2) It is alright to argue that an idea might be more viable than people might think (e.g. if one created a thread suggesting the SG-38 training glider it would be reasonable to point out that the lack of complex system, an engine, and a cockpit might save on costs in a way that could possibly make it viable). This is mainly true of posts in the Suggestions subforum. These post may sometimes be allowed.

 

Now let's get back on topic... what was it? Korea?

[Aapje]

20 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Why has Korea been so neglected and forgotten all these years by plane history buffs? Its the transition period between the last of the props, and jets becoming the mainstream, so it seems like a natural point of interest to me for people into planes blowing up other planes?

 

Korea is also great for a combat flight sim because the Mig-15/F-86 matchup is probably the most equal match up that ever existed.

Edited May 29, 2024 by Aapje

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

 

Korea is also great for a combat flight sim because the Mg-15/F-86 matchup is probably the most equal match up that ever existed.

Yeah, that should be a fun matchup, as long as we take those two toys away often enough to let the prop planes shine too. 

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Some of the 'announcements' on these boards become more and more ludicrous as the weeks and months drag on with no definitive announcements about the future.

 

We now have rules and informal rules?

 

Why is discussion of the financial implications of developer decisions now verboten? 

Unless 1CGS is running some sort of charity, the financial implications underpin every development decision they make.

As to the RoF channel map; Jason himself stated in the past it hadn't sold as well as they had hoped it would.

Because unfounded talk/speculation/rumors about the finances of any given business can lead to negative consequences for said company.

 

As for an official announcement, it will come when marketing is ready to make it. We aren't trying to string along anyone here. 🙂

[Enceladus828]

Adding to what Luke said, a lot of comments are based on unsubstantiated claims, things which in reality had many other factors at play than what they claim, and things which happened so long ago that they are no longer a valid reason for the devs to not do something in 2024.

 

6 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

As to the RoF channel map; Jason himself stated in the past it hadn't sold as well as they had hoped it would.

When did Jason say this and did he ever say that they wouldn't bring the map over as a result? If you can't prove either of those two things then it's unsubstantiated.

Edited May 29, 2024 by Enceladus828

[DD_Arthur]

3 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

Adding to what Luke said, a lot of comments are based on unsubstantiated claims, things which in reality had many other factors at play than what they claim, and things which happened so long ago that they are no longer a valid reason for the devs to not do something in 2024.

 

Fantastic!  Lets hope the teams next expansion after Korea is a full on Battle of Britain scenerio!

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, 356thFS_Leifr said:

If the company finances are so wobbly that some internet waffle in their own forum could cause tangible jeopordy, well... I don't know what to say other than ridiculous. 😆

 

No one has said such a thing - on the other hand, given that it was mentioned in one of the recent streams that the financial health of the series is good, there really isn't any room anyways for rumors about the series being shut down. 

[BillsPlane]

Thanks for getting the thread back on topic!  I am glad to hear confirmation that Korea is in the pipeline.  However, you guys decide to do it, I'll buy this  .  I suggest including the famous Mig vs Sabre jet "Mig Alley".  Even if it is an add-on module to Korea later.  No pressure, just a suggestion I hope you guys consider. Being able to fly these icons of early jet fighters would be awesome.  They are the last of a dogfighter type jet.  Still adhering to the principle of fighter combat from WW2 except with a jet engine instead of a piston prop engine.  Also, I get more excited about the Corsair F4U-5 the more I read about it.  It outperforms the Sea Fury, which used to be the one I desired the most, and would give a F-51H a run for its money too.

 

Also, improving the graphics performance with the heavy ground rendering will be a great thing.  That is the only issue I currently have.  I would hate to have to upgrade my computer which is a pretty good upper-mid end from a year ago.  It is a Dell Alienware Aurora R13 which has a 2.4 GHz 12th Gen Intel Core i9-12900F with 64GB ram and a Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 10GB video card.  I'm running the Steam Valve Index VR headset and run the program via steam vr.  I was hoping this setup would be good for a few years.  One sidenote is that I found by limiting the eye resolution to 2016 x 2240 keeps both the clarity acceptable while also having a very good frame rate (a little over 60fps) while allowing me to run the detail settings in the game at the maximum.  I also found setting motion smoothing and advanced supersample filtering both set to off helps too.

Edited May 31, 2024 by Spitfire_Enthusiast1

[Gambit21]

28 minutes ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

Thanks for getting the thread back on topic!  I am glad to hear confirmation that Korea is in the pipeline.  However, you guys decide to do it, I'll buy this  .  I suggest including the famous Mig vs Sabre jet "Mig Alley".  Even if it is an add-on module to Korea later.  No pressure, just a suggestion I hope you guys consider. Being able to fly these icons of early jet fighters would be awesome.  They are the last of a dogfighter type jet.  Still adhering to the principle of fighter combat from WW2 except with a jet engine instead of a piston prop engine.  Also, I get more excited about the Corsair F4U-5 the more I read about it.  It outperforms the Sea Fury, which used to be the one I desired the most, and would give a F-51H a run for its money too.

 

Also, improving the graphics performance with the heavy ground rendering will be a great thing.  That is the only issue I currently have.  I would hate to have to upgrade my computer which is a pretty good upper-mid end from a year ago.  It is a Dell Alienware Aurora R13 which has a 2.4 GHz 12th Gen Intel Core i9-12900F with 64GB ram and a Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 10GB video card.  I'm running the Steam Valve Index VR headset and run the program via steam vr.  I was hoping this setup would be good for a few years.  One sidenote is that I found by limiting the eye resolution to 2016 x 2240 keeps both the clarity acceptable while also having a very good frame rate (a little over 60fps) while allowing me to run the detail settings in the game at the maximum.  I also found setting motion smoothing and advanded supersample filtering off helps too.

Dude - they’re not going to do Korea and not do the F-86/MiG 15. It’s coming.

[BillsPlane]

48 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Dude - they’re not going to do Korea and not do the F-86/MiG 15. It’s coming.

You have inside information?

 

I based my response on info I read a while back alluding to them not having the jets in Korea... just the Corsair, P-51D, Yak-9 and B-29 (ai only).

Edited May 31, 2024 by Spitfire_Enthusiast1

[BraveSirRobin]

2 minutes ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

You have inside information?

 

I based my response on info I read a while back alluding to them not having the jets in Korea... just the Corsair, P-51D, Yak-9 and B-29 (ai only).

Doing Korea with B-29s and no MiG/F-86 would be idiotic.  And there is overwhelming evidence that they’re not idiots.  

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

It outperforms the Sea Fury, which used to be the one I desired the most, and would give a F-51H a run for its money too.

 

I'd find a P-51H interesting myself (at least when I was younger, and was really into top speeds) - but they were withdrawn from service by Korea - so what we'd get is an F-51D (with a few differences, HVARs etc.)

 

 

2 minutes ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

You have inside information?

 

I based my response on info I read a while back alluding to them not having the jets in Korea... just the Corsair, Yak-9 and B-29 (ai only).

 

I think it is a pretty safe assumption that we'd get a couple of jets. The bigger question would be which variants.

 

There are some interesting changes in the late war Sabres (and really significant changes if we include the variants in Europe near the end of the Korean War). There is also the Meteor F.8 used by the RAAF in Korea... and some late war piston variants (AU-1 Corsair Sturmoviks)... which we won't see if they just do early war.

 

There are actually a lot of interesting aircraft - the F-82 would be neat. A lot of them were used for ground attack, and as their radars were damaged or considered added weight they were removed. So, we could theoretically have an F-82 with the radar removed (without having to model a working radar). It'd be great if they gave us some other aircraft from the same era as a Collector Planes, even if they didn't see service in Korea (a late Vampire or early Venom come to mind, as does the La-15)... there are lots of options for expansions... so it is a reasonable question to speculate on what might come first and fantasize about what might come after.

 

Btw. When did the B-29 arrive? The fact that they are modelling the B-29 might give some hints as to area and time period.

 

 

[BillsPlane]

Ah, assumptions.

 

I agree that it would seem obvious that jets would be included in Korea... at least the F-86/Mig-15 duo.  But what threw me was when I read to the contrary a while back.  Maybe I misinterpreted.  I hope.

[BraveSirRobin]

25 minutes ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

Ah, assumptions.

 

I agree that it would seem obvious that jets would be included in Korea... at least the F-86/Mig-15 duo.  But what threw me was when I read to the contrary a while back.  Maybe I misinterpreted.  I hope.

You misinterpreted.  Nothing has been said, or even hinted, about those 2 aircraft not being included.   

[Enceladus828]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Btw. When did the B-29 arrive? The fact that they are modelling the B-29 might give some hints as to area and time period.

From the very beginning: https://nuclearcompanion.com/data/b-29-superfortress-chronology-korean-war/

[Avimimus]

19 minutes ago, Spitfire_Enthusiast1 said:

From what I have read about Korea, the B-29s were put in action within days of the invasion into South Korea and were active the entire war.  So no clue there.

 

Thanks!  I am hoping that I simply misinterpreted.

 

Thanks. I think it is probably pretty safe to assume. A bigger question is about the F-84 and F-80... the Meteor F.8 is probably the least likely, but it'd be very neat to have it... it is a decent ground attack platform, would give the U.N. a cannon armed jet, and would keep all of the aircraft from being American or Soviet design (it is nice to have some variety).

[Gambit21]

F-86, F84, F-80, F-51, F-4U 

 

[Jaegermeister]

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

F-86, F84, F-80, F-51, F-4U 

 

 

I would be surprised if there were 3 American jets, but who knows. 

 

Maybe we will get the AT-6 Texan for FAC duties or the B-26 as a twin engine light bomber? We already have the A-20 now so that would be a logical progression.

[BraveSirRobin]

2 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

I would be surprised if there were 3 American jets, but who knows. 

 

Maybe we will get the AT-6 Texan for FAC duties or the B-26 as a twin engine light bomber? We already have the A-20 now so that would be a logical progression.

A war with the best piston engine aircraft at the start of the jet age and they give us a T-6 trainer?  That seems very unlikely.

[=621=Samikatz]

I feel like the most likely US non-fighter to get would be the A-1 Skyraider

[Stonehouse]

3 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

B-26 as a twin engine light bomber

Assuming you mean the A-26 Invader which got rebadged rather than the B26 we have already?

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

Assuming you mean the A-26 Invader which got rebadged rather than the B26 we have already?

 

Yes, it would be the A-26 reclassified into a 'B' designation. Interestingly, two letter A designations are still around in Korea (AD-1 Skyraider, AU-1 Corsair - but those were Navy and Marines designations).

 

The thing I bristled at (for a flicker of a moment) was describing the B-26 or A-26 as a light bomber! For me a light bomber is an aircraft with a single engine (and a bomb load of 400-1000 lb usually, maybe 1500lb in overload)! But I'm thinking in WWII (and interwar) terms. By the 1950s, the American medium bombers have been reclassified as light bombers. So, it totally makes sense to describe the A-26/B-26 as light bombers in the context of Korea (due to the date and the country they are serving with).

 

I do get annoyed when people retroject these terms to earlier periods (e.g. early WWII) or to other countries though. People can be very dogmatic about what a 'tailless' aircraft is or what a 'tank' is - but usually they are just imposing the terminology of their own country around the time they were  teenager (or when they served etc.)

[BlitzPig_EL]

In US service in WW2 the A 20 and A26 were termed light bombers, the B25 and B26 were mediums, and the B17, B24, and B29 were heavy bombers.  Pretty simple really.

[Jaegermeister]

8 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

Assuming you mean the A-26 Invader which got rebadged rather than the B26 we have already?

 

Yes, I was referring to the Douglas A-26/B-26 Invader Light and/or Medium Bomber, not the Martin B-26 Marauder. 

 

I still think it would be cool if they modeled some other "different" aircraft like the Bell H-13, the Texan, the Cessna O-1 or more likely, the Skyraider. 

 

 

11 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

A war with the best piston engine aircraft at the start of the jet age and they give us a T-6 trainer?  That seems very unlikely.

 

Why not, people have been requesting the Storch for years...

[Enceladus828]

1 minute ago, Jaegermeister said:

Yes, I was referring to the Douglas A-26/B-26 Invader Light and/or Medium Bomber, not the Martin B-26 Marauder.

When I was reading about the Bay of Pigs Invasion it said B-26s were used and thought “What?! They couldn’t have been using the Marauders in 1960s”

But then I realized that it was the Invader 🤣

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, Jaegermeister said:

 

Why not, people have been requesting the Storch for years...

That pretty much proves my point.  After all these years they still have not made a Storch.

[Jaegermeister]

3 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

That pretty much proves my point.  After all these years they still have not made a Storch.

 

True, but time marches on and you never know. I would love to fly a Cessna over the battlefield and fire smoke rockets at enemy positions and then have the Sandys fly in and blast them to smithereens.

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

That pretty much proves my point.  After all these years they still have not made a Storch.

 

People asked for a lot of things, and it took many years for them to come about 😄 You can find threads about the IAR and the I-153 from 2012! It doesn't mean it won't happen.

 

With artillery spotting gameplay now in the sim, it also suddenly makes a lot more sense to have the Fi-156 - and I'm pretty sure that, if a competent third party proposed it, they'd strongly consider approving it.

 

  

4 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

or more likely, the Skyraider. 

 

I am hoping for the Skyraider and the Meteor F.8 eventually. It seems less likely, but a Vampire or a Venom would make for an interesting Collector Plane. I'd almost propose doing the Suez Crisis next as a way to get more contemporary aircraft from the early 1950s (a lot of second line aircraft were used in the Suez Crisis, as well as export aircraft - so the plane set would be more early 1950s than mid 1950s). That or a West German scenario.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I've been wanting to fly a Skyraider for a very long time.  Four 20mm cannon and a bomb load that might make a B17 blush.

 

Bring it!!

[Stonehouse]

I'd personally love to see a Sea Fury for Korea but that brings RN and RAN carriers into the picture so it's unlikely I guess.

[BraveSirRobin]

6 hours ago, Avimimus said:

People asked for a lot of things, and it took many years for them to come about 😄 You can find threads about the IAR and the I-153 from 2012! It doesn't mean it won't happen.

 

With artillery spotting gameplay now in the sim, it also suddenly makes a lot more sense to have the Fi-156 - and I'm pretty sure that, if a competent third party proposed it, they'd strongly consider approving it.

Do you honestly think that the flagship game for their latest, greatest technology will include a T-6?  I did not say that it won’t happen.  I said that it is very unlikely.  Do you actually think it is likely?

6 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

 

True, but time marches on and you never know. I would love to fly a Cessna over the battlefield and fire smoke rockets at enemy positions and then have the Sandys fly in and blast them to smithereens.

I did not say it was impossible. I said it was unlikely.  Do you think it’s actually likely?

[Jaegermeister]

8 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I did not say it was impossible. I said it was unlikely.  Do you think it’s actually likely?

 

Actually no, I don't think it's likely. I think the Skyraider is likely though. I posted a long time ago what I thought the plane set would be and my guess hasn't really changed. 

 

I was just posting what I thought would be unique and interesting on the off chance that there is still some room for a couple of random niche planes in the "new project"