PDA

View Full Version : Since Guys are asking for a WW1 left-over Bi-plane,Can I ask for a KI44 Shoki?



weaselwagon1
05-31-2007, 10:07 AM
Did'nt think it was fair everytime someone asked for a Fighter contemporary to our sim(meaning 1940-1945,used fairly often in a significant theatre) they were immediately shot down by guys racing to be the first to say "they're finished with the old game,get over it" or "be happy with what you've got" almost as if these guys were working on the new damned game themselves.
Meanwhile,right now there are a dozen guys talking about how great it would be to have another WW1 leftover bi-plane that was hardly used because it "would be fun to fly" as if we dont have enough right now to the exclusion of others!

JG53Frankyboy
05-31-2007, 11:02 AM
have fun here...............
and perhaps try to use the search function of this forum - or do you think you are the only marvelous genius the last years here that asked for including a Ki-44 in this game ??

weaselwagon1
05-31-2007, 12:27 PM
Exactly,Einstein.Look at all the Holier than thou posts getting upset over anyone that asks.If we donr ask,we dont get.

Col._King
05-31-2007, 01:50 PM
~S~

Calm down, there is no reason for taking it hot.

For sure, the Ki-44 is sorely missed, as many other important aircraft that participated in WW2.

Now, there was a WW1 sim worked on the Il-2 game engine under development, if I'm not wrong.... Any news?

Let it keep civilyzed, Gentlemen!

Carry On !

JG53Frankyboy
05-31-2007, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Col._King:
..........Now, there was a WW1 sim worked on the Il-2 game engine under development, if I'm not wrong.... Any news?

...

progress is good
http://www.gennadich.com/lang/en/

but it is not using the il2 engine anymore - the developers are developing their own one.

Col._King
05-31-2007, 02:29 PM
Good Lord!
Awesome! Can't wait !! The SPAD XIII ! WOOW !!

Now, it would be sweet to have a Ki-44 in my gunsight from time to time, too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Carry On!

XyZspineZyX
05-31-2007, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by weaselwagon1:
Did'nt think it was fair everytime someone asked for a Fighter contemporary to our sim(meaning 1940-1945,used fairly often in a significant theatre) they were immediately shot down by guys racing to be the first to say "they're finished with the old game,get over it" or "be happy with what you've got" almost as if these guys were working on the new damned game themselves.
Meanwhile,right now there are a dozen guys talking about how great it would be to have another WW1 leftover bi-plane that was hardly used because it "would be fun to fly" as if we dont have enough right now to the exclusion of others!

What are you talking about? What biplane?

LEXX_Luthor
05-31-2007, 05:22 PM
Indeed captain, what is this Mystery Biplane? Fascinating.

(1) Would be fun to fly for one dozen "guys."

(2) Hardly ever used.

(3) Leftover from WW1.

Perhaps, possibly, Polikarpov I-190 ?? That would be most logical.

~> http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/i190.html


S!POCK all!

Korolov1986
05-31-2007, 05:56 PM
I think he means the U-2VS thread.

Skycat_2
05-31-2007, 09:38 PM
Hi Weaselwagon1,

I don't know if your registration date of, errr, two weeks ago, is a fair indication of your experience with the series or with your knowledge of the history of its development. Either way, you seem to be misunderstanding certain realities of the the IL-2 series as just empty pessimism from elitist "veterans." Before your sour disposition infects more posts (IE, the F4U-4 thread), allow me to reply to what you have presented here:


Originally posted by weaselwagon1:
Did'nt think it was fair everytime someone asked for a Fighter contemporary to our sim(meaning 1940-1945,used fairly often in a significant theatre) they were immediately shot down by guys racing to be the first to say "they're finished with the old game,get over it"
We all recognize that it is okay to dream. I would like to see a flyable P-47N, or at least a P-47D-40RA with HAVR and a gyro gunsight. Others have "requested" everything from a flyable B-17 (a very common suggestion here) to Tiger Moths to Vampire Is. Regardless of how useful or novel any of these planes are, the reality of the matter is that 1C:MG -- the only avenue for including any new models into the series -- wants to terminate its support of the IL-2 series and focus all energy on the upcoming flagship series, Storm of War. Bluntly stated, they are finished with the old series ... get over it.


Originally posted by weaselwagon1:
...or "be happy with what you've got" almost as if these guys were working on the new damned game themselves.


"Be happy with what you got" can be approached from a few different angles:

1. Pacific Fighters, and all of the Wildcats, Hellcats, Corsairs, etc. within, was the brainchild and creative work of a subdeveloper, Russian Rocket Group. The original intent was that 1C:MG would take the maps and models over the finish line by coding them into the game and giving them FMs, DMs, etc. It turned out to be more complicated than that, and 1C:MG was more involved than it had planned, reworking problematic models because RRG contracted work from modelers within the community. Some planes that were planned for inclusion simply were not finished in time, or were completed with so many errors that they could not be used.

2. Upon release of PF, certain legal issues arose with using certain American aircraft. After a quiet agreement between Ubi Soft, 1C:MG and Northrup-Grumman, Oleg said in no uncertain terms that no more American aircraft would be included in the series. I don't know if it was a case of 'better safe than sorry' or generally a bitter aftertaste from the legal procedings, but the policy was stated.

3. Additional planes that had been crafted by community modelers and submitted before a stated deadline, and that met 1C:MGs increasingly strict standards, were released in free upgrade patches after Pacific Fighters. 1C:MG learned from experience that quietly reworking community-made planes until they were usable was a huge drain of man hours, and so began requiring the modelers to correct their own mistakes. Even assuming that 'third party' modelers shouldered thousands of hours to finish planes like the Tempest and Mosquito and thus made them 'cost effective to include,' 1C:MG coders still have to invest time and resources to animate the models and give them FMs and DMs. And then there is the testing and the bug reports and follow-up patches ... Is so much time and energy justified when these planes are being released in free patches anyhow?

4. What does the series boast now for number of flyable planes? 200? Yes, there are glaring ommissions 'needed' for every theater in the series but it would be impossible to provide even a majority of those, especially through a system of free upgrade patches. A major commercial expansion pack would be the best hope for getting planes "contemporary to our sim" like the F4U-4, Spitfire XIV, B-24, B-26, Typhoon, P-61 Black Widow, Lancaster, Italian sm-79, etc. Unfortunately, such a pack would be a major undertaking in of itself, and 1C:MG has moved on to SOW. The community's great hope would be for a 1C:MG partner like Russian Rocket Group to take on the leg work to develop such an expansion ... but RRG is busy working on a Korean War sim for the SOW engine. Which brings up another point to consider: some people within this community are working on the new game ... or at least are working on theaters based on the new game's engine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

weaselwagon1
05-31-2007, 10:05 PM
Excellent and eloquent response to my gripe,Skycat.My registration date is not related to my time playing ths game,which is very nearly the minute it hit NYC shelves.
I just wish we couldhave have finished off all the Fighters..

hi_stik
05-31-2007, 10:07 PM
I wish not to compliment Skycat for that superb summation of the Pacific Fighters Story. I have culled bits and pieces of it from previous posts, but none have dared to give us a simple executive brief like this.

KUDOS TO YOU, GOOD SIR.

Col._King
06-01-2007, 08:18 AM
~S~

Skycat, my hat off to you, Sir! Top notch explaining.

Thank you very much!

Carry On!

ojcar1971
06-01-2007, 09:20 AM
I know it's not the same, but I have released a set of updated DGEN files (you must have Enjoyr patch 2.1 first) that include the I-185M82A as a hack of Ki-44 (AI only) in Burma, Okinawa and Japan campaings (skinpack from Jadehawk and me included). It's on Mission4today

jasonbirder
06-02-2007, 02:26 AM
another WW1 leftover bi-plane that was hardly used

Well if 40,000+ built (The most numerous millitary Aircraft of all time counts as Hardly Used in comparison with the 1200 Ki44 Shoki built....

weaselwagon1
06-02-2007, 08:21 PM
This 100 Horsepower nuisance at best cost a few German units some sleep and a few headaches.
Much of its use was as a trainer.
Do you really think that was as significant as the Huge and desperate struggle in the strategic bombing campaign where thousands of lives were at stake in one raid?
The Shoki was the only JAAF fighter with the performance to effectively intercept B29's pending the arrival of the KI84.
We've got 3 non-flyable flying boats(PBN,H8K1,MBR),a glider(G11),5 transports(JU52,L2D,ME323,C47,ME321),flyable obsolescent a/c like the I153,P11,TB3,B239,CR42,J8A....
If you were playing a WW2 AFV sim,would it make sense to leave out the Tiger B but make sure that you had jeeps,kubelwagons and horsedrawn carts?Lots more of those than the Tiger with what..487 produced...

Korolov1986
06-02-2007, 09:29 PM
Incorrect. Ki-61s were quite capable of reaching and operating at B-29 bombing altitude. Additionally, by the point that the USAAF bombing campaign was in full swing, the Ki-84 was already readily available and a much better interceptor than the Ki-44 - and there were over 3500 Ki-84s built. In terms of use, the current IJ planeset is very good for the limited map set we have of the PTO.

As for the Po-2, if it was only a minor inconvenience, then I doubt the Luftwaffe would have offered an Iron Cross for each one shot down.

Let's also not forget that you need quite a few trainer aircraft to teach would-be pilots how to fly.

weaselwagon1
06-02-2007, 11:47 PM
The shoki was a much better climber,slightly faster at altitude,generally more heavily armed,and did'nt have a vulnerable liquid cooled motor...not saying that the 61 did'nt do it's job either.

VW-IceFire
06-03-2007, 12:00 AM
Although we can all argue about what should have been included...it really is the truth that the chance for adding planes has long since past. The fellow who was working on the Ki-44 never finished, making it flyable was likely to be even harder, and the deadline was years ago for final submissions of third party models. Many in the community gave a very valiant final effort and a few succeeded but thats all in the past now. We've seen the efforts of the community over the long term pay off...

You may certainly ask for the Ki-44 but we shouldn't expect it like I shouldn't expect a Typhoon, or a Lancaster, or a Hs-123 or flyable Hs-129, or a Do-217 and so forth.

LEXX_Luthor
06-03-2007, 05:28 PM
weasil::
This 100 Horsepower nuisance at best cost a few German units some sleep and a few headaches.
At best, one or a few Po-2s might have enabled the early morning destruction of maybe a German division or something in 1944. I don't recall the details, but during the spring mud of 1944, the Soviets bagged a large German force at Korsun, possibly a town or something. The Soviet ground commander wanted to find some VVS bomber pilots willing to fly at night in snowstorm to bomb the sleeping Germans in the town, but no bomber crew wanted to do or they simply would not be able to find the town in such bad flying conditions. A Po-2 pilot or pilots volunteered and started a small fire or something that the larger bombers could find. The result was a disasterously sleepless night for the Germans out in the cold and a hasty early departure in the morning in an attempt to break out of the Korsun Bag (that's what this was called I think). In the morning the Germans walked out but were massacred by Soviet cavalry in the ancient Greek/Roman era style. Or so I've read anyways but from a potentially biased source.

But, if this is how it happened, one lowly Po-2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SaQSoN
06-03-2007, 11:48 PM
If you were playing a WW2 AFV sim,would it make sense to leave out the Tiger B but make sure that you had jeeps,kubelwagons and horsedrawn carts?Lots more of those than the Tiger with what..487 produced...

Sure. If I was making a tank sim and would have a choice to add either an obsolecent (from the day, it rolled out of a factory) monstrosity such as PzVIB, or a set of various utility cars/objects (which were MUCH more important for the war, then a tank, that failed EVERY mission, it was on) - I will go for the cars and carts without a dubt. And so will do any hardcore sim fan. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS Yet, this discussion is pointless, anyway, since neither Po-2 cockpit, nor Ki-44 will be added to the FB series.

Korolov1986
06-04-2007, 12:07 AM
Damn you, SaQSoN!!!

Thwarted again!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-04-2007, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by SaQSoN:


PS Yet, this discussion is pointless, anyway, since neither Po-2 cockpit, nor Ki-44 will not be added to the FB series.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif that's a double negative...neither will not be added

Great fodder for the conspiracy theorists! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif