PDA

View Full Version : a20 havok



LeadSpitter_
02-06-2004, 10:14 AM
Does anyone know what happened to that project over at netwings.org, asking about progress is not allowed there

It is a very significant bomber that needs to be added to the eastern front, over 3000 of them were in service as lend lease for soviets. They requested 4000 more...

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

LeadSpitter_
02-06-2004, 10:14 AM
Does anyone know what happened to that project over at netwings.org, asking about progress is not allowed there

It is a very significant bomber that needs to be added to the eastern front, over 3000 of them were in service as lend lease for soviets. They requested 4000 more...

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

p1ngu666
02-06-2004, 10:18 AM
i dunno
got some article onit tho http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A.K.Davis
02-06-2004, 11:33 AM
It is coming along. Cockpit for G and K is near finished and cockpit for C will require only minor changes. The biggest road block right now is reference material on the other internal positions: gunner for G and K series, nose position for K series and nose and gunner position for C series. I have some material on order and a friend of Rafael is visiting a museum in Brazil with a A-20K this week or next. Not sure where Xanty stands on the external modelling for the three versions. Also not sure who is doing external texturing or whether this has even begun as yet.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

BaldieJr
02-06-2004, 12:22 PM
I appreciate the dedication, but I sure wish the gunner positions could just be dropped. Its a "neat" feature, but use-once-and-forget options shouldn't be the basis for holdups.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

Jippo01
02-06-2004, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
I appreciate the dedication, but I sure wish the gunner positions could just be dropped. Its a "neat" feature, but use-once-and-forget options shouldn't be the basis for holdups.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that is your opinion. I use gunner positions frequently.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

BaldieJr
02-06-2004, 12:38 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Look at all the people who fly the B-17 without a cockpit. People like new planes, and the A-20 would be a very popular addition amongst the ground-pounding crew.

If the gunner postions aren't finished by now, I doubt they'll ever make it to FB. The FM programming appears to take about a year (Mistel anyone?).

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

Korolov
02-06-2004, 12:42 PM
I agree with Baldie. While gunner positions are almost essential, the amount of times they're used is limited. The IL-2 Field Mod doesn't have a gunner cockpit, and thats no big deal for most people.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Hunter82
02-06-2004, 12:45 PM
I think the B17 with the amount of bomb groups that have moved over from CFS etc will be a good addition. Can't wait for a JU 88 though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

==============================
Mudmovers (http://www.mudmovers.com)
ATI Catalyst Beta Tester
Catalyst Feedback (http://apps.ati.com/driverfeedback/)
Catalyst Driver Download (http://www.ati.com/support/driver.html)
==============================

Jippo01
02-06-2004, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Look at all the people who fly the B-17 without a cockpit. People like new planes, and the A-20 would be a very popular addition amongst the ground-pounding crew.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif ??

For having opposite opinion than you? Interesting point of view. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Other people fly in gunner positions, others do not. You can argue over that as long as you like but still other people will want the other positions too.

I think flying B-17 for, say 6 hours, without being able to pop in to any of the gunner positions or bomber position would be boring. Ask all the people who fly B-17 without cockpit now if they would like to have all positions or just the pilot position. I wonder what they would answer.

Bomber without other than pilot positions is just a really crappy single seater. And that is just my crazy opinion. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Aaron_GT
02-06-2004, 01:37 PM
I suspect more people play from the
pilot and bombaimers positions than
from the gunners positions. This
having been said, we lack a facility
in FB for the rear gunner to warn you
about incoming enemy fighters, and so
being able to pop into the rear seat
momentarily is the best substitute we
have (and the fact that the autopilot
stays on for the gunner is useful in
this regard, as you don't stop the
gunner firing). So on a plane with
limited rear visibility from the cockpit
like the A20, the ability to be able
to see from the gunner positions is
valuable.

If the gunners relayed information on
threats in the way WB3 does, I'd tend
to agree with the concept of releasing
a plane as soon as the pilot and aimers
positions were done, and adding the
gunner positions in later patches.

BaldieJr
02-06-2004, 01:56 PM
Sensitive?

You made it a point to focus on a single statement. You took it out of context, and chose to think that I'm attacking people who use gunner positions.

For this, you get http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

The point was not to take a freaking head-count of gunners, or make some kind of popularity contest of it.

I suspect you are hoping to 'Stalingrad' the A-20 in favor of a Ju88.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

Jippo01
02-06-2004, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:

I suspect you are hoping to 'Stalingrad' the A-20 in favor of a Ju88.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why on earth would I want to do such a thing (and how do I affect A-20 development anyway by chatting here?!). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif


It is a common interest for us all to get all the possible flyables (especially twins) in the game. Boston should have three "playable" positions: bombardier, pilot and gunner. Havoc has two? Leaving one of them out takes a lot out of the charm & functionality of the plane, and I would not wish to see that happening.

If there are no references to do the turret, then yes, leave it out. But I'm sure there is plenty of references hanging around. Raphael and the other experienced fellows he is working with will make it for sure. Why don't you have a little faith for him too?


-jippo

Ps. You missed couple of these fellows in my earlier post: http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

A.K.Davis
02-06-2004, 02:57 PM
Oh, I think people will be very appreciate of the twin .50 cal. powered turret experience. And modelling a bomber without the bombardier position, that's just silly. The ventral gun position on the A-20, however, I agree should just be left to the AI if it proves to be problematic.

At a bare minimum, to get any version of the A-20 flyable, references on the Martin turret and the interior around it are necessary. Please help if you can.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
02-06-2004, 03:15 PM
baldie Jr. wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The FM programming appears to take about a year<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And about three hops in them (or flying against them) to uncover major holes.

As far as the various crew positions that are hard to get info on...

it amazes me that the design team can be so adamant about sources for the floor of a gunner compartment and can't make the time to get the modeling right for how the plane itself flies. I'd reverse the "scrutiny priority".

Use the data that's available to be as accurate as you can get, and make educated guesses on the missing "panels", objects, etc. I mean, come ON: Is the station or cockpit going to be any less a work of art if one flat screw is out of place on the left side, or one dial isn't actually the one in the real cockpit (of which none exist on the planet anymore?)

However, I *would* be adamant that the plane's turn radius be correct, it's climb rate be correct, and that it couldn't do feats of derring-do in the sim that were also impossible in real life. Be a stickler on THOSE details.

If that were adhered to, we'd probably still be waiting on a flyable P-39, La5 and Hurricane, huh?
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
02-06-2004, 03:20 PM
You know...ask anyways. If its a project that hasn't been heared from for a while asking is allowed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A-20 would be fun!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

LeadSpitter_
02-06-2004, 10:13 PM
jippo only uses them because be made them http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif With AI being better then any human aim at a distance not many use them,

Especially now that we have to switch to gunner view, hit the A button to be able to move the gun, then move it with the mouse when done hit A again so its on auto then back to another station or forward view, they really need to talke the auto button out on gunner positions maybe more would use them.

thx for the news akd and jippo

I was just wondering if it was abandoned along with the b24, seeing so many updates and video clips of turrents moving then nothing for 6 months

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

necrobaron
02-06-2004, 10:42 PM
I certainly hope the B-24 wasn't cancelled. I know Manopat(who's doing the CR.32) was on the Liberator team,along with Octobre and someone else. I'm hoping the CR.32 was just a project to do "on the side",with the B-24 being the main focus.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Not all who wander are lost."

RafaelFlanker
02-07-2004, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:

As far as the various crew positions that are hard to get info on...

it amazes me that the design team can be so adamant about sources for the floor of a gunner compartment and can't make the time to get the modeling right for how the plane itself flies. I'd reverse the "scrutiny priority".

Use the data that's available to be as accurate as you can get, and make educated guesses on the missing "panels", objects, etc. I mean, come ON: Is the station or cockpit going to be any less a work of art if one flat screw is out of place on the left side, or one dial isn't actually the one in the real cockpit (of which none exist on the planet anymore?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stiglr, I think you used a bad choice of words, or I don't know what you are meaning by us being adamant about the "floor of a gunner compartment". The truth is that I don't have any references at all of the said positions. Not even a single poor quality pic of a gunner's station from inside nor from bombardier's. Would you like to have a "guesswork" on that based on external pictures...? Don't know about you, but I wouldn't. I don't like to make such guessworks, especially when references are about to arrive. I want to do the work as accurate as possible, sorry.

Believe me, if we had all the needed references at hand when we started, the work could be done by the end of 2003 or Jan 2004. So far only cockpit is done built-wise, some texture work is left.

Gunners and bombardier stations are important because Oleg accepts flyables only with these positions included, not only cockpit.
About gauges, I and Caspar got about 95% of them done for all 3 cockpits, only some aren't viewable on the reference pics but may be done soon once the references (A-20G manual & A-20K pics) arrive. I don't think guesswork has a place here, Oleg also doesn't want such thing.
Yep, there are still a few A-20 left in the world. One in Brasil, another in RAAF Museum, etc... they just aren't airworthy but still with original pieces on their majority.

And the last thing is regarding to how it flies... sorry it is out of my range, it will be at Oleg's hands, I wouldn't worry about that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
However, I *would* be adamant that the plane's turn radius be correct, it's climb rate be correct, and that it couldn't do feats of derring-do in the sim that were also impossible in real life. Be a stickler on THOSE details.

If that were adhered to, we'd probably still be waiting on a flyable P-39, La5 and Hurricane, huh?
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaron_GT
02-07-2004, 05:13 PM
I get the impression that the A20 ventral
position, while present, didn't get used
all that much in combat. Is this true? The
RAF didn't always mount a gun there on their
A20s.