PDA

View Full Version : Oleg: Simplify Scope of Multi-Engine Add-On Aircraft



VOL_Mountain
03-12-2004, 10:47 AM
Oleg,

There have been posts in this forum that demonstrate the amount of work required to produce a flyable multi-engine aircraft. Recent screenshots of the A-20 and Pe-2 internals are a testimony to this effort. I'm sure these aircraft will be completed and join the ranks of flyable twins that we have available.

I'd like you to consider the president you set when you released the Il-2 Field-Mod with only the pilot position modeled and the rear gunner function set to ai only.

There are many multi-engine aircraft in various stages of developement that I fear may never be included in an add-on.

Let me offer a suggestion: Using the IL-2 Field-Mod as an example, limit some of these projects' scopes and model only the pilot and bombardier positions and leave the various gunner positions as ai.

If this approach was taken, more multi engine aircraft could be flown in this Sim, filling an important role as human piloted bombers.

Thanks for considering this option,
Mtn.

VOL_Mountain
03-12-2004, 10:47 AM
Oleg,

There have been posts in this forum that demonstrate the amount of work required to produce a flyable multi-engine aircraft. Recent screenshots of the A-20 and Pe-2 internals are a testimony to this effort. I'm sure these aircraft will be completed and join the ranks of flyable twins that we have available.

I'd like you to consider the president you set when you released the Il-2 Field-Mod with only the pilot position modeled and the rear gunner function set to ai only.

There are many multi-engine aircraft in various stages of developement that I fear may never be included in an add-on.

Let me offer a suggestion: Using the IL-2 Field-Mod as an example, limit some of these projects' scopes and model only the pilot and bombardier positions and leave the various gunner positions as ai.

If this approach was taken, more multi engine aircraft could be flown in this Sim, filling an important role as human piloted bombers.

Thanks for considering this option,
Mtn.

Flamin_Squirrel
03-12-2004, 10:51 AM
I think thats a good idea, and theres nothing to stop gunner positions being added later on.

609IAP_Recon
03-12-2004, 11:11 AM
Bump - I agree

JG50_Recon
www.jg50.com (http://www.jg50.com)
----
http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com

Retrofish
03-12-2004, 11:28 AM
Agree. BUMP!

CHDT
03-12-2004, 11:46 AM
I think it's a waste of time to model each gunner posts for bomber for instance like the B-17.

Because (I can speak only for myself) I would only like to pilot it or to go rarely, from time to time, in the rear gunner post.

Cheers,

gates123
03-12-2004, 12:37 PM
you guys should know now that Oleg will never introduce a new plane unfinished especially to his high standards of detail. You guys are barking up the wrong tree.

http://gr.fipu.krasnoyarsk.edu/camms/archive/ww2_fighters/0112/pics/0112_2_1.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

AnalFissure
03-12-2004, 01:55 PM
But he's got a point, the IL2 Field mod is already in the game without a gunner position.

Irish_JG26
03-12-2004, 02:22 PM
S~ all,

I must support the position that Vol_Mountain has taken. I would love to see a flyable PE2, PE8 and B17 and am more than willing to take AI gunners only as a way to work into those planes sooner and in stages.

It would still be possible to add the gunner slots later, although the only gunner slot with much attraction to me would be the B17.

This next comment goes in the opposite direction, and is aimed at enhancing the development of our existing multi-engine bombers like the HE111 and the TB3. How hard would it be to have virtual co-pilot seats? so that two pilots can fly. When one wants to take over, the pilot in command hits a button to toggle control to the co-pilot and visa versa. Just an idea to complicate things further :-)

LEXX_Luthor
03-12-2004, 02:58 PM
Sometimes you want to take gunner seat. The top gunner behind pilot seems most popular.

Belly gunner and side gunner NOT popular--can't see much outside the plane. Don't need unless data and modder time is available. Some crew positons can be modded, but not all.

Some like TB~3 are easy to mod (I think), little detail.

I do not want all Paratrooper positions to be modded for Flyable ( http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) Ju~52 or C~47. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Different standards for different aircraft because there is no "standard aircraft"--any challenges here? No? Excellent http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gunner position for SB, where do we find that? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Scorp_609IAP
03-12-2004, 03:08 PM
"you guys should know now that Oleg will never introduce a new plane unfinished especially to his high standards of detail. You guys are barking up the wrong tree."

I really don't see a conflict with Mountain's suggestion. As long as the work that is done, cockpit and bomb aimer position, is up to Oleg's standard what's the problem. After all the TB3's have just been released with no co-pilot's postion.

S!

609IAP_Scorp

ixbix
03-13-2004, 11:00 AM
Agreed

LEXX_Luthor
03-13-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>After all the TB3's have just been released with no co-pilot's postion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wow, I never thought about that one. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

The only bad thing is that once we mention this, the "generic cockpit" or "one cockpit for all non~flyables demands start up, and that can be a Bad thing. Oleg's standards are a Good thing, if a bit repressive, from time to time.

__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

VOL_Mountain
03-13-2004, 02:15 PM
LEXX, we aren't asking for "generic cocpits" or for Oleg to reduce the quality of his products.

On the other hand, we are asking for Oleg to consider reducing the Scope of the project just as he did with the IL-2 Field-Mod where no rear gunner was moddled.

If this is a means to introduce more aircraft types with reducing effort while maintaining the high quality, isn't this a win-win situation?

Mtn.

LEXX_Luthor
03-13-2004, 02:56 PM
I agree. I AGREEEEEEE!!! I just made an observation about certain "generic" mentalities.

Where would we find pics of R~10 gunner position? If we can't then fine, AI gunner only. We can call it R~10 Field Mod if we must. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Granted, this also assumes we can find pics of pilot cockpit for R~10.

__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Dunkelgrun
03-14-2004, 08:29 AM
bump. Good suggestion.

http://www.uploadit.org/igmusapa/tft2.jpg
www.nightbomber.com (http://www.nightbomber.com)

Dunkelgrun aka Black.Cat

p1ngu666
03-14-2004, 09:44 AM
we dont have the radio operater for tb3 either!

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

p1ngu666
03-14-2004, 09:45 AM
co pilot has same work ethic as me too.
ie doesnt work http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

RAF74_Buzzsaw
03-14-2004, 05:56 PM
Salute

Excellent idea. 90% of the time, no one flys the gunner positions anyway.

This would mean making the A-20 flyable should be relatively easy.

Patditlepat
03-14-2004, 06:19 PM
I agree. Godd idea.

Jabo Patatras

JG7_Rall
03-14-2004, 06:52 PM
S!

Awesome idea, would definatly speed up production for all the bombers.

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/sig.jpg

xTHRUDx
03-14-2004, 11:29 PM
i bump the idea

Bearcat99
03-15-2004, 08:08 AM
Great idea....

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

Pentallion
03-15-2004, 11:56 PM
Bump!

http://www.simops.com/249th/sigs/Wildcard.jpg

IV_JG51_Razor
03-17-2004, 02:11 AM
Excellent idea Mountain!

Razor
IV/JG51 Intelligence Officer

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

Gen_Strike
03-28-2004, 07:07 PM
Good idea, i generally only spend a few minutes on the gunner positions anyway, then i forget about it and move on to the pilot and never look at them again, except sometimes to see behind better like on the il2

Bearcat99
03-28-2004, 08:23 PM
I think its a good idea too. I have been in lots ofg coops where the gunner positions remain unmanned. Its nice to be able to do that but not a neccessity. Oleg wouldnt have to sacrifice one bit on the high standards he has set for the parts of the plane he will release either.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

nanuuq
03-28-2004, 09:01 PM
I agree! I made this post about a week ago saying the same thing. I never use the gunner stations. I dont think that this will make the game not as detalied as before as some have stated. If that is the case than there should be bomb bay doors that open and close, other stations included radio-man/navigator, etc...

Also, there is no fuel control. If one engine is on fire in say the He-111 you cannot cut off the fuel to that engine to prevent fires. Also, there is no communication between crewman. I no gunners would be talking to each other about different fighters coming in from various levels and directions. Plus, the navigator would be telling the pilot in which direction to head and at what speed and altitude, etc...

Oleg , please give us these great bombers. This is in now way going to lessen "the greatest flight simulator ever created".

Nanuuq

Cossack13
03-28-2004, 09:12 PM
Su-2! Su-2! Su-2! Su-2!

http://www.tolwyn.com/~cossack/White13.gif

VOL_Mountain
05-17-2004, 07:04 PM
I still believe this idea has merit especially in light of the stalled developement of some twin engine aircraft.

I'm beginning to get the feeling that if some project's scope are not simplified that we will never see them as a finished product.

I wish the best of luck and success to the various hard working modelers to finish thier projects to meet their original scopes but now is the time to evaluate progress and consider weather a truncated project can be completed by summer, ready for distribution this fall.

So, I'm once again respectively requesting that Oleg & The Maddox Team consider this suggestion in the interest of having a new FB Add-On that contains several new twins.

Oleg, If you read this I'd appreciate if you would share your thoughts.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/mountainsig.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
05-17-2004, 07:26 PM
Flyable Ju~52 is much needed.

Ju~52 top gunner would be nice--I do enjoy top gunner on He~111. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Left Engine Selected
Right Engine Selected
Center Engine Selected http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We do NOT need all paratrooper positions modded as Playable. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Aaron_GT
05-18-2004, 10:14 AM
You need the bomb aimer's position too to be useful, which might mean a fair bit of modelling of the nose. In theory you could get by with just the bomb sight view, but the entire bomb aimer's view makes lining up for a run rather easier. For some planes that might need a fair chunk of the nose positions modelling since they will be visible from the aimer's position.

Snuffy_Hadden
05-18-2004, 11:10 AM
Especially if you're going to put a real working Norden bombsight in the nose. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Harh
05-18-2004, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Mountain:
LEXX, we aren't asking for "generic cocpits" or for Oleg to reduce the quality of his products.

On the other hand, we are asking for Oleg to consider reducing the Scope of the project just as he did with the IL-2 Field-Mod where no rear gunner was moddled.

If this is a means to introduce more aircraft types with reducing effort while maintaining the high quality, isn't this a win-win situation?

Mtn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some days ago there was similar topic about B17. It was slightly different. There was said that gunners positions should be made and no pilot/bombardier. I said that Oleg wouldn't allow this and "or we get B17 fully flyable or we'll not get it at all".

This topic is alike, but... its different. And I surely agree with VOL_Mountain. It is an excellent idea. It would allow developers to create flyable bombers in much easier way.

As about "generic cockpit" I also agree by 100%. Not letting such things in the game will not allow reduction its of quality... Not this way at least.

VOL_Hans
05-31-2004, 05:15 PM
I agree with this. I feel that it would be much more important to get pilot and bombadier positions ready for planes like the B-25 ASAP. Nose gunner positions would probably be a simple modification from there. Once the aircraft are made to be atleast human flyable from the pilots seat, we could assign major gunner positions as secondary concerns.

We could do only the major positions and once again save time, by makeing only top turret, rear, and belly turrets and leaveing out cheek guns and the like, we could still provide a nearly complete bomber, with no major loss.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

Jippo01
05-31-2004, 06:04 PM
It's not so simple as you think. Gunner positions are the easy ones. Pilot and bomberdier generally take much more effort and time, at least that is my experience.

I don't in general support this idea, but I could think it has some merit in cases like Pe-2 radio operator and SB-2 ventral gunner positions. But in general I don't like the idea at all in the extent you are suggesting it.


-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)

DarthBane_
05-31-2004, 06:58 PM
would be great, good idea

20thFG-PirAnha
05-31-2004, 08:10 PM
Very good idea Mountain

*Bump*

Col.PirAnha CO of the 77thFS "Gamblers"

"Terror of the Skies"

Gato-Loco
06-01-2004, 12:46 PM
Superbump!!

KG26_Oranje
06-01-2004, 02:06 PM
Bumb that Vol_Mountain.
Give us flyable bombers , transports or ahter type of plane`s to play wiht.
After the last update wiht the new flyable fighter plane`s in it , i`m very disapointed becose there was no flyable ahter type of plane wiht it , and i lost the spirit to play il2 online.
I never play offline becose i dont like to play against A.I. .

A.I. is just for filling the field for me.
My dream is a Flight sim wiht all (Historical correct) flyable aircrafts in it and NO A.I. only.
Wiht or wiht out gunner postions or radio crew member.
Buht we are asking for it many years now and still we most wait!!!!!.

Hope Mr Oleg hear us now and start to work on it as NR1 on his list.
I like the great il2 sim buht i missing the flyable transports , bombers , recon , seaplane`s etc etc , we got to many fighters in this game and if we play online wiht out A.I. than the have only a ME110 , He111 , Il2 , Ju87 Stuka or a TB3 to shoot at and we dont have not many to select for bomber runs.
This game is more for fighter pilots than for allround players.
Thnx Oleg if u read this and start to work on it or support us more for it.
Il2 is like a great painting and never ready/done.

S! I/KG26_Oranje

Bandit.426Cdn
06-01-2004, 04:23 PM
Bump. Agreed 101% with the original poster.

I am an online bomber pilot almost exclusively, and it's gone way beyond lame the number of 'AI' aircraft i have to pilot with outside view, to support my squadron. Give me some realism in-cockpit / bombardier positions please, and let the computer man the gunner's stations in 'IL2 Field Mod' Fashion. This is the only way i'm going to have a chance of flying the medium and heavy bombers, in the limited development lifespan remaining for IL2FB-AEP/PF (thats if PF is cross-platform compatable, even. Thats a whole different can of worms thats been opened elsewhere, however.)

GAU-8
06-01-2004, 08:13 PM
Excellent thread!

i did something like this a while back, but had baaaad effect. shows how the RIGHT wording at the RIGHT time can do wonders.

i agree with the topic 100 percent

pilot stations, and bombadier stations flyable, gunnery stations AI.

VOL_Hans
06-02-2004, 02:33 PM
Just another little bump here.

I think it's important to remember that this is not nescesarily a suggestion to leave the gunner stations incomplete.

I feel that as we mass a large enough number of twin engine aircraft, it might be possible to spend some time later down the road on getting the basic gunners positions such as tail, top, and nose.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

335th_GRSwaty
06-04-2004, 12:07 AM
Agreed! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
It's better to have without gunners position than not at all!

335th Greek Squadron
http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/Images/33.gif

RAF74_Buzzsaw
06-04-2004, 12:54 AM
Salute

Yes we need to have planes like B17 modelled with just cockpit and bombsight.

Pentallion
06-04-2004, 01:02 AM
Fantastic idea! Hope Oleg listens.

http://www.simops.com/249th/sigs/Wildcard.jpg

MatuDa
06-04-2004, 02:07 AM
Great idea, BOB is behind the corner already so please give us the bombers here before wrapping this game up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 99% of the players want them!

Prof.Wizard
06-04-2004, 05:51 AM
Agreed! ^bump^

Many nice aircrafts should join IL2:FB's ranks in this way... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/heart.gif

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

Gielle
06-04-2004, 08:23 AM
I agree with Mountain. If a good project has to be rejected only because there's no time left for modelling the gunners positions, it should be released only with pilot and bomber available for players, leaving the gunnery job to AI (which is usually much better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).
The available seats for players obviously should meet the standard set by Maddox Games.

269GA_Gielle

sinbad8508
07-14-2004, 01:46 PM
At the risk of being banned from the forum, I must observe that the recent "Firepower" add on to MCFS3 includes both the B-17 and Lancaster as flyable with detailed cockpits. We can make do with AI gunners in most or all positions, and add those later if there is really demand.

If all the previous, well stated comments are not enough to motivate addition of the multi-engine A/c such a Do-17Z and B-17, perhaps raw competition may do the trick.

FB is a way better sim and should keep up to speed with the A/C availble to fly.

TheJoyStick
07-14-2004, 02:33 PM
Yeah, I'm definately for this idea. The AI does a better job shooting bogies off my rear than I do, so I let them do it..

VOL_Mountain
07-17-2004, 09:59 AM
I still hope my original suggestion will be considered by Oleg and his Team as we approach the final hours for add-on aircraft for this great sim.

My assumption of the timing is due to the current developement of PF and BoB so I just assume that the support for FB will come to and end within the next year, just my personal opinion here.

What can we expect to be included in future FB releases?

The Ju-88 has been reported to be complete but as yet unreleased. I hope we see this!

There is an active thread discussing Pe-2 status that really excites me. "God's Speed" to this aircraft's current developement team!

B-25....Well, we have the ai version and it was my understanding that the pit and FM were being developed for a player-flyable version in FB. I sure hope this isn't being withheld from the FB community just to give the new PF additional marketing power.....That would be a shame! I'd like to hear more about this aircraft's developement for FB.

A-20....Updates were posted in this forum many months ago and my expectations were very high that it would be released to us. I'm trying to understand the intent of Oleg's comments about the A-20 project when screen shots were posted by its modeler that pointed out difficulties creating some internals. Were the comments intended to say that more work is needed and we can continue to have hope we will be able to fly this aircraft or were those comments intended to say the project has been closed? I hope developement continues......Is there any news?

I'm also excited and supportive of the efforts some Italian modelers for their single engine fighters....They look great!......~Salute~

So, here's my question......If the original FB included the IL-2 field mod without the tail gunner, why is it so important to halt the developement of some twin engine aircraft just because all of their internal positions can not be modled? These aircraft had pilot gunsights so they can be effictively be used by flying from the pilot's seat only while allowing the ai gunners to do their job. If it was done for the IL-2 field mod it can be done for other aircraft without diluting the quest for accuracy that Oleg has.

May I point out that I've always supported this sim financially and will willingly PAY for new aircraft that I mentioned above. I think the individuals who gave their time to create new aircraft deserve to reap some rewards.

Oleg, your comments would be greatly appreciated to give the community a vision of what we may expect.

FYI; I made this post Sunday in SimHQ.

B-25 and A-20 Thread (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=011365)

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/mountainsig.jpg

[This message was edited by VOL_Mountain on Sat July 17 2004 at 04:53 PM.]

[This message was edited by VOL_Mountain on Sun July 18 2004 at 02:58 PM.]

sinbad8508
07-19-2004, 05:03 AM
Agreed 100%

Sinbad

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Mountain:
I still hope my original suggestion will be considered by Oleg and his Team as we approach the final hours for add-on aircraft for this great sim.

My assumption of the timing is due to the current developement of PF and BoB so I just assume that the support for FB will come to and end within the next year, just my personal opinion here.

What can we expect to be included in future FB releases?

The Ju-88 has been reported to be complete but as yet unreleased. I hope we see this!

There is an active thread discussing Pe-2 status that really excites me. "God's Speed" to this aircraft's current developement team!

B-25....Well, we have the ai version and it was my understanding that the pit and FM were being developed for a player-flyable version in FB. I sure hope this isn't being withheld from the FB community just to give the new PF additional marketing power.....That would be a shame! I'd like to hear more about this aircraft's developement for FB.

A-20....Updates were posted in this forum many months ago and my expectations were very high that it would be released to us. I'm trying to understand the intent of Oleg's comments about the A-20 project when screen shots were posted by its modeler that pointed out difficulties creating some internals. Were the comments intended to say that more work is needed and we can continue to have hope we will be able to fly this aircraft or were those comments intended to say the project has been closed? I hope developement continues......Is there any news?

I'm also excited and supportive of the efforts some Italian modelers for their single engine fighters....They look great!......~Salute~

So, here's my question......If the original FB included the IL-2 field mod without the tail gunner, why is it so important to halt the developement of some twin engine aircraft just because all of their internal positions can not be modled? These aircraft had pilot gunsights so they can be effictively be used by flying from the pilot's seat only while allowing the ai gunners to do their job. If it was done for the IL-2 field mod it can be done for other aircraft without diluting the quest for accuracy that Oleg has.

May I point out that I've always supported this sim financially and will willingly PAY for new aircraft that I mentioned above. I think the individuals who gave their time to create new aircraft deserve to reap some rewards.

Oleg, your comments would be greatly appreciated to give the community a vision of what we may expect.

FYI; I made this post Sunday in SimHQ.

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=011365

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/mountainsig.jpg

[This message was edited by VOL_Mountain on Sat July 17 2004 at 04:53 PM.]

[This message was edited by VOL_Mountain on Sun July 18 2004 at 02:58 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

609IAP_Recon
07-19-2004, 05:40 AM
bump

Salute!

S!
17th_Gentile

Full Real Virtual Online War: Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com)

VulgarOne
07-19-2004, 11:12 AM
Why should Oleg bother? He is working on 2 new releases. The FM for the current twins is wrong, and Oleg states the torque issue cannot be changed. Then why have more twins with incorrect FM?

Even if Oleg bothers to add some more twins they will be halfassed. Whats the point, I sure as hell dont want planes with incorrect FM's.

Vulgar

sinbad8508
07-20-2004, 03:16 AM
What is the problem with the multi FM and why shouldn't it be corrected for Bob and PF as well as FB?

Why should Oleg bother? He is working on 2 new releases. The FM for the current twins is wrong, and Oleg states the torque issue cannot be changed. Then why have more twins with incorrect FM?

Even if Oleg bothers to add some more twins they will be halfassed. Whats the point, I sure as hell dont want planes with incorrect FM's.

Vulgar[/QUOTE]

LEXX_Luthor
07-20-2004, 03:27 AM
Lack of tork is not enough, we still need the twins for more expansive campaigns, wider in scope.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif