PDA

View Full Version : The 46 Addon just got weirder....



Pages : [1] 2

One13
08-18-2006, 11:37 AM
According to Simhq these originated from Oleg...

http://www.checksix-forums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6732
http://www.checksix-forums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6733

MrMojok
08-18-2006, 11:42 AM
It looks a lot like the 'Palomino', the space ship from the disney movie "The Black Hole".

p1ngu666
08-18-2006, 11:44 AM
woah, anyone know anything about it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

MrMojok
08-18-2006, 11:45 AM
http://www.cinespaceships.net/pic/palomino/palomino_1.jpg

Divine-Wind
08-18-2006, 11:46 AM
Mutant B-Wing on the loose! http://www.battlefield.no/forum/style_emoticons/bf/iiiiik.gif

DuxCorvan
08-18-2006, 11:49 AM
http://luft46.volga.ru/heinkel/helerche.html

According to Spanish Dictionary:

palomino
3. Excrement stain on the underwear.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

berg417448
08-18-2006, 11:49 AM
http://www.luft46.com/heinkel/helerche.html

RCAF_Irish_403
08-18-2006, 11:49 AM
German VSTOL technology

JG53Frankyboy
08-18-2006, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
woah, anyone know anything about it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

no jet, was planed with two DB605 engines , Heinkel Lerche II

Viper2005_
08-18-2006, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
woah, anyone know anything about it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://www.luft46.com/heinkel/helerche.html

I think it's fair to say that the aeroplane would represent and excellent method of tackling vulchers; however I'm not certain what percentage of pilots would be able to land it safely!

Xiolablu3
08-18-2006, 11:55 AM
It looks a bit like the FW Trifluegal?

It was a serious idea for an interceptor, hoping it could reach the bombers very quickly.


http://www.luft46.com/ghart/ghtrieb.html

Maybe a mod on this plane/whatever.

F19_Ob
08-18-2006, 11:55 AM
I guess they finaly got tired of people complaining about right and wrong flightmodels and release planes with 'who-knows'-FM's instead.

Lot less problems I'd say.

Grue_
08-18-2006, 11:58 AM
They could still argue about the weapons.

Brain32
08-18-2006, 12:00 PM
Spitfires - be afraid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Can't wait to try it...if it will be flyable...

DuxCorvan
08-18-2006, 12:01 PM
http://www.migandi.org.uk/sp-maps/assault/ufo.gif http://wwwsbs.in.tum.de/internationales/bilder/ufo.gif http://premium1.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan//ufo.gif

DmdSeeker
08-18-2006, 12:02 PM
The more I see of this; the more dissapointed I am.

Partly because it takes the sim away from WWII; which, after all why I play it, partly because of the fact I know that withing two weeks of it being released it'll be obligatory online the same way the awfull Pe-2 release was; and partly because it makes a mockery of Olegs claim that nothing gets into the sim unless it's really really real.

Every time the subject of "open soucing" IL-2 comes up it's loudly (and I must admit in my opinion quite rightly) denounced. Yet what possible basis can the device pictured above claim to have a flight model??

Sure; there were some drawings; and sure it's a representation of a genuine area of interest to the Luftwaffe.

But where's the charts??

ploughman
08-18-2006, 12:03 PM
Er...so still no Spit XIV?

stathem
08-18-2006, 12:06 PM
Why does 'Wespe' keep going through my mind.

Off to find the book.

WOLFMondo
08-18-2006, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Er...so still no Spit XIV?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Brain32
08-18-2006, 12:08 PM
Er...so still no Spit XIV?
They had the FM ready but decided to put it on this Heinkel, should fit in perfectly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Werg78
08-18-2006, 12:13 PM
WTH?
it looks too good to be photoshoped...

TC_Stele
08-18-2006, 12:18 PM
Wow, I think I saw this on a program once about possible aircraft the Germans were considering.

Monty_Thrud
08-18-2006, 12:19 PM
Excellent smithers...the Spitfire Mk XIV is ready...MUHAHAHAHA!

stathem
08-18-2006, 12:22 PM
Well, it's a giggle and I look forward to it...so long as they all stay on hte eastern front with the other exotics.

The moment I see one (or even a Ta152C) from the cockpit of my overheating, forward view only, asmatic 9lb Tempest - I'm outta there.

Deedsundone
08-18-2006, 12:23 PM
Something like this then.
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Convair-Pogo/info/info.htm

TheGozr
08-18-2006, 12:30 PM
Next Addon release to the 46 addon "Area 51"

Hashmark13
08-18-2006, 12:34 PM
I don't know why everyone rejects the new "what if" addons. Oleg is trying to give us something fun and interesting and everyone whines about Spitfires. We have more spitfires in the game than we have fingers on our hands.

Oleg can't even give us a gift without someone piping up, whining about anything they can get their hands on.

"Spitfire spitfire! Fokker DXXIIXIXIIIXIXIXIXIXIXI!?!?!!"

NagaSadow84
08-18-2006, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
Why does 'Wespe' keep going through my mind.

Off to find the book.

Because the 'Lerche II' was based on the 'Wespe'. Both were designed by Kurt Reininger and G. Schulz of Heinkel Vienna.

Entwurf (Design) A = Wespe
(Entwurf B = Lerche?)
Entwurf C = Lerche II

ploughman
08-18-2006, 12:38 PM
Look mate, I'd pay ‚£10 just for the friggin Spit, let alone all this Luft '46 bollox, which I'll buy anyway for the early Russki jets.

And it's not whining, it's customer feedback. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stathem
08-18-2006, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Look mate, I'd pay ‚£10 just for the friggin Spit, let alone all this Luft '46 bollox, which I'll buy anyway for the early Russki jets.

And it's not whining, it's customer feedback. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You'd pay ‚£10 for a plane you could never fly online? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ploughman
08-18-2006, 12:45 PM
I'd pay ‚£10 just to stroke it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

NagaSadow84
08-18-2006, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Deedsundone:
Something like this then.
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Convair-Pogo/info/info.htm

Convair actually used Heinkel documents in the Development of the XFY-1. Lockheed too, for the XFV-1.

Haigotron
08-18-2006, 01:06 PM
i dont think it takes it away from WW2, in fact, if it really existed, than by all means it can be part of an hypothetical year 1946 addon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

im all for this monstrosity

Haigotron
08-18-2006, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Hashmark13:
I don't know why everyone rejects the new "what if" addons. Oleg is trying to give us something fun and interesting and everyone whines about Spitfires. We have more spitfires in the game than we have fingers on our hands.

Oleg can't even give us a gift without someone piping up, whining about anything they can get their hands on.

"Spitfire spitfire! Fokker DXXIIXIXIIIXIXIXIXIXIXI!?!?!!"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Platypus_1.JaVA
08-18-2006, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Deedsundone:
Something like this then.
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Convair-Pogo/info/info.htm

AHH! I knew it! They nicked it from the Germans!

berg417448
08-18-2006, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Haigotron:
i dont think it takes it away from WW2, in fact, if it really existed, than by all means it can be part of an hypothetical year 1946 addon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

im all for this monstrosity

It existed only on paper.

carguy_
08-18-2006, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
The moment I see one (or even a Ta152C) from the cockpit of my overheating, forward view only, asmatic 9lb Tempest - I'm outta there.

I do the same when P38L late is on the sortie list.

Divine-Wind
08-18-2006, 01:12 PM
Why does the Dev team put in all these fantasticly futuristic flying machines, BUT NO WHIRLYWIND?!

WHHYYYYY!?!?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Monty_Thrud
08-18-2006, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I'd pay ‚£10 just to stroke it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Get your hands off my Spitfire...or the penguin gets it

Bakelit
08-18-2006, 01:19 PM
Why does the Dev team put in all these fantasticly futuristic flying machines, BUT NO WHIRLYWIND?!

Yes, there are are ample aircraft who would actually fit into the context of the sim, or cockpits for AI aircraft which are already in.

Lately it all gets a little hard to believe...

Haigotron
08-18-2006, 01:21 PM
It existed only on paper.

paper has been invented, than its fine by me

berg417448
08-18-2006, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Haigotron:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It existed only on paper.

paper has been invented, than its fine by me

http://luft46.volga.ru/heinkel/helerche.html

unless those photos are models... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The photos are models...but it is on the internet so it must be true? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


looks familiar?

http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/seymour/32/lerchemp.html#

ploughman
08-18-2006, 01:26 PM
I have a date with your six o'clock

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Oooh er! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

CAF96th_Sillyak
08-18-2006, 01:27 PM
I can practice the takeoff, braking and landing procedure by playing the good old game gravity.

Haigotron
08-18-2006, 01:27 PM
Oooh er!

LOL i cant tell if that's happy or sad

Haigotron
08-18-2006, 01:29 PM
looks familiar?

http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/seymour/32/lerchemp.html#


fine fine fine, it didnt exist, but it was going to, if hitler didnt invest in his nuclear powered lederhosen

ploughman
08-18-2006, 01:29 PM
Just noticing, not opinionating. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Monty_Thrud
08-18-2006, 01:32 PM
Actually...hmm...the mkXIV just needs a small part of the CP to be finnished and the Mk 22 was finnished ages ago....sooo...they would fit lovely in '46 addon...TA!

ploughman
08-18-2006, 01:36 PM
Groovy. So do I get a discount for stroking two at once?

stathem
08-18-2006, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Groovy. So do I get a discount for stroking two at once?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/fastshow/wallpaper/images/suityou2_800.jpg

Haigotron
08-18-2006, 01:39 PM
So do I get a discount for stroking two at once?

honestly, that makes my sig look innocent... :P

faustnik
08-18-2006, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by stathem:

The moment I see one (or even a Ta152C) from the cockpit of my overheating, forward view only, asmatic 9lb Tempest - I'm outta there.

Well, it's not like your getting away with +9 boost. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

+11/13 Tempest now!!!

Also, give the +9 some fat wings and call it a Typhoon please.

Haigotron
08-18-2006, 02:16 PM
anyone have more detail about this monstrosity, only a heinkel would love?"

DuxCorvan
08-18-2006, 02:27 PM
Sorry, but, honestly... lol...

I won't make easy jokes about the phallic looks of these things, but, do you really want to have something like this at your 6?

http://luft46.volga.ru/heinkel/lerche/lerche-1.jpg

Note: I also wonder about how AI will deal with TO/landing ops... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Divine-Wind
08-18-2006, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Sorry, but, honestly... lol...

I won't make easy jokes about the phallic looks of these things,[...]
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

leitmotiv
08-18-2006, 02:30 PM
The last add-on is a joke---is this the Star Trek forum?

bienenbaer
08-18-2006, 02:36 PM
Two DB605D with counter rotating propellers. Hopefully, the DM is correctly modelled...

Freiwillige vor!

ploughman
08-18-2006, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Sorry, but, honestly... lol...

I won't make easy jokes about the phallic looks of these things, but, do you really want to have something like this at your 6?

http://luft46.volga.ru/heinkel/lerche/lerche-1.jpg

Note: I also wonder about how AI will deal with TO/landing ops... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You know, now you mention it, they do look like self applicating supossitories. Clearly the technology could've benefitted from a certain degree of minitiarisation to make it viable to anyone other than Godzilla.

marc_hawkins
08-18-2006, 02:47 PM
Well, while like many people have said there are other aircraft i'd prefer to get in this sim (and i'm not actually a late spit lover) it does look like a fun, if slightly phallic crate to take up for a spin. And you know, a plane missing from here but suddenly appearing in BOB is gonna make that new product seem very appealing to those holding out.....

Dunkelgrun
08-18-2006, 03:02 PM
Be afraid people, be very afraid. SOW:BoB is slated to have an autogyro but not a flyable Do17. Maybe this Lerche crapheap is due to appear over the Pas de Calais in Oleg's version of 1940?

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

ploughman
08-18-2006, 03:06 PM
Ah, there you are. Fancy a pint then? I'm orf to France Monday but you up for a jar over the weekend?

NagaSadow84
08-18-2006, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Haigotron:
anyone have more detail about this monstrosity, only a heinkel would love?"

Designed by Kurt Reininger & G. Schulz at Heinkel, Vienna.
Probably based on 'Lerche I' project (which was based on 'Wespe').
Development began on 25th February 1945.

Span: 4m
Length: 9,4 or 9,5m
Wing Area: 12,0m‚¬≤
Takeoff Weight: 5.600kg
Max. Speed: ~800km/h
Engines: 2x DB 605D/E
Arnament: 2x 30mm MK 108

GerritJ9
08-18-2006, 03:31 PM
Looks like the REAL value of 46 will be in the Kyiv map, plus the Ar-234. The effort to produce this monstrosity would have been better spent on something like the Henschel jet bomber (Hs-132 if I remember correctly) which was almost ready for test flying when the factory was overrun, or the Bachem Natter which did actually fly.

NagaSadow84
08-18-2006, 03:39 PM
The Hs 132 would be great.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_006/LC_04-004-Henschel-HS-132-dive%20bomber.jpg

waffen-79
08-18-2006, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
http://www.migandi.org.uk/sp-maps/assault/ufo.gif http://wwwsbs.in.tum.de/internationales/bilder/ufo.gif http://premium1.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan//ufo.gif


WTF!? more spitfires? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif j/k


Originally posted by NagaSadow84:
The Hs 132 would be great.


Indeed they should drop the Ta-183 and this other plane and make the HS-132

waffen-79
08-18-2006, 03:47 PM
Don't mean to spam, but:

Problem is that the planes modelled are the ones the developers like.

I would've like the HS-132 also

or a Friggin 4 engined Bomber but...

Divine-Wind
08-18-2006, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
http://www.migandi.org.uk/sp-maps/assault/ufo.gif http://wwwsbs.in.tum.de/internationales/bilder/ufo.gif http://premium1.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan//ufo.gif


WTF!? more spitfires? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif j/k </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

SeaFireLIV
08-18-2006, 03:53 PM
Well now THAT definitely didn`t exist in or around or by or maybe after, before or btween WWII!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

fordfan25
08-18-2006, 04:01 PM
i wish thay would put the time and effort into planes that people will actauly fly for more than a few days instead off all these fantasy planes. a saber and mig 15 anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dunkelgrun
08-18-2006, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Ah, there you are. Fancy a pint then? I'm orf to France Monday but you up for a jar over the weekend?

No can do this weekend. Going to the air show at Rougham.

Cheers!

TheGozr
08-18-2006, 04:08 PM
I want the Rocketeer, They did have blueprint too....


http://www.alyon.org/generale/theatre/cinema/affiches_cinema/r/rev-roo/rocketeer.jpg

http://www.subfrequenz.net/8mm/images/a46278efaa37a1ecf84e12aa01b376b4.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcjasmith/rrpbp/rocketpack1.jpg

What?.....He.. fought the germans too..

Scharnhorst1943
08-18-2006, 04:20 PM
All of these silly 'what if' technological terrors are insignifigant next to the power of the force ...

Divine-Wind
08-18-2006, 04:25 PM
If he gets the Rocketeer, then I get to have a Firebrand.
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/1525/firebrandblueprintsog7.jpg

DuxCorvan
08-18-2006, 04:27 PM
Hs 129? Hs 123? Do 17Z? Do 217? Me 410? MS.406? D.520? P-36? Boomerang? Ki-45? Ki-44? Lancaster? Potez 63? Bloch MB.152? CR.32? P-40N? Meteor? Airacomet? Whirlwind? Swordfish? SM.79? B-26? Bv 238? Bv 141? Stinson L-5? Pete? Nell? Caudron 'jockey' fighter? PZL P.24? IK-3? Fulmar? Albacore? Firefly? Ventura? C-46?

And if going with "1946 what ifs", how 'bout Shinden? Kikka? Sea Fury? F7F? F8F? La-11? FR-1 Fireball? Bachem Natter? Me 263? Vampire? Spiteful? DH Hornet? Ta 154? Ar 240?

Anything should be preferable to this Flash Gordon creature. It's not like they had no choices. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

But, well, again, it's them who make it, so I guess I'll be happy with anything they do. Only I could have been ever happier.

nealn
08-18-2006, 04:27 PM
The aircraft is late war German VTOL technology.

The idea was, that with allied fighters having been released from escort duty and shooting the ****** out of German airfields and planes on the ground, a bomber interceptor with vertical takeoff and landing abilities could be hiddden in the forests.

Neal

slo_1_2_3
08-18-2006, 04:37 PM
So is this realy going to be in the addon or what?

MadBadVlad
08-18-2006, 04:40 PM
Ewwwwww, scarey http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif I pity the test pilot who had to prove that project was designed by a sound mind. Looks like that rocket fuelled mutant will produce nice fireworks with a few cannon shells in it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

JG52Uther
08-18-2006, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Hs 129? Hs 123? Do 17Z? Do 217? Me 410? MS.406? D.520? P-36? Boomerang? Ki-45? Ki-44? Lancaster? Potez 63? Bloch MB.152? CR.32? P-40N? Meteor? Airacomet? Whirlwind? Swordfish? SM.79? B-26? Bv 238? Bv 141? Stinson L-5? Pete? Nell? Caudron 'jockey' fighter? PZL P.24? IK-3? Fulmar? Albacore? Firefly? Ventura? C-46?

And if going with "1946 what ifs", how 'bout Shinden? Kikka? Sea Fury? F7F? F8F? La-11? FR-1 Fireball? Bachem Natter? Me 263? Vampire? Spiteful? DH Hornet? Ta 154? Ar 240?

Anything should be preferable to this Flash Gordon creature. It's not like they had no choices. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

But, well, again, it's them who make it, so I guess I'll be happy with anything they do. Only I could have been ever happier.
Now you are just being controversial

Fox_3
08-18-2006, 04:42 PM
Should make for some interesting missions as a flyable or target.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hashmark13
08-18-2006, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Hs 129? Hs 123? Do 17Z? Do 217? Me 410? MS.406? D.520? P-36? Boomerang? Ki-45? Ki-44? Lancaster? Potez 63? Bloch MB.152? CR.32? P-40N? Meteor? Airacomet? Whirlwind? Swordfish? SM.79? B-26? Bv 238? Bv 141? Stinson L-5? Pete? Nell? Caudron 'jockey' fighter? PZL P.24? IK-3? Fulmar? Albacore? Firefly? Ventura? C-46?

And if going with "1946 what ifs", how 'bout Shinden? Kikka? Sea Fury? F7F? F8F? La-11? FR-1 Fireball? Bachem Natter? Me 263? Vampire? Spiteful? DH Hornet? Ta 154? Ar 240?

Anything should be preferable to this Flash Gordon creature. It's not like they had no choices. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

But, well, again, it's them who make it, so I guess I'll be happy with anything they do. Only I could have been ever happier.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif - Only because those are all very interesting aircraft.. as opposed to even more uber spitfires so red is always dominant. Thanks for the list.

Unrelated, but I love how when blue gets a nice competant aircraft, red flee to the forums and complain. Truly, I do.

I kind of doubt that this "aircraft" will make the cut, perhaps Oleg has a sense of humour, you know. Just maybe.

p1ngu666
08-18-2006, 04:56 PM
well, on the plus side its something total different, and will be interesting to fly

and presumeably, hard too.

the downside? the obivous "wtf"

F6_Ace
08-18-2006, 04:58 PM
That'll never see the light of day as it will cause almost as much online lag as the unsync'd .50s!

BiscuitKnight
08-18-2006, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Hs 129? Hs 123? Do 17Z? Do 217? Me 410? MS.406? D.520? P-36? Boomerang? Ki-45? Ki-44? Lancaster? Potez 63? Bloch MB.152? CR.32? P-40N? Meteor? Airacomet? Whirlwind? Swordfish? SM.79? B-26? Bv 238? Bv 141? Stinson L-5? Pete? Nell? Caudron 'jockey' fighter? PZL P.24? IK-3? Fulmar? Albacore? Firefly? Ventura? C-46?

And if going with "1946 what ifs", how 'bout Shinden? Kikka? Sea Fury? F7F? F8F? La-11? FR-1 Fireball? Bachem Natter? Me 263? Vampire? Spiteful? DH Hornet? Ta 154? Ar 240?

Anything should be preferable to this Flash Gordon creature. It's not like they had no choices. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

But, well, again, it's them who make it, so I guess I'll be happy with anything they do. Only I could have been ever happier.

I'd like to see the 'rang, too. Especially since all those pre-Harrier VTOl planes just "throwing sticked" on their test pilots.

PBNA-Boosher
08-18-2006, 05:02 PM
Looks sweet!

MrMojok
08-18-2006, 05:02 PM
But can we use trim on a slider with it?

Divine-Wind
08-18-2006, 05:03 PM
Like I said... I want a Firebrand...

Preferably in a nice green/brown cammerflarje scheme.

carguy_
08-18-2006, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Hashmark13:
Unrelated, but I love how when blue gets a nice competant aircraft, red flee to the forums and complain. Truly, I do.


No matter how "competent" your Luftwaffle plane will be,the graphics engine aswell as the physics engine of this game will always make LW/USAAF disadvantaged.

ploughman
08-18-2006, 05:15 PM
I'm in favour of having a Spitfire Mk. XIV over gravitating shopping trollies because:

A. It actually existed and flew in combat druing World War Two.

B. It's addition that would give the Spitfire a fairly complete plane set, certainly one that was representative of the chronolgy of the game/sim.

C. It would give all that Luftwhiners somthing to cry about for another 12 months. You only have to mention Spitfire XIV and they start posting drivel about "but I love how when blue gets a nice competant aircraft, red flee to the forums and complain. Truly, I do." And so on.

Let's keep the Luft Whines whinging.

Spit '46!

Aardvark184
08-18-2006, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Divine-Wind:
Why does the Dev team put in all these fantasticly futuristic flying machines, BUT NO WHIRLYWIND?!

WHHYYYYY!?!?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Because no one's made it. If you want the Whirly, someone's got to actually sit down, build the thing, and submit it to the developers!

Tim

Monty_Thrud
08-18-2006, 05:33 PM
Thw Whirlwind won't be in till BoB ....s0000 get yer air cut ya poooof...mmm-kay

Monty_Thrud
08-18-2006, 05:36 PM
Big ol' cannons...crazy *** cannons....normally called NORKS....ooooooK....WHOPPERS

Chuck_Older
08-18-2006, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Haigotron:
i dont think it takes it away from WW2, in fact, if it really existed, than by all means it can be part of an hypothetical year 1946 addon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

im all for this monstrosity

It existed only on paper. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The year 1946 didn't exist in WWII at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the name of the add-on might give away that we're dealing with some what-ifs

We all know we get content based on what the modellers are interested in modelling. Nobody's forced to fly this (ugly f'n) thing. But the '46 add-on could contains lots and lots of other very good-for-real-war-scenarios.

I'd never buy an add-on for one plane, but I'm lucky; I like almost all '30s and '40's and '50s aviation, so I'll probably never be interested in just one plane. But what I want to know is- what maps will we get, and what objects will we get with the '46 add-on??????

Badsight-
08-18-2006, 07:53 PM
& here i was thinking the Ta-183 was going to be the only plane Badsight would ban . . . . .

Viper2005_
08-18-2006, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I'm in favour of having a Spitfire Mk. XIV over gravitating shopping trollies because:

A. It actually existed and flew in combat druing World War Two.

B. It's addition that would give the Spitfire a fairly complete plane set, certainly one that was representative of the chronolgy of the game/sim.

C. It would give all that Luftwhiners somthing to cry about for another 12 months. You only have to mention Spitfire XIV and they start posting drivel about "but I love how when blue gets a nice competant aircraft, red flee to the forums and complain. Truly, I do." And so on.

Let's keep the Luft Whines whinging.

Spit '46!

I would suggest that if you want to complete the Spitfire planeset, the aeroplane you need is the Spitfire IX in its original incarnation with the Merlin 61, since this would do wonders for the balance in mid-war scenarios (as would a Typhoon).

If you want to outclass the Luftwaffe in late war scenarios, the XIV wasn't the ultimate wartime Spitfire; probably the 21 was the ultimate, though the XVIII had its fans.

Then of course there's the 494 mph Spiteful.

Not to mention the naval versions...

But even with all of those, we'd still be short of Spitfires. The VI and VII were actually more important than many would credit, in that they contributed to the discontinuation of the high-altitude war - at one stage in about 1941/1942 it seemed the air war would be fought above 45,000 feet...

If you're not wed to Supermarine, and are happy to go for a "what if" scenario, why not go for a Martin-Baker M.B.5?

What about a few more Mosquitos, or perhaps the mighty Hornet for 1946?

Given that there are a lot of German jets out there, why not give us a Spidercrab/Vampire, or perhaps a Meteor?

Enforcer572005
08-18-2006, 08:30 PM
Id settle for tail hooks on a Hurri and a gladiator.

And a few ships.

And AI that obeys commands.

Hey, everybody else is fantasizing, so ...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

p1ngu666
08-18-2006, 09:33 PM
wonder what the performance would be like. the early helecopters where pretty pants because the power/weight/size of piston engine, plus i have no idea how well the germans where getting on with contra props

the other thing i noticed is its shape is similer to that of a butt plug http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

maybe goering had a hand in its design http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

_VR_ScorpionWorm
08-18-2006, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Haigotron:
i dont think it takes it away from WW2, in fact, if it really existed, than by all means it can be part of an hypothetical year 1946 addon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

im all for this monstrosity

It existed only on paper. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The year 1946 didn't exist in WWII at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the name of the add-on might give away that we're dealing with some what-ifs

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, I'm tired of seeing all these whining post of 'why can't we have this if we are getting that'. First off, like stated many times before ITS 1946!!! DUH, the war didn't extend that long, this addon is to simulate IF the war did reach '46 and what we might POSSIBLY see. Oh, it didn't fly waaa, I want my Spit [insert type here].

1946, 'nuff said.

berg417448
08-18-2006, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by _VR_ScorpionWorm:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Haigotron:
i dont think it takes it away from WW2, in fact, if it really existed, than by all means it can be part of an hypothetical year 1946 addon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

im all for this monstrosity

It existed only on paper. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The year 1946 didn't exist in WWII at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the name of the add-on might give away that we're dealing with some what-ifs

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, I'm tired of seeing all these whining post of 'why can't we have this if we are getting that'. First off, like stated many times before ITS 1946!!! DUH, the war didn't extend that long, this addon is to simulate IF the war did reach '46 and what we might POSSIBLY see. Oh, it didn't fly waaa, I want my Spit [insert type here].

1946, 'nuff said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You two missed the point of my response entirely. He specifically said "if it really existed" and I responded that it existed only on paper. Nothing more. I don't care if it is the game or not. They can put anything in the game they want.

'nuff said indeed.

fordfan25
08-18-2006, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Hs 129? Hs 123? Do 17Z? Do 217? Me 410? MS.406? D.520? P-36? Boomerang? Ki-45? Ki-44? Lancaster? Potez 63? Bloch MB.152? CR.32? P-40N? Meteor? Airacomet? Whirlwind? Swordfish? SM.79? B-26? Bv 238? Bv 141? Stinson L-5? Pete? Nell? Caudron 'jockey' fighter? PZL P.24? IK-3? Fulmar? Albacore? Firefly? Ventura? C-46?

And if going with "1946 what ifs", how 'bout Shinden? Kikka? Sea Fury? F7F? F8F? La-11? FR-1 Fireball? Bachem Natter? Me 263? Vampire? Spiteful? DH Hornet? Ta 154? Ar 240?

Anything should be preferable to this Flash Gordon creature. It's not like they had no choices. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

But, well, again, it's them who make it, so I guess I'll be happy with anything they do. Only I could have been ever happier. And p51H f4u-4 p47 N/M avenger the PBY gib was working on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

fordfan25
08-18-2006, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Hashmark13:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Hs 129? Hs 123? Do 17Z? Do 217? Me 410? MS.406? D.520? P-36? Boomerang? Ki-45? Ki-44? Lancaster? Potez 63? Bloch MB.152? CR.32? P-40N? Meteor? Airacomet? Whirlwind? Swordfish? SM.79? B-26? Bv 238? Bv 141? Stinson L-5? Pete? Nell? Caudron 'jockey' fighter? PZL P.24? IK-3? Fulmar? Albacore? Firefly? Ventura? C-46?

And if going with "1946 what ifs", how 'bout Shinden? Kikka? Sea Fury? F7F? F8F? La-11? FR-1 Fireball? Bachem Natter? Me 263? Vampire? Spiteful? DH Hornet? Ta 154? Ar 240?

Anything should be preferable to this Flash Gordon creature. It's not like they had no choices. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

But, well, again, it's them who make it, so I guess I'll be happy with anything they do. Only I could have been ever happier.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif - Only because those are all very interesting aircraft.. as opposed to even more uber spitfires so red is always dominant. Thanks for the list.

Unrelated, but I love how when blue gets a nice competant aircraft, red flee to the forums and complain. Truly, I do.

I kind of doubt that this "aircraft" will make the cut, perhaps Oleg has a sense of humour, you know. Just maybe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>you mean like the blues did when the reds got a p38L-late and p47D or when the .50's started haveing less shot gun spread like ALL other guns in game.

Ob.Emann
08-18-2006, 10:28 PM
I would say something sarcastic, pessimistic, and cynical like everyone else if I weren't so sure this is just a hoax by Oleg to throw the forum into chaos and anarchy. He penetrates this communities' mindset exceedingly well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Badsight-
08-18-2006, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
Id settle for tail hooks on a Hurri and a gladiator. both takeoff/land on Carriers right now just fine

Feathered_IV
08-18-2006, 11:36 PM
I wish we could get some of these.
They WERE declared operational after all:


http://www.revell.de/katalog/400/04613.JPG

LEXX_Luthor
08-19-2006, 12:23 AM
Mutant B-Wing on the loose!

P-51 Mutant.

bienenbaer
08-19-2006, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
I wish we could get some of these.
They WERE declared operational after all:


http://www.revell.de/katalog/400/04613.JPG

+1

bienenbaer
08-19-2006, 01:14 AM
Yes, the Natter, please. It will give thrilling flight paths when you try to land the Natter in sail-flight after picking out one Lastwagen and being chased down by 16 furious Indianer.

luthier1
08-19-2006, 02:34 AM
Frankly, I'm amazed at some of the sentiment I see in response to the '46 material. I wholeheartedly disagree that the likes of the P-36 and the Do-17 are crucial to the sim, and that we are fools for working in the direction we're working.

First of all, there's the matter of reliable data. Obviously, the accuracy requirements for the Ta-183 or the Lerche are different from the ones we have for the planes that actually flew. To make a hypothetical version of a hypothetical plane for a hypothetical conflict, we can allow ourselves a certain degree of freedom, and make a "best-guess" cockpit, or base the external model on questionable blueprints. For a plane like a Do-17 or a Hs-123, we have no such right. If we don't have reliable reference on an actual plane that actually fought in the war, we won't make it.

Secondly, the number of planes not yet modeled is huge, while our resources are very limited. We can't make them all. Of course, certain forum fanatics feel that the lack of, say, a flyable Hs-129 is a horrible war crime, and a tremendous disservice to the community; however, objectively, compared to the rest of the existing plane list, most of these missing planes are of little consequence. People only tend to care for them when they don't have them; once we do model planes like that, the announcements are scarcely noticed, and the community at large flies them once or twice at best and forgets about them, switching instead to lamenting the absence of some other plane of tertiary importance.

Thirdly, there's the commercial aspect. Somehow the mention of this is often criminal, but unfortunately all of us have bills to pay, and lifestyles to support. At this stage of our lives, when the sim is five years old, and the last major release was almost two years ago, we have to focus on projects of at least some commercial value.

And finally, there's the matter of fun. The 46 project adds something compeltely new: jet combat on a relatively mature level. It's completely new gameplay, completely new tactics, completely new realities. Please try to focus on the larger picture. You're getting the Ar-234. You're getting a Ta-152C. You're getting the X-4 rocket. You're finally getting dozens of ground objects that mission builders have been asking for for years. Please forgive the indulgence of a single team member who built a flying meat-grinder in his spare time at home. The add-on is going to be awesome.

Waldo.Pepper
08-19-2006, 02:36 AM
I think I'm leaving soon.

JG52Uther
08-19-2006, 02:52 AM
Roll on BoB
(Maybe one day we will get the totally unimportant Do17)

Abbuzze
08-19-2006, 02:57 AM
This planes are nice for a book or a homepage. I would have no problem with this stuff, if this would be a stand alone game, like I have no problem if someone wants to fly Tie-fighter vs. X-wing.

What makes me feeling sad, is the fact that this stuff will come to the patchline, and even if you haven‚¬īt any benefit or interest of this, you will have to buy it, if you want to play online. Money I could give a derelict for alcohol (would be a less waste of money for me).

Nevertheless the 3D modell and the skin is well made. Good job.

luthier1
08-19-2006, 03:01 AM
I wasn't aware we were stuffing this down anyone's throat, and if that's perceived to be the case, I apologise. I can understand the dislike for some individual planes, but the whole add-on? The viable, historical planes like the Ar-234, Ta-152C, I-250, and Yak-3 VK-107A will surely be a welcome addition, as will be the large historical Kiev map?

Or you can simply consider me and Oleg the alcoholic derelicts. We're not far off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

csThor
08-19-2006, 03:03 AM
Posted by luthier:
Frankly, I'm amazed at some of the sentiment I see in response to the '46 material.

Well ... I don't know why you're amazed. I could have predicted it without even looking into details of the project. A lot of people simply don't care about these What-If projects. Especially not if there are glaring omissions from the planeset of the actual WW2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luthier1
08-19-2006, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by csThor:

Well ... I don't know why you're amazed. I could have predicted it without even looking into details of the project. A lot of people simply don't care about these What-If projects. Especially not if there are glaring omissions from the planeset of the actual WW2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'll be glad to debate each "glaring omission" specifically, if my explanation above was insufficient.

And I guess it was naive for me to expect a universally warm reception, having been a part of this community since the very beginning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm mostly consoled by the fact that we'd get flamed no matter what we chose to do, because we can't possibly do everything. We're doing two add-ons, Pe-2 and Manchuria, that plug some of the holes in our sim, and we're doing the third for the sheer fun of it, and to expand the horizons.

Feathered_IV
08-19-2006, 03:13 AM
Please forgive the indulgence of a single team member who built a flying meat-grinder in his spare time at home. The add-on is going to be awesome

No hard feelings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Can we have the Manchuria one now though, please http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Feathered_IV
08-19-2006, 03:15 AM
And the Natter WOULD be pretty cool too eh?

Abbuzze
08-19-2006, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by luthier1:

Or you can simply consider me and Oleg the alcoholic derelicts. We're not far off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-HH-Dubbo
08-19-2006, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by luthier1:
Frankly, I'm amazed at some of the sentiment I see in response to the '46 material. I wholeheartedly disagree that the likes of the P-36 and the Do-17 are crucial to the sim, and that we are fools for working in the direction we're working.

First of all, there's the matter of reliable data. Obviously, the accuracy requirements for the Ta-183 or the Lerche are different from the ones we have for the planes that actually flew. To make a hypothetical version of a hypothetical plane for a hypothetical conflict, we can allow ourselves a certain degree of freedom, and make a "best-guess" cockpit, or base the external model on questionable blueprints. For a plane like a Do-17 or a Hs-123, we have no such right. If we don't have reliable reference on an actual plane that actually fought in the war, we won't make it.

Secondly, the number of planes not yet modeled is huge, while our resources are very limited. We can't make them all. Of course, certain forum fanatics feel that the lack of, say, a flyable Hs-129 is a horrible war crime, and a tremendous disservice to the community; however, objectively, compared to the rest of the existing plane list, most of these missing planes are of little consequence. People only tend to care for them when they don't have them; once we do model planes like that, the announcements are scarcely noticed, and the community at large flies them once or twice at best and forgets about them, switching instead to lamenting the absence of some other plane of tertiary importance.

Thirdly, there's the commercial aspect. Somehow the mention of this is often criminal, but unfortunately all of us have bills to pay, and lifestyles to support. At this stage of our lives, when the sim is five years old, and the last major release was almost two years ago, we have to focus on projects of at least some commercial value.

And finally, there's the matter of fun. The 46 project adds something compeltely new: jet combat on a relatively mature level. It's completely new gameplay, completely new tactics, completely new realities. Please try to focus on the larger picture. You're getting the Ar-234. You're getting a Ta-152C. You're getting the X-4 rocket. You're finally getting dozens of ground objects that mission builders have been asking for for years. Please forgive the indulgence of a single team member who built a flying meat-grinder in his spare time at home. The add-on is going to be awesome.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Makes sense to me. I think there's something wrong with the rest of you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

NerdConnected
08-19-2006, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Sorry, but, honestly... lol...

I won't make easy jokes about the phallic looks of these things, but, do you really want to have something like this at your 6?

http://luft46.volga.ru/heinkel/lerche/lerche-1.jpg

Note: I also wonder about how AI will deal with TO/landing ops... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Maybe first 'proof' that AI wil be changed and hopefully improved with '46 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Mark

csThor
08-19-2006, 03:20 AM
I'll take it to the mail, Ilya. I have to send something anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Feathered_IV
08-19-2006, 03:28 AM
Consider the '46 addon the wrap-party for a great show http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Like Luthier said, its for fun. Just have some http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Von_Rat
08-19-2006, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by luthier1:
Frankly, I'm amazed at some of the sentiment I see in response to the '46 material. I wholeheartedly disagree that the likes of the P-36 and the Do-17 are crucial to the sim, and that we are fools for working in the direction we're working.

First of all, there's the matter of reliable data. Obviously, the accuracy requirements for the Ta-183 or the Lerche are different from the ones we have for the planes that actually flew. To make a hypothetical version of a hypothetical plane for a hypothetical conflict, we can allow ourselves a certain degree of freedom, and make a "best-guess" cockpit, or base the external model on questionable blueprints. For a plane like a Do-17 or a Hs-123, we have no such right. If we don't have reliable reference on an actual plane that actually fought in the war, we won't make it.

Secondly, the number of planes not yet modeled is huge, while our resources are very limited. We can't make them all. Of course, certain forum fanatics feel that the lack of, say, a flyable Hs-129 is a horrible war crime, and a tremendous disservice to the community; however, objectively, compared to the rest of the existing plane list, most of these missing planes are of little consequence. People only tend to care for them when they don't have them; once we do model planes like that, the announcements are scarcely noticed, and the community at large flies them once or twice at best and forgets about them, switching instead to lamenting the absence of some other plane of tertiary importance.

Thirdly, there's the commercial aspect. Somehow the mention of this is often criminal, but unfortunately all of us have bills to pay, and lifestyles to support. At this stage of our lives, when the sim is five years old, and the last major release was almost two years ago, we have to focus on projects of at least some commercial value.

And finally, there's the matter of fun. The 46 project adds something compeltely new: jet combat on a relatively mature level. It's completely new gameplay, completely new tactics, completely new realities. Please try to focus on the larger picture. You're getting the Ar-234. You're getting a Ta-152C. You're getting the X-4 rocket. You're finally getting dozens of ground objects that mission builders have been asking for for years. Please forgive the indulgence of a single team member who built a flying meat-grinder in his spare time at home. The add-on is going to be awesome.


good post


all the nay sayers posting here gotta lighten up and just have some fun.

masaker2005
08-19-2006, 03:39 AM
UFO? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


At least La-7 will finally get its opponent. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Brain32
08-19-2006, 03:42 AM
Personally I like the idea of 1946 content, since luthier is here I wonder if any planes of western allies are planned for the '46 or is the add-on focused on Eastern Front only?

triggerhappyfin
08-19-2006, 04:24 AM
http://rrgstudios.com/img/1946/33_full.jpg


X-4 will be interesting...but this Helerche thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif..somebody's got too much Vodka?http://www.checksix-forums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6732

Will it take over the position of most unwanted plane in the game after the GO-229. A plane never used online http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif.

notamuppet
08-19-2006, 04:29 AM
Well I think that it will be fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But I would also like new ships and some of the stuff that a certain company has created problems with!

I.JG53_Steuben
08-19-2006, 04:31 AM
Rockets ont the Fw190-F8?? great!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1D_we4nW-4

NerdConnected
08-19-2006, 04:32 AM
luthier1,

Despite what some others say, call me a fanboy, '46 looks great.

http://rrgstudios.com/img/1946/33_full.jpg
http://rrgstudios.com/img/1946/34_full.jpg

So, we're getting some AI updates as well? I mean rocket guidance, VTOL.

Those things are currently not in Il2 right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Mark

badatflyski
08-19-2006, 04:33 AM
Nice!!
the X-4 and the ta-183!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif thanks luthier for the info!
Love the what-if planes,hours of fun in perspective in a end45 scenario: germans and allies together fighting the russians on 2fronts: japan(mandchuria) and europe!, perfect! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Can't wait!

ps: here is the 46'spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif :
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/spitcopy2.jpg

triggerhappyfin
08-19-2006, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
Nice!!
the X-4 and the ta-183!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif thanks luthier for the info!
Love the what-if planes,hours of fun in perspective in a end45 scenario: germans and allies together fighting the russians on 2fronts: japan(mandchuria) and europe!, perfect! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Can't wait!

ps: here is the 46'spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif :
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/spitcopy2.jpg

LOL, weird as your sudgestion is, it would fit right into 46 addon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.

Looks like this addon distance it self from the simmers of the community http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
I wish these addons would stay somewhat in the 'reality area'. Things from the draving board could be left to the arcade guys.

For Gods sake addon makers! Do an addon that fills in the blank areas of the forgotten battles and forget about these fairytail planes.

Viper2005_
08-19-2006, 04:50 AM
Well, personally I'm far more interested in Luft46 than Manchuria.

I bought PE2 to keep up to date. Had I not needed it to fly on warclouds I would certainly have been in no hurry to buy it on its merits, since my interest in the Pe-2 is strictly limited; I think I've flown the thing about twice.

I'll buy the Manchuria addon for the same reason, though I'm also interested in the IL10. Maybe I'll fly it 3 times...

But the Luft46 addon I'm more than happy to buy strictly on its merits because the aeroplanes it adds are interesting.

I'd also like to fly this:

http://www.luft46.com/horten/ho13b.html

Of course I'd like to see more RAF aircraft (the wish list on that front is too long for this post!), but I'll take what I can get, and the luft46 stuff looks fun! I'm really looking forward to it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NerdConnected
08-19-2006, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by I.JG53_Steuben:
Rockets ont the Fw190-F8?? great!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1D_we4nW-4

That movie is hilarious! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

DIRTY-MAC
08-19-2006, 04:54 AM
How could this thing fly at all, thats not much to have for a wing

http://www.checksix-forums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6732

triggerhappyfin
08-19-2006, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
How could this thing fly at all, thats not much to have for a wing

http://www.checksix-forums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6732

Prolly did'nt and as such a waste of effort..for arcaders only http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif.

triggerhappyfin
08-19-2006, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by I.JG53_Steuben:
Rockets ont the Fw190-F8?? great!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1D_we4nW-4

LOL...include this in the addon, while weirdness lasts.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Atzebrueck
08-19-2006, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by luthier1:
Frankly, I'm amazed at some of the sentiment I see in response to the '46 material. I wholeheartedly disagree that the likes of the P-36 and the Do-17 are crucial to the sim, and that we are fools for working in the direction we're working.

First of all, there's the matter of reliable data. Obviously, the accuracy requirements for the Ta-183 or the Lerche are different from the ones we have for the planes that actually flew. To make a hypothetical version of a hypothetical plane for a hypothetical conflict, we can allow ourselves a certain degree of freedom, and make a "best-guess" cockpit, or base the external model on questionable blueprints. For a plane like a Do-17 or a Hs-123, we have no such right. If we don't have reliable reference on an actual plane that actually fought in the war, we won't make it.

Secondly, the number of planes not yet modeled is huge, while our resources are very limited. We can't make them all. Of course, certain forum fanatics feel that the lack of, say, a flyable Hs-129 is a horrible war crime, and a tremendous disservice to the community; however, objectively, compared to the rest of the existing plane list, most of these missing planes are of little consequence. People only tend to care for them when they don't have them; once we do model planes like that, the announcements are scarcely noticed, and the community at large flies them once or twice at best and forgets about them, switching instead to lamenting the absence of some other plane of tertiary importance.

Thirdly, there's the commercial aspect. Somehow the mention of this is often criminal, but unfortunately all of us have bills to pay, and lifestyles to support. At this stage of our lives, when the sim is five years old, and the last major release was almost two years ago, we have to focus on projects of at least some commercial value.

And finally, there's the matter of fun. The 46 project adds something compeltely new: jet combat on a relatively mature level. It's completely new gameplay, completely new tactics, completely new realities. Please try to focus on the larger picture. You're getting the Ar-234. You're getting a Ta-152C. You're getting the X-4 rocket. You're finally getting dozens of ground objects that mission builders have been asking for for years. Please forgive the indulgence of a single team member who built a flying meat-grinder in his spare time at home. The add-on is going to be awesome.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG53Frankyboy
08-19-2006, 05:25 AM
well, but now dont forget the VVS !

so far, beside the BI versions (get they are flyable FM ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ), it gets "only" planes that flew actually and saw sometimes limited service......

and they need some heavy punch for Tankhunting - think about he Maus. or will the IL10 still have to do this job ?
and for the JS tanks, please, some Panzerblitz 2 - sure , only if you have time and money for that R4M modification............
as best for a Fw190F-9 .

so far the planeset for WW'46 looks only as its would be a pure dogfight (Arada 234 was already in WW2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

FI-Skipper
08-19-2006, 05:32 AM
I hope this is a joke.Il2 really is turning into a joke.We get bollox addons like this full of cr@p that never saw action yet we have no Lancaster , Wellington , B-17 etc because of BS arguments that don't hold up.

Great work Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

DuxCorvan
08-19-2006, 05:52 AM
Luthier, I see your point, and I understand how real life issues are also to be considered in this context.

I also think I'm going to enjoy all this stuff, and I'm buying it. After all, I was an avid player of SWOTL.

It's only that the sim would have benefitted a lot from other choices, and I can remember, when PF was in development, that you were saying right here you'd never allow a Shinden to be built and inside the game -even if Shinden was a far more viable project and was about to enter the production line.

Too many things have happened since then, and I admit that those Lerche things may sell better than some of the less spectacular obscure real stuff we the aviation buffs are so fond of.

Well, I'm sure the add-on is gonna be interesting and fun. And controversial, too. For my part, I'm willing to enjoy it.

JG53Frankyboy
08-19-2006, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by luthier1:
...................

Secondly, the number of planes not yet modeled is huge, while our resources are very limited. We can't make them all. Of course, certain forum fanatics feel that the lack of, say, a flyable Hs-129 is a horrible war crime, and a tremendous disservice to the community; however, objectively, compared to the rest of the existing plane list, most of these missing planes are of little consequence. People only tend to care for them when they don't have them; once we do model planes like that, the announcements are scarcely noticed, and the community at large flies them once or twice at best and forgets about them, switching instead to lamenting the absence of some other plane of tertiary importance.

..................

ah, i see that you know alot what your costumers are doing...............

as about your Hs129 example, for example (again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) ask the ADW community what they would do with that thing !
or offline players where not in every sortie you would meet hordes of triggerhappy fighter joks and who are enjoing a good ground assault ride.

Feathered_IV
08-19-2006, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
How could this thing fly at all, thats not much to have for a wing


Nazi's only fly with the right-wing anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://www.airventure.de/historypics/bv_141.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
08-19-2006, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
How could this thing fly at all, thats not much to have for a wing


Nazi's only fly with the right-wing anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heil D√¬∂nitz !
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

bienenbaer
08-19-2006, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by luthier1:
And finally, there's the matter of fun. The 46 project adds something compeltely new: jet combat on a relatively mature level. It's completely new gameplay, completely new tactics, completely new realities. Please try to focus on the larger picture. You're getting the Ar-234. You're getting a Ta-152C. You're getting the X-4 rocket. You're finally getting dozens of ground objects that mission builders have been asking for for years. Please forgive the indulgence of a single team member who built a flying meat-grinder in his spare time at home. The add-on is going to be awesome.

Agree. First of all, it is a game.

On-line and off-line you do not need to fly missions with ze wonderplanes if you do not want.

Actually I am looking forward for BoB. Hopefully the "realistic hardcore simmers" may then leave for the Battle of Britain and the IL2+AEP+PF community can relax from much of vitriol we have seen in performance and accuracy discussions. Of course, FM and DM should be as close to reality AS THEY CAN POSSIBLY GET. However, it's a game and neither a real war nor a definite, binding evaluation of once's countries war efforts and military achievements.

That said, a Whirly or a bubble-canopy late war spitfire was really nice. For that kind of add-on on CD I would pay MFS prices of 30 to 40 $‚"ö¨.

Monty_Thrud
08-19-2006, 06:07 AM
Could we have that Spitfire with the 3 Hispanos in each wing...


...actually, no...i just wanted to say Spitfire again, as it seems to upset some people... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Bandit.426Cdn
08-19-2006, 06:08 AM
I'm no fanboi, but i do look forward to the "what-if" expandability to IL-2 that this add-on offers.

Yes, I do wish IC:Maddox/RRG would have chosen it's plane list a little more carefully, on which ones to model for historic continuity of the sim. There have been glaring omissions made, whether due to the PF fiasco, or a case of aircraft models either not having been made to spec, or not made at all. There is not much that can be done about that now, this late into the game, so there is no use to whine about it all now.

It would be nice to get some input from those with the info, as to _when_ in the timeline, that we'll actually get these addon's. So far, this summer has been a massive disappointment with ongoing lack of communications as to the status of v.406 and v.407 and their real release dates, instead of the usual '2 weeks' (now 2 months?) BS. Also, where does the 'standalone' RRG project play a role in all of this?

Hopefully IC:Maddox/RRG have got their ducks in a row with BOB much more than IL2 in terms of planning, and have got a firm, inclusive list of aircraft 'players' lined up as per OOB of history. They've had IL2 and five years to learn from forum input/whining, that they need to pay close attention to this aspect of 'simming' BOB.

Bring on v.407 please, just make it soon.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

triggerhappyfin
08-19-2006, 06:08 AM
Thirdly, there's the commercial aspect. Somehow the mention of this is often criminal, but unfortunately all of us have bills to pay, and lifestyles to support. At this stage of our lives, when the sim is five years old, and the last major release was almost two years ago, we have to focus on projects of at least some commercial value.

And finally, there's the matter of fun. The 46 project adds something compeltely new: jet combat on a relatively mature level. It's completely new gameplay, completely new tactics, completely new realities. Please try to focus on the larger picture. You're getting the Ar-234. You're getting a Ta-152C. You're getting the X-4 rocket. You're finally getting dozens of ground objects that mission builders have been asking for for years. Please forgive the indulgence of a single team member who built a flying meat-grinder in his spare time at home. The add-on is going to be awesome.

The commercial aspect is by no means criminal...But in this commercial aspect lies a basic need of market research. As you mention some of the planes are done by people in their sparetime, at home. This I have the greatest respect for and salute.
As a commercial product the addon should be based more on a thoroughly done market research than on single modelers desires to make some model of their fancy. This to ensure the commercial success of the product. In these forums a lot of voices has been raised in favor of aircraft people, in the simming community, felt missing. A lot of polls have been posted in favor of gaining interesse for the planes in question.
In the commercial interesse these demands should be noticed, not declined.

The 46 addon will surely add some awesome stuff to the game but I dont understand what the fact the last major release two years ago has to do with the commercial aspect of addons? Is'nt the whole idea of addons entirely commercial? The timespan of two years isnt much when one consider the time needed to make addons.

triggerhappyfin
08-19-2006, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
I'm no fanboi, but i do look forward to the "what-if" expandability to IL-2 that this add-on offers.

Yes, I do wish IC:Maddox/RRG would have chosen it's plane list a little more carefully, on which ones to model for historic continuity of the sim. There have been glaring omissions made, whether due to the <span class="ev_code_RED">PF fiasco</span>, or a case of aircraft models either not having been made to spec, or not made at all. There is not much that can be done about that now, this late into the game, so there is no use to whine about it all now.

It would be nice to get some input from those with the info, as to _when_ in the timeline, that we'll actually get these addon's. So far, this summer has been a massive disappointment with ongoing lack of communications as to the status of v.406 and v.407 and their real release dates, instead of the usual '2 weeks' (now 2 months?) BS. Also, where does the 'standalone' RRG project play a role in all of this?

Hopefully IC:Maddox/RRG have got their ducks in a row with BOB much more than IL2 in terms of planning, and have got a firm, inclusive list of aircraft 'players' lined up as per OOB of history. They've had IL2 and five years to learn from forum input/whining, that they need to pay close attention to this aspect of 'simming' BOB.

Bring on v.407 please, just make it soon.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I think this 'PF-fiasco' isnt entirely a fiasco, if at all. We got carrier ops, but development has halted. Lot of people has voiced their wishes of further development of PF. These discussions allways end in the statement of some US aircraft not beeing possible to include in the game. A further development of carrier ops dont depend on those 'impossible' US planes. The RN isnt well represented in the game nor the JN. There are a lot to do yet.

CHDT
08-19-2006, 06:16 AM
And finally, there's the matter of fun. The 46 project adds something compeltely new: jet combat on a relatively mature level.

For jet combat on a real mature level, KOREA!!!

triggerhappyfin
08-19-2006, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by CHDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And finally, there's the matter of fun. The 46 project adds something compeltely new: jet combat on a relatively mature level.

For jet combat on a real mature level, KOREA!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah, there's prolly a commercially sound addon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

CHDT
08-19-2006, 06:28 AM
I can't wait for flamewars between Sabre fanatics and Mig-15 zelots :-)

Monty_Thrud
08-19-2006, 06:50 AM
This was finished but ended up elsewhere...

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//Spit22Mk22a.jpg

ploughman
08-19-2006, 06:54 AM
Nice.

bienenbaer
08-19-2006, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
This was finished but ended up elsewhere...



Hi Monty Thrud,

was it really almost ready or is it photo-shopping? Do you have more details? Do we need to address Luthier or Oleg???

Thanks,
Bienenbaer

Monty_Thrud
08-19-2006, 07:10 AM
I'm not 100% sure, Icefire would know more, i think the Mk22 was done by Biggs but wasnt finished in time for the closing date, so he sold the model to another flight sim, i think FS20004 but i'm not sure, it was originally done for IL2 though.


It would be so nice to have a Griffon engined Spitfire in this sim

bienenbaer
08-19-2006, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
I'm not 100% sure, Icefire would know more, i think the Mk22 was done by Biggs but wasnt finished in time for the closing date, so he sold the model to another flight sim, i think FS20004 but i'm not sure, it was originally done for IL2 though.


It would be so nice to have a Griffon engined Spitfire in this sim

Thanks.

Needless to say, I have that JustFlight Spitfire add-on for MFS2004, but I cannot tune the MFS2004 graphics to "nice" and the performance to "decent" on my Laptop.

Viper2005_
08-19-2006, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
How could this thing fly at all, thats not much to have for a wing

Wing area required varies inversely with velocity squared. You only need a big wing if you want to fly slowly. VTOL aeroplanes don't need to use their wings for slow flight and therefore their wings are sized for cruise or manoeuvre rather than takeoff & landing.

Consider for example the Harrier (which isn't too far from the F-104 as regards wing loading) or indeed the various F-35 versions; the CTOL carrier version has much more wing than the STOVL version.


Originally posted by triggerhappyfin:
Prolly did'nt and as such a waste of effort..for arcaders only http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif.

I resent that. I am not an "arcader", but I can assure you that if given the chance to fly this aeroplane in the game, I will. It seems likely to present a series of interesting challenges, especially as regards takeoff, landing and failure modes. Stability & control could also be "interesting"; its potential roll rate in particular is likely to be very high. Because the wing is low aspect ratio, it will probably have excellent high-alpha performance; indeed there is likely to be no "power on" stall in the traditional sense due to propwash and high control power.

Flight simulation can be an effective predictive tool in the right hands.

As for it being a waste of effort, what models have you made? If somebody wants this aeroplane enough to put the hours in, all power to him. If you really want some other aircraft included, put the work in and build it. Then perhaps I'll point out that I'm not interested in it, and complain that the time spent on it is therefore wasted... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Longpo
08-19-2006, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by FI-Skipper:
I hope this is a joke.Il2 really is turning into a joke.We get bollox addons like this full of cr@p that never saw action yet we have no Lancaster , Wellington , B-17 etc because of BS arguments that don't hold up.

Great work Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

To be honest I think if they were to add those aircraft as flyable it would be a waste. I do want to fly a Lancaster but I want to actually fly it from England to Germany, not some airstart nonsense.

I'm looking forward to the 46 addon (Yak-15 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)although it would have been nice to see some aircraft from other airforces (Spit Mk.22 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif)

leitmotiv
08-19-2006, 07:50 AM
There is no way to look at this except as a reduction of the IL-2 line to farce---to the level of CRIMSON SKIES. Are we also going to get German wire-guided air-to-air missiles and German SAMs? Ridiculous.

Viper2005_
08-19-2006, 07:56 AM
Actually you will find if you read this thread that there are plenty of other ways to view this...

ploughman
08-19-2006, 08:06 AM
I wonder how the've modelled the transition from normal flight to landing. That might be quite interesting. If those X-4 air to airs are modelled so you have to fly them as well as your own aircraft (HAT switch slaved to missile?) that in itself would represent a tasty challenge, whilst closing on a formation of heavies. It'll be nice to have the early Soviet jets though, the Luft fantasy stuff represents some interesting what ifs I suppose.

Shame we'll never see a Griffon engined Spit but such is life.

BiscuitKnight
08-19-2006, 08:11 AM
I still can't see this as good. Obviously it's right for some people, and probably the majority, but personally, I don't like the idea.

First problem: everyone has to download them off the Boonty Box/Poonty Box/Boonty Pox/Boonty Experience (excuse me, but those all give me a chuckle). Why doesn't Oleg just ask us all to go bash our heads against some walls? I'd prefer that, actually.

Secondly: everyone needs to buy the add-ons to play online, but then you might be paying to play on line, even if you don't like the "What if?" planes. I understand the commerical side, and that it's just a minority view, but all the same.

Thirdly: the dev said people scream about not getting a Hs 129 flyable, then they'd play it for a few minutes before getting bored and screaming about something else. That might be partially true, but then a large degree of why I bought AEP and PF was for the Bf-110 and Ju-88, I'd certainly play the Hs-129 for a good deal of time, probably more so than the P-51s and P-40s, even YP-80s. Hell, even "Novelties" like the Mistel appeal to me (though for now the Boonty Pox's corrupted 'installer' makes it impossible to build Mistel scenarios).

Anyway, I wish the crew luck with it, in any case.

leitmotiv
08-19-2006, 09:10 AM
This fantasy add-on is offering at least one aircraft which didn't even reach prototype stage---that ludicrous VTOL object. The US Navy experimented with a VTOL fighter in the 'fifties and it was a flop because, try as they did, the pilots had terrible difficulties landing vertically when they could not see what they were doing. Now, to add to the torque-light of the Maddox WWII prop planes we are going to be asked to assume this madcap item was workable? CRIMSON SKIES II.

Platypus_1.JaVA
08-19-2006, 09:24 AM
If this aircraft really makes it in the add-on, it might very well be the first Il-2 add-on I won't be getting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

This aircraft never had any complete technical drawings right? Are they going to put every NAZI brainwave in this sim? Maybe add something like the Tie fighter or so. They probably dreamed about that one too.

Bandit.426Cdn
08-19-2006, 09:40 AM
Oh relax. It's a UFO, i'll admit that myself.. but to declare the whole 4.07 patch junk because of one model you find distastful, when there is a lot more value in the remaining patch, than the 4.05 PE2 offered in total. 4.07 will be worth it for the wire guided missile (if they've figured out how to steer the thing from the cockpit with a hat-switch on the joystick, that would most definitely rock!)on the 152C, the Arado 234, and some of the early russian jet fighters. If you don't want to fly the retro tie-fighter, don't fly it. simple.


Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
If this aircraft really makes it in the add-on, it might very well be the first Il-2 add-on I won't be getting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

This aircraft never had any complete technical drawings right? Are they going to put every NAZI brainwave in this sim? Maybe add something like the Tie fighter or so. They probably dreamed about that one too.

slappedsilly
08-19-2006, 09:44 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

SeaFireLIV
08-19-2006, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Could we have that Spitfire with the 3 Hispanos in each wing...


...actually, no...i just wanted to say Spitfire again, as it seems to upset some people... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I`ll join you, and , oops what`s this here?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/spitfpetite.jpg

Flying_Nutcase
08-19-2006, 10:05 AM
Thumbs up here, even though there are others that 'should' take priority. This will be a blast. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Hats off to Oleg for having the melons to do this freak of nature. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

And we've learnt about a new plane which I bet 99% of us had never come across before.

Pig_Mac
08-19-2006, 10:06 AM
Complaining over getting more fun planes for the same amount of money is the stupidest complaint I've ever seen on this forum!!

Do you think all the planes will be available on the 'good' Online servers? They never have been and probably never will.

If someone wants to play with a sick looking semi-chopper at home.. let them/us.

I'm looking forward to the 46 addon the more then all the patches and addons up to date. IL2 could use some ****-jets to play around with. It will make the wait for BoB a lot easier to live with.

I.JG53_Steuben
08-19-2006, 10:38 AM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> Originally posted by I.JG53_Steuben:
Rockets ont the Fw190-F8?? great!!!! bow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1D_we4nW-4



That movie is hilarious! Too Happy

</pre>

@ Nerdconnected ... Now with englishtranslation


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDFRsJZxBS0&mode=related&search=

ploughman
08-19-2006, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Flying_Nutcase:
Thumbs up here, even though there are others that 'should' take priority. This will be a blast. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Hats off to Oleg for having the melons to do this freak of nature. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

And we've learnt about a new plane which I bet 99% of us had never come across before.

Sure, but now that we're going to be paying for this stuff we get to give customer feed back. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

luthier1
08-19-2006, 10:56 AM
I know I won't convince anyone who isn't convinced already, but I just wanted to clarify my comments regarding the Hs-129, Do-17 and the like. Of course, there are people out there who are dying to fly these specific planes. Of course, to some of you THESE are the most important planes in the world. Every single player has one or two of those planes, that they are dying to see, and that they'd fly nothing but them if they were ever released.

I meant them as an example of a large scale of things. If we were to make a flyable Hs-129 and a Do-17, we'd get flamed for lack of some British or Japanese bombers. If we made a flyable Ki-44, people would scream about the lack of a P-40N or what have you. They'd all be right in their own way.

And finally, if we conducted market research about our products instead of basing them on our gut feeling, then the original IL-2 itself would never see the light of day.

The 46 add-on is definitely a departure, but it doesn't detract anything from what we already have; and what it adds is not all "silly UFOs". You are getting planes that served in WWII, and you are getting a slew of ground objects that are badly needed in all WWII settings. So, even if you don't want to admit it, it still does expand on IL-2 in the realm of historical realism.

Maybe you should just start thinking of it as the "Ar-234, Ta-152C and ground objects add-on" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GerritJ9
08-19-2006, 10:57 AM
Luthier, I have no problems at all with planes that actually went into at least final assembly stage, such as the Ar-234, Ta-152C and the Soviet jets. The Ta-183 is a borderline case, but the Lerche is a bit over the top. I'll buy 4.07 anyway, above all for the Kyiv map; the first pic of it (as background in the I-250 shot on the RRG site in case anybody missed it) is very impressive and I can't wait to actually fly over it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
Going back to the Lerche, I wonder, if it is to be included as a flyable, where accurate cockpit data is coming from (not to mention flight characteristics). If this is to be a fantasy cockpit, does it really belong in this sim where standards of accuracy have hitherto been all-important- important enough for the Hawk 75s to have remained AI due to lack of accurate cockpit data?

269GA-Veltro
08-19-2006, 11:16 AM
No problem with 1946....but not if we have to lose all the stuff WIP, like the G-55, Fokker XXI, Ju-88 new models ecc. ecc.....Hawk-75 included...and i forget to talk about Kate. There are still some very strong bugs, like the Mark Vc cockpit.
About the cockpits in IL2, we'll have some """UFO""" jets with high quality cockpit when the Stuka, 109, P-47 have still the first Il2 quality....
Look at the Shockwave Production for some addon idea.

So, personaly i'd prefer support the Maddox paing 30 Euro for a fliable Kate, than 15 or 20 for the 1946 addon; the same for a 109 restyling ecc. ecc....

Sorry Luthier, but i really don't understand you...

luthier1
08-19-2006, 11:19 AM
GerritJ9, I already wrote about the accuracy requirements a few pages ago. For a plane that never flew the requirements are different from a plane that did fly.

Remember also that these were concieved and developed as "Russia-only" add-ons, and only much later did we manage to secure an international release. So they were originally designed with the Russian market in mind. Russian fans are, generally, even less internationally-minded than most of the people out here. They just want to fly for VVS and shoot down those capitalists. There's not much else we could have thought of for the VVS that could be done relatively easily.

Anyway, once we realized other fans will get these add-ons too, we expaned on them greatly. The Il-10 add-on, which originally had nothing but the Il-10, got a whole bunch of Japanese planes. The 46 add-on got a bunch of German planes, and a gazillion ground objects. If we got an international commitment for these from the get-go, we might have done them very differently. But things went the way they went, and the add-ons ended up the way they are.

We are trying our damndest to please everyone in some way. I'm hoping that at this point each add-on has at least some things each fan could use, and of course some things they won't care for. That's natural. Just please, try to focus on the positive.

leitmotiv
08-19-2006, 11:23 AM
Fun planes? So it is mindless pleasures we are after? Not I said the cat. It's not just the VTOL joke, it's the concept of doing a slipshod '46 effort quite similar to the slipshod PAC FIGHTERS with two obvious candidates incomprehensively deleted (Meteors, Vampire) as were all the obvious candidates deleted in PF (A WWII carrier sim without one flyable carrier torpedo plane?! And, don't blame it on Northrop-Grumman---there was nothing to stop them from doing the well-documented Kate or Jill). I like the Maddox work but I will not be on his rah rah squad. What we have here is another unsystematic production.

Monty_Thrud
08-19-2006, 11:25 AM
I meant them as an example of a large scale of things. If we were to make a flyable Hs-129 and a Do-17, we'd get flamed for lack of some British or Japanese bombers. If we made a flyable Ki-44, people would scream about the lack of a P-40N or what have you. They'd all be right in their own way.


Damned if you do, damned if you don't




Maybe you should just start thinking of it as the "Ar-234, Ta-152C and ground objects add-on"



Iam, but without the Ta 152c... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I have no problem with the '46 add-on, in a way the "what could have happened-if" interest me a little, its just the lack of western planes, ie next generation of Spitfires, Mustangs, Tempest, Meteor...etc, i will be getting it for the above though.

luthier1
08-19-2006, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
No problem with 1946....but not if we have to lose all the stuff WIP, like the G-55, Fokker XXI, Ju-88 new models ecc. ecc.....Hawk-75 included...and i forget to talk about Kate. There are still some very strong bugs, like the Mark Vc cockpit.
About the cockpits in IL2, we'll have some """UFO""" jets with high quality cockpit when the Stuka, 109, P-47 have still the first Il2 quality....
Look at the Shockwave Production for some addon idea.

So, personaly i'd prefer support the Maddox paing 30 Euro for a fliable Kate, than 15 or 20 for the 1946 addon; the same for a 109 restyling ecc. ecc....

Sorry Luthier, but i really don't understand you...

Well, let's hope that the commercial success of these add-ons will allow for us to continue expanding IL-2 in that direction.

But honestly, the thought on the older cockpits and models is that you'll get an update with BoB and sequels. Otherwise Il-2 will never be finished. By the time we make new cockpits for the first batch, the second batch will be obsolete.

Oh, and don't forget that the Ju-87, P-47 and many others were 3rd party models, inserted into the game as they were submitted. They're not Maddox-made, and they're not "first Il2 quality" - most of these are post-FB.

NerdConnected
08-19-2006, 11:30 AM
I.JG53_Steuben,

No subtitles needed. I've had German lessons for almost 10 years ;-)

The intro is 'einfach genial':

"Einer lasst sich nicht herunterkriegen. Im Fuehrerbunker brennt noch licht." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Mark

AWL_Spinner
08-19-2006, 11:36 AM
How many people fly on servers where you see the Bi-1, P-80, even the 262 (which was around in droves)?

EXACTLY.

The majority use about 10% of this sim. Whether there's 90% you don't look at, or 92% you don't look at with a few Luft oddities is completely irrelevant.

You don't choose to fly it, and you'll never see it online, so stop whining about it.

Enjoy the expansion of items you will use, and you will see.

Personally the only question for me with regard to buying future addons is the copy protection farce.

I'll be interested to see what comes of that, given that 4.06 seems to have been stalled on the point of release for months whilst they sort that issue out.

Monty_Thrud
08-19-2006, 11:41 AM
I think if there were more Western jets(Meteor, Vampire) then you could possibly see a Jet server or two...if you threw in the MkXIV and Mk22 Spitfires you would have a veeeery popular add-on indeed...oh yes

WOLFMondo
08-19-2006, 11:45 AM
I think if your looking at commercial viability, a Spit XIV would sell you more copies of Luft 46 than many of the other planes included. Its not like the model and the data isn't available.

I'll still buy it anyway.

csThor
08-19-2006, 11:49 AM
Ilya - You, Sir, have mail http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

269GA-Veltro
08-19-2006, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by luthier1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
No problem with 1946....but not if we have to lose all the stuff WIP, like the G-55, Fokker XXI, Ju-88 new models ecc. ecc.....Hawk-75 included...and i forget to talk about Kate. There are still some very strong bugs, like the Mark Vc cockpit.
About the cockpits in IL2, we'll have some """UFO""" jets with high quality cockpit when the Stuka, 109, P-47 have still the first Il2 quality....
Look at the Shockwave Production for some addon idea.

So, personaly i'd prefer support the Maddox paing 30 Euro for a fliable Kate, than 15 or 20 for the 1946 addon; the same for a 109 restyling ecc. ecc....

Sorry Luthier, but i really don't understand you...

Well, let's hope that the commercial success of these add-ons will allow for us to continue expanding IL-2 in that direction.

But honestly, the thought on the older cockpits and models is that you'll get an update with BoB and sequels. Otherwise Il-2 will never be finished. By the time we make new cockpits for the first batch, the second batch will be obsolete.

Oh, and don't forget that the Ju-87, P-47 and many others were 3rd party models, inserted into the game as they were submitted. They're not Maddox-made, and they're not "first Il2 quality" - most of these are post-FB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really hope you can give us some more addons in the next future, but believe me we don't need more (only some new birds..ok..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) stuff but to improve what we have now in FB.
My suggestion is to try to give us some Shockwave style addon, and please say Oleg that IL2 is not in competition with BoB.....

A test..only a market test: Yak addon for ex. with new models and cockpits (or better 109 addon); simple improve them...BoB or not. I undertsand what you say, but sincerly some aircrafts now are really old...really too much, and for Il2 we don't need the BoB quality.

For my opinion you don't have understood this: a lot of us here would pay also for one only aircraft addon. The Tempest alone worth 30 Euro or more........like it would be for a fliable Kate, the Tenzan ecc. ecc..

But sincerly, third party or not, if Il2 will continue to live (as we hope waiting for the next sim generation) we can't still have this difference in the quality. 109, Stuka, P-47, Yak need absolutely a restyling. I'll never understand why we can't have in the best sim ever what we have in FS: an high quality stand alone aircraft addon (with different versions off course). About the P-47....is a third party work, and so? Can't we have an updated P-47 because of this? Come on...

Another problem...the money....
Guys we are not Prince of Persia funs here, we ask for top quality and we are ready to pay for it...we don't ask for free!!!!
No more bugged free addon please...no more 20 aircrafts free addon please....business...business!!!!
If people ask/kid for the P-40N...where is the problem? Do it (download)...and take money for it. So, for my opinion is definitly time to change politic with IL2...the best sim ever.

HuninMunin
08-19-2006, 12:34 PM
What is all the fuzz about?
Why don't you take this sh**** so seriously?
It is a game and not the "we simulate the whole airware of WWII with every plane" project.
This addon will give many of us and a lot of folks not posting here a hell of a time.
No one knows how it would have flown and fought?
Great then, 1 point for the people that are interested in having an adventure trying things out.
-1 point for the crowd of "I wanna fly my favorite aircraft with the original manual on my knees".

I think that '46 addon will contribute to this series (if you look at it as one big product, wich I do) in a great way.
Because it touches a territory in history that no one knows about, done by people that are ectually able to take the best educated guess we can get.

I'm for one am looking forward to this.

Btw. It does have something "photoshopish", but who knows?

269GA-Veltro
08-19-2006, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
What is all the fuzz about?
Why don't you take this sh**** so seriously?
It is a game and not the "we simulate the whole airware of WWII with every plane" project.

Thank....this is exactly what they don't need. IL2 is not a game, is a business.

People don't kid...people (the customers) ask...and thank to God they ask. This is the Market.
People ask? Yes, is good..is very good for a business company if people after five years ask for new stuff. Do it, and take money.

heywooood
08-19-2006, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by luthier1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
No problem with 1946....but not if we have to lose all the stuff WIP, like the G-55, Fokker XXI, Ju-88 new models ecc. ecc.....Hawk-75 included...and i forget to talk about Kate. There are still some very strong bugs, like the Mark Vc cockpit.
About the cockpits in IL2, we'll have some """UFO""" jets with high quality cockpit when the Stuka, 109, P-47 have still the first Il2 quality....
Look at the Shockwave Production for some addon idea.

So, personaly i'd prefer support the Maddox paing 30 Euro for a fliable Kate, than 15 or 20 for the 1946 addon; the same for a 109 restyling ecc. ecc....

Sorry Luthier, but i really don't understand you...

Well, let's hope that the commercial success of these add-ons will allow for us to continue expanding IL-2 in that direction.

But honestly, the thought on the older cockpits and models is that you'll get an update with BoB and sequels. Otherwise Il-2 will never be finished. By the time we make new cockpits for the first batch, the second batch will be obsolete.

Oh, and don't forget that the Ju-87, P-47 and many others were 3rd party models, inserted into the game as they were submitted. They're not Maddox-made, and they're not "first Il2 quality" - most of these are post-FB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ilya - thank-you for everything. All of your works to date are greatly appreciated by most of us. We just have to step back - take in the overall picture - and realise that there is a huge amount of both free and paid-for material here for us to use as we please.

justiceboy
08-19-2006, 01:15 PM
HuninMunin said

I think that '46 addon will contribute to this series (if you look at it as one big product, wich I do) in a great way.
Because it touches a territory in history that no one knows about, done by people that are ectually able to take the best educated guess we can get.

So we should be getting maps of the US for the so called maybe it could have gone this way history. I want to fly over Coney Island and have a zero fly overhead screaming HORRYOOOD.

And since this is well maybe this could have happened, i guess the 46 will be realeased in only German language.

And just so you are aware, if it didn't happen, it is not part of HISTORY. IT IS FANTASY.
There are no what ifs in History, it either happened or it didn't. Sure you can ask the questions, but that is FANTASY, not REALITY. That is when you begin to FANTISIZE.

La7_brook
08-19-2006, 01:47 PM
yes and we still have no 20mm on g10 etc .just little things that main stream fighter have and would get used each day , we never get

Don_X
08-19-2006, 02:18 PM
I think that if the european theatre had continued into '46 most of the fighting would have been among the few survivors struggling for existence in a nuclear winter, so lets just accept it for the fantasy scenario it is.

btw are there any plans to include nukes?
Lets hope not it would make for very short missions!

DuxCorvan
08-19-2006, 02:32 PM
Sorry, Don_X, but your sig... "Tara, tara, tara"???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Don_X
08-19-2006, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Sorry, Don_X, but your sig... "Tara, tara, tara"???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Just my lament at plans for a waste disposal site and motorway at a world heritage site.
well I know theyre doing a re-make of the movie
Tora tora tora
just check the link to see relevance to Tara (Hill of)PM me for more info

DuxCorvan
08-19-2006, 03:36 PM
Now that I followed the link, no need for explanations, Don. I'm myself a historian and an amateur archaeologist. I knew of the importance of Hill of Tara thanks to a good Irish friend of mine -whose real name is unknown to me- while I was a colaborator in RTW's mod, Europa Barbarorum.

I hope this treasure of prehistoric, Celtic and Goidlic cultures, among many others, does not share the sad fate of so many things I've seen 'gone with the wind', as in another famous American 'Tara', named after this one.

I live in Cadiz, Spain, a site where you can find the traces of three millenia of Mediterranean culture, and where many things are just covered with sand and concrete every month.

Just pointed what I believed it was a curious mispelling, didn't realize it was a wordgame. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Crop-Duster.
08-19-2006, 03:44 PM
My Kingdom for a Focke-Wulf "Triebflugel"

Badsight-
08-19-2006, 04:41 PM
luthier1 arguments aside , i will still ban the Ta-183 & the Lerche

its their never having existed that bites

not everyone is forgetfull of the modeling restrictions Oleg used to talk about

Platypus_1.JaVA
08-19-2006, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
Oh relax. It's a UFO, i'll admit that myself.. but to declare the whole 4.07 patch junk because of one model you find distastful, when there is a lot more value in the remaining patch, than the 4.05 PE2 offered in total. 4.07 will be worth it for the wire guided missile (if they've figured out how to steer the thing from the cockpit with a hat-switch on the joystick, that would most definitely rock!)on the 152C, the Arado 234, and some of the early russian jet fighters. If you don't want to fly the retro tie-fighter, don't fly it. simple.



This is a bit too what-if to me. The Il-2 series always stood for historical accuracy. This is against very roots of this game.

I wish mister Luthier and his team all the good wishes with this add-on. He has done much good for the Il-2 series. But I probably won't be getting this update.

Platypus_1.JaVA
08-19-2006, 05:01 PM
Ow, and thank you Luthier, for responding and giving the community some information.

LEXX_Luthor
08-19-2006, 05:09 PM
I would prefer the Yak-19, with one afterburning Jumo. Its a pretty little jet.

HuninMunin
08-19-2006, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
What is all the fuzz about?
Why don't you take this sh**** so seriously?
It is a game and not the "we simulate the whole airware of WWII with every plane" project.

Thank....this is exactly what they don't need. IL2 is not a game, is a business.

People don't kid...people (the customers) ask...and thank to God they ask. This is the Market.
People ask? Yes, is good..is very good for a business company if people after five years ask for new stuff. Do it, and take money. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got my point perfectly.
I'm all for the addons you'd like to have made.
Why?
Because it would make this game richer and contribute to buisness.
Just as those "fantasys, no good, completely senseless" planes that I and loads of other
childish what if fans will pay hard money for.

@
justice boy.
Please don't argue with me about the definition of history and fantasy.
English is not my mother tounge, but I think even then you have clearly understood what I intended to say in my previous post.
So why try to **** with me?
Are you upset about that there'll be no content for the american airforce in '46?
Sorry my friend, but these new addons weren't even to be published in the western hemisphere if it wasn't for this strong community.
Its conception is about the √Ňďberluftwaffe vs the √Ňďbersowjetairforce.

@ all
No one forces you to buy this thing. Period.

PBNA-Boosher
08-19-2006, 06:22 PM
Dudes, if you don't want it, either don't buy it or don't fly it.

SeaFireLIV
08-19-2006, 06:34 PM
wibble!

Flying_Nutcase
08-19-2006, 07:02 PM
Since the pilot was to be in a prone position, we'll have to pull up our beds to the computer and lie down while flying this puppy, for improved immersion. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Daiichidoku
08-19-2006, 07:27 PM
IMO, time and effort is squandered on anything other than

1 correcting existing FM/DMs
2 correcting existing ammo/weapon/ordinance loadouts/option
3 making new cockpits/generic cockpits/transfer "suitable" existing cockpits for/to various AI types to make them flyable, and/or enable AI types to become flyable with "wonder woman view"
4 correcting game "features"/errors, ie: fuel leak bugs, cannon-hit-induced "super-rolls", and 100-200m radius lethal aircraft explosions

i would gladly PAY for a patch/CD that involves the above....and renew my faith in the execution/management of this game...that seems to blunder everymore, increasingly

fordfan25
08-19-2006, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
IMO, time and effort is squandered on anything other than

1 correcting existing FM/DMs
2 correcting existing ammo/weapon/ordinance loadouts/option
3 making new cockpits/generic cockpits/transfer "suitable" existing cockpits for/to various AI types to make them flyable, and/or enable AI types to become flyable with "wonder woman view"
4 correcting game "features"/errors, ie: fuel leak bugs, cannon-hit-induced "super-rolls", and 100-200m radius lethal aircraft explosions

i would gladly PAY for a patch/CD that involves the above....and renew my faith in the execution/management of this game...that seems to blunder everymore, increasingly agreed. i my self could care less about some obscure/fantasy plane, ground targets that you cant hardly see,new kinds of water being added. fix whats here. fine tune things. things like ki43's,zero's,spits ect staying with hellcats,corsairs and 47's in dives. DW motors made of glass, FW's that cant dog fight,spits and LA7's disigned by darthvader,predictble AI, boreing cookie cutter missions in the campaigns "mainly PF campaigns",. i love the game, been a member of the comunity ect but im just saying there are a number of things that are off with this game that have been needing fixed for a LONG time. if it never get's fixed ... no big deal but i love the game alot and would like to see some thing ironed out.

mgoyat
08-19-2006, 10:52 PM
The 46 addons looks more and more exciting.
I'm just wondering how Luthier & team will do the FM on the "fantasy planes" : are they using some kind of X-Plane model for "virtual wind tunnel" testing ? Or merely pulling numbers out of... um, somewhere http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

crazyivan1970
08-19-2006, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
woah, anyone know anything about it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Pictures above are true, it is not a photoshop. This is one of the suprizes in 406 addon. That particular plane was basically finished by maddox`es crew from the point where german designers left it. MG basically thought the rest of it out. This particular plane was demonstrated, last week i believe, in Germany by Oleg and Luthier (I think Ilya went down there too).

On the side note, it would be nice if you guys stop freaking out about unusual planes. I think it`s pretty neat that something like that will see a daylight. And it`s not the only surprize in 406 either, from what i gather.

crazyivan1970
08-19-2006, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
IMO, time and effort is squandered on anything other than

1 correcting existing FM/DMs
2 correcting existing ammo/weapon/ordinance loadouts/option
3 making new cockpits/generic cockpits/transfer "suitable" existing cockpits for/to various AI types to make them flyable, and/or enable AI types to become flyable with "wonder woman view"
4 correcting game "features"/errors, ie: fuel leak bugs, cannon-hit-induced "super-rolls", and 100-200m radius lethal aircraft explosions

i would gladly PAY for a patch/CD that involves the above....and renew my faith in the execution/management of this game...that seems to blunder everymore, increasingly

You guys somehow lost the touch with reality. Wake up and read luthiers post again. On the side note, all addons that you see are his and third party work. With Olegs invovlment of course.

-HH-Quazi
08-20-2006, 12:02 AM
I like what I see and I especially like what I read in Luthiers post and thank him for sharing the info and his opinion and insight. I belive his words "fixing the holes of our sim" would relate to the issues mentioned in a post about the FM's, DM's etc. There's a matter of trust here that isn't getting any support from a few m8s. I for one, like all of you in at least some way, appreciate all the effort and free updates given to us over the years. The "What If" scenario is just that. It is something I am sure some members of our community will make use of and enjoy. I know my squdies that build missions will have a blast with it, which in turn, will allow myself to really enjoy it also. Patience is what I am having trouble with. I am ready NOW!! HEHE

NonWonderDog
08-20-2006, 12:25 AM
Waiddaminute... anyone remeber the VTOL P-38 joke video Oleg and crew made a few months back? And to think, none of us saw the foreshadowing.

JG52Karaya-X
08-20-2006, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
wibble!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/blackadder/epguide/images/four_goodbye.jpg

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

DuxCorvan
08-20-2006, 03:55 AM
On a side note, I made a question before that went unnoticed by most:

Will AI be able to deal with this? I mean: this operates as a VTOL aircraft. The usual FB/PF AI taking off, approaching and landing procedures will lead to unavoidable AI crash, unless they have messed a lot with AI, and that could be either excellent or terrible news.

F6_Ace
08-20-2006, 04:21 AM
Why is everyone worried about the add-on featuring hypothetical FMs? It'll be no worse than what we have already http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also, Ivan is right. It's absolutely ridiculous to want to have what you have already being correct and remotely historical. You have, indeed, lost touch with reality! After all, it's surely better to have quantity over quality every time whether you paid for it or not ("free" patches)! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

F19_Ob
08-20-2006, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
IMO, time and effort is squandered on anything other than

1 correcting existing FM/DMs
2 correcting existing ammo/weapon/ordinance loadouts/option
3 making new cockpits/generic cockpits/transfer "suitable" existing cockpits for/to various AI types to make them flyable, and/or enable AI types to become flyable with "wonder woman view"
4 correcting game "features"/errors, ie: fuel leak bugs, cannon-hit-induced "super-rolls", and 100-200m radius lethal aircraft explosions

i would gladly PAY for a patch/CD that involves the above....and renew my faith in the execution/management of this game...that seems to blunder everymore, increasingly

You guys somehow lost the touch with reality. Wake up and read luthiers post again. On the side note, all addons that you see are his and third party work. With Olegs invovlment of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry m8 but it looks like some customers feel the 46 add-on is what has lost touch with the sim.
I think many are aware of Luthiers skills and quality of work and don't dispute that at all. They're just a bit unhappy with the present course of the sim, and Should have the right to feed-back this I think.

I can't help feeling it would have been a smart move to add a few ww2 planes as a base, and then the 46 planes and call it a bounus or something.

Why not a ground-object patch? (since there was so many) -with free 46 planes added as a bonus.
Just thinking loud here.

Critisism like this is logic and inevitable if only a portion of the customers are satisfied.
I atleast very much doubt that the general ww2 fan is a Luft46 Fan, although they may like sci-fi in other areas.


Nevertheless it's their call, be it their own interest reflected or not.

Personally I'm buying the addon to be able to fly online with my buddies, but I have no interests in those planes, although I love starwars in my sci-fi interest.

I sincerely hope this project flies because I wan't this sim to survive a few more years.

Regards ob

KG26_Alpha
08-20-2006, 05:24 AM
Bug fixes comes under the "Free Patch" category.

Who wants to work for free? The 3rd party addon guys certainly dont.

1C team are also reportedly "too busy" for free bug fix patches, so just take the paid addons as they are, or simply dont buy it.

What would be interesting is if oleg and crew could sync the game versions in so 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 are all backwards<>forwards compatible without having the addons installed to keep the comunity in harmony online by releasing FM adjustments and any other "tweaks" in a patch separate from the paid addons.

Theres already quite a split (4.04 & 4.05), and i see it getting bigger with each addon coming out.

Have fun

S!

Viper2005_
08-20-2006, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
On the side note, it would be nice if you guys stop freaking out about unusual planes. I think it`s pretty neat that something like that will see a daylight. <span class="ev_code_red">And it`s not the only surprize in 406 either, from what i gather.</span>

Awesome! I'm really looking forward to the 46 addon.

As an aside, I hope that the X-4 is made available for the Fw-190A8/A9*:

http://www.luft46.com/missile/x4-13.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/missile/x4-15.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/missile/x4-14.jpg

It would also be huge fun to fit it to the Ju-88... Imagine bombers going in without escort, only for the enemy fighters to suddenly find themselves under missile attack!

http://www.luft46.com/missile/x4-8.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/missile/x4-9.jpg

<span class="ev_code_red">I would imagine that both of these installations would really get the whine flowing!</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

On a more serious note, whilst I would imagine that the X-4 would have eventually found its way onto Ju-88 night fighters the above installation was used for test purposes and AFAIK was not intended for combat use...

*perhaps it would be best to clone the Fw-190 for this purpose, making a new aeroplane "Fw-190X-4" with the required small cockpit change. This would allow the X-4 to be easily expunged from historical scenarios, online and offline.

HellToupee
08-20-2006, 06:26 AM
i doubt the x4 would be able to hit a fighter, manually guided an all and the difficulty of single seat fighters mounting it is they cant guide it and fly the plane at the same time.

F6_Ace
08-20-2006, 07:02 AM
For onliners, if the X-4s are good, they'll only get banned anyway. Like some other additions, it sounds good on paper but in reality...

Good for offline, though. But no one plays offline because of the AI...(!)

ploughman
08-20-2006, 07:17 AM
I do. The AI's not what it was in 3.04 but some plane matches are good fun. And an AI formation of B-17s with me and an X-4 will do very nicely.

Viper2005_
08-20-2006, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
i doubt the x4 would be able to hit a fighter, manually guided an all and the difficulty of single seat fighters mounting it is they cant guide it and fly the plane at the same time.

Well, if the online bomber pilots can fly the aeroplane, man their guns and use a bombsight, I don't see why a fighter pilot couldn't learn to use the X4.

Plus, you don't actually need to hit; it's got a proximity fuse.

Imagine the fun to be had vulching with them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

F6_Ace
08-20-2006, 07:40 AM
Proximity?

Ace! Can you use them like those laser trip bombs in Duke Nukem?

"Daaaaammmmn...I shoulda known those alien b*stards would have sabotaged the suuuuuuub"

FI-Skipper
08-20-2006, 07:42 AM
I'm sorry if I seem ungrateful but I just don't see how this addon will improve the sim in any way.Many things still need fixed and there are plenty of other planes that actually flew that could be added but instead we're getting jets that never made it off the drawing board?Sounds like some sort of console game... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

269GA-Veltro
08-20-2006, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by F19_Ob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
IMO, time and effort is squandered on anything other than

1 correcting existing FM/DMs
2 correcting existing ammo/weapon/ordinance loadouts/option
3 making new cockpits/generic cockpits/transfer "suitable" existing cockpits for/to various AI types to make them flyable, and/or enable AI types to become flyable with "wonder woman view"
4 correcting game "features"/errors, ie: fuel leak bugs, cannon-hit-induced "super-rolls", and 100-200m radius lethal aircraft explosions

i would gladly PAY for a patch/CD that involves the above....and renew my faith in the execution/management of this game...that seems to blunder everymore, increasingly

You guys somehow lost the touch with reality. Wake up and read luthiers post again. On the side note, all addons that you see are his and third party work. With Olegs invovlment of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry m8 but it looks like some customers feel the 46 add-on is what has lost touch with the sim.
I think many are aware of Luthiers skills and quality of work and don't dispute that at all. They're just a bit unhappy with the present course of the sim, and Should have the right to feed-back this I think.

I can't help feeling it would have been a smart move to add a few ww2 planes as a base, and then the 46 planes and call it a bounus or something.

Why not a ground-object patch? (since there was so many) -with free 46 planes added as a bonus.
Just thinking loud here.

Critisism like this is logic and inevitable if only a portion of the customers are satisfied.
I atleast very much doubt that the general ww2 fan is a Luft46 Fan, although they may like sci-fi in other areas.


Nevertheless it's their call, be it their own interest reflected or not.

Personally I'm buying the addon to be able to fly online with my buddies, but I have no interests in those planes, although I love starwars in my sci-fi interest.

I sincerely hope this project flies because I wan't this sim to survive a few more years.

Regards ob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

100% agree, good post.

1946 is not a test for the future addons productions.....
A lot of us will buy it only for the online compatibility, but without any interest.
BTW, Arado (we had it in Aviano airbase, in North East of Italy) worth 15 euro as for the Ta-152C.

Viper2005_
08-20-2006, 08:36 AM
The proximity fuse worked by detecting the sound made by the engines of the bomber and exploiting the doppler effect. It's very clever stuff!

http://www.luft46.com/missile/x-4.html

The chances are that attacking fighter targets would result in a range error, but then again, since the X4 was designed to kill bombers, it would most likely still kill a fighter target despite this error.

There is quite a lot of data available regarding the engagement envelope, production examples exist from which performance may be inferred through reverse-engineering, and so we could end up with a very technically accurate, and very interesting missile system. If the fuse is accurately modelled, you might see countermeasures involving rapid engine rpm changes, or even engine shutdown as the missile approaches.

That alone would be well worth the asking price IMO.

HuninMunin
08-20-2006, 09:07 AM
100 % agreed.
As I said, its not about that the Lerche2 is a usefull adition in the context of WW2, but the '46 addon will bring a whole new dimension of gameplay to this sim.
And I'd pay 30 bucks for the Blitz and Tank alone.

Bandit.426Cdn
08-20-2006, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
woah, anyone know anything about it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Pictures above are true, it is not a photoshop. This is one of the suprizes in 406 addon. That particular plane was basically finished by maddox`es crew from the point where german designers left it. MG basically thought the rest of it out. This particular plane was demonstrated, last week i believe, in Germany by Oleg and Luthier (I think Ilya went down there too).

On the side note, it would be nice if you guys stop freaking out about unusual planes. I think it`s pretty neat that something like that will see a daylight. And it`s not the only surprize in 406 either, from what i gather. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Now.. just to bring up a few things to clarify .. no one had picked up on this on last read of post.

I assume when you say 406, you are referring to 407 in error. 406 is supposed to be the now quite long-delayed Manchuria release. 407 is supposed to be this release, the Luft'46 uberwhinefestatubi addon, correct? Or has 406 been sent back to development to be combined as 406/407?

If Oleg and crew have been working on wire guided missile programming into the IL2FB code for the X-4, would it not be logical that perhaps also modelled the HS 293A glide bomb (should be pretty quick to model it, and no real damage code, it's all or nothing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ), and the follow up guided Hs 294A Fritz-X anti-shipping missile, a weapon that did see plenty of operational combat usage? Is this your 'surprize'?

http://www.ausairpower.net/Do-217K-Hs-293A-1.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_293

the HS293 appears to have been carried on the HE111, among others.

*edit*
Hs 293V6 designed for launch from the Arado Ar 234 jet bomber travelling at 200 metres per second. The main change was reducing the wing span of the missile to allow it to be carried within the aircraft. The missile did not proceed past the design stage.

From wikipedia reference above, it would follow the pattern set for the Luft'46 theme to have an AR234 variant capable of carrying this 293 design development.

*/edit*

One could only hope, that Oleg has extended the IL2 code to guided missile capability. Please say it is so.

JG53Frankyboy
08-20-2006, 09:40 AM
a proplem would propably be the visial range of the groundtargets in this game...............

Bandit.426Cdn
08-20-2006, 10:01 AM
Another thing i thought of .. we all know that the last few patches, have been BOB code prototype patches. Oleg is pushing the boundary's of the code through RRG. We've already seen the improved cloud effects. Some of the map designers are coming up with new ways of doing scenery. This leak of the X-4 photo seems to hint at Oleg developing wire-guided missile coding into the IL2 code base. The Lerche seems to indicate he's working on VTOL/Helicopter physics code (remember the P38 video of the aircraft landing on it's tail without tipping over from a few months back?) - and BoB has that British Cierva Autogiro modelled WiP. The Lerche could be the next step in developing that VTOL/STOL capability in IL2, and parallel inclusion in BoB as it is being coded.

Storm Of War: The Battle of Britain:

Episode one (1st episode in the series of the new generation of the simulators):

RAF flyable Spitfire Mk.I, Hurricane Mk.I, Blenheim Mk.IV, Gladiator Mk.II (possible)

RAF Ai Defiant Mk.I, Beaufighter Mk.IF, Blenheim Mk.IF, Blenheim Mk.IVF.Blenheim Mk.I, Wellington Mk.IC, Lysander Mk.I, Anson Mk.I, Cierva C.30A/Avro Rota Mk.I (autogyro) & Sunderland Mk.I (possible)

LW flyable Bf-109 E3, Bf-110 C4, He-111 H-2, He-111 P-2, Ju-87 B-2, Ju-88 A-1

LW Ai Do-17 Z-1, Do-215 (recon.), FW-200 C-1, He-59, He-115, Ju-52 /3M, Bf-108. and Italian FIAT G.50, FIAT CR.42, FIAT BR.20M

This info originates from a Russian magazine called 'Gamer's World Navigator' .


Source: http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/il2_fb.htm

My point is, he's obviously needed to be working on the coding routines for VTOL/STOL aircraft for BoB's Cierva, a similar flight profile that the leaked flying Mix-master Lerche needs to be coded for. There is a preserved Cierva at the British War Museum with intact cockpit - could we hope that the Cierva's AI status might change to flyable if VTOL/STOL code routines are being worked on for future BoB:SoW inclusion?

Amazing how some people jump to conclusions, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TheGozr
08-20-2006, 11:36 AM
"FMG basically thought the rest of it out" It's basicly true with all aircrafts in this sim Yvan.
Like i'm saying we need "the rocketeer".

But no matter what it will be fun. Mean time tired of waiting for the addons i fly now LOCKON wich totally ruine IL2 for me, IL2 feels like flying toys Now, I can say that we need BOB.

Enforcer572005
08-20-2006, 12:06 PM
I to am wondering about the AI. Has anyone else noticed that the Mistel is no longer (post 4.05) flyable by the AI? At least not on my computer, under any circumstances, and i know what has to be done to make the combo fly.

I wonder if the AI will be able to handle that thing. STill, I'm grateful for anything they come up with, though I really would be happy if the android bomber gunners took a vacation and the AI did what you told them to reliably.

Ill still buy whatever they come up with, since it always has good stuff in it. Just compare these guys with MS sim stuff and be greatful that they are nothing like MS.

HellToupee
08-20-2006, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
i doubt the x4 would be able to hit a fighter, manually guided an all and the difficulty of single seat fighters mounting it is they cant guide it and fly the plane at the same time.

Well, if the online bomber pilots can fly the aeroplane, man their guns and use a bombsight, I don't see why a fighter pilot couldn't learn to use the X4.

Plus, you don't actually need to hit; it's got a proximity fuse.

Imagine the fun to be had vulching with them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

bomber has level stabilser, u can still steer the plane while using the bombsite to with trim not to mention controls still work using guns and site.

With the x4 on the 190 it used the same yoke u needed to fly the plane.

isooAntti
08-20-2006, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Actually you will find if you read this thread that there are plenty of other ways to view this...

Indeed, but are they all political correct in your point of view?

HuninMunin
08-20-2006, 02:04 PM
Hey mods. I suggest you get someone to translate isoo antis sig.

isooAntti
08-20-2006, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Hey mods. I suggest you get someone to translate isoo antis sig.


AH, Das sigpolizei...bitte, I vill do zat for you myzelv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDFRsJZxBS0&mode=related&search=)

ploughman
08-20-2006, 02:24 PM
http://rrgstudios.com/img/1946/34_full.jpg

HuninMunin
08-20-2006, 02:40 PM
Its "Die Sig-Polizei"

ElektroFredrik
08-20-2006, 03:01 PM
I don't care what planes we get, I'm still happy. I'd still be happy if we got
a flyable Okha. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Since it's a bit late to ask for more planes for FB/AEP/PF do you think Oleg could
add this plane to SOW:BOB when that game gets a '46 what-if addon?
Me p.666 Death squirrel of DOOM (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/elektrofredrik/Me163DeathSqrl.jpg)

And for the heck of it, I've colored this. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
do-335 (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/elektrofredrik/Do335Sqrl.jpg)

ploughman
08-20-2006, 03:16 PM
Animals what wear under-pants.

isooAntti
08-20-2006, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Its "Die Sig-Polizei"



Spelling Geheime Polizei, yezt? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

HuninMunin
08-20-2006, 03:36 PM
There never was a "Geheime Polizei".
There was a "Geheime Staats-Polizei" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Viper2005_
08-20-2006, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
With the x4 on the 190 it used the same yoke u needed to fly the plane.

No it didn't - it had its own separate stick on the right-hand side of the panel:
http://www.luft46.com/missile/x4-15.jpg

ploughman
08-20-2006, 03:46 PM
...and an arm rest. No mention of a cigarette lighter though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

isooAntti
08-20-2006, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
There never was a "Geheime Polizei".
There was a "Geheime Staats-Polizei" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif......oder http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif Ich kapitulieren niemals... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

HuninMunin
08-20-2006, 04:05 PM
Du KAPITULIERST niemals.

DuxCorvan
08-20-2006, 05:28 PM
Ja, er kapituliert. Genug. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Monty_Thrud
08-20-2006, 05:47 PM
Shirley a cigerette lighter

p1ngu666
08-20-2006, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
woah, anyone know anything about it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Pictures above are true, it is not a photoshop. This is one of the suprizes in 406 addon. That particular plane was basically finished by maddox`es crew from the point where german designers left it. MG basically thought the rest of it out. This particular plane was demonstrated, last week i believe, in Germany by Oleg and Luthier (I think Ilya went down there too).

On the side note, it would be nice if you guys stop freaking out about unusual planes. I think it`s pretty neat that something like that will see a daylight. And it`s not the only surprize in 406 either, from what i gather. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

im actully interested in flying it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

if it was AI only, then id make a special dogfight map to try it out.
its so different its gotta be done http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Vike
08-20-2006, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by luthier1:
And finally, there's the matter of fun. The 46 project adds something compeltely new: jet combat on a relatively mature level. It's completely new gameplay, completely new tactics, completely new realities. Please try to focus on the larger picture. You're getting the Ar-234. You're getting a Ta-152C. You're getting the X-4 rocket. You're finally getting dozens of ground objects that mission builders have been asking for for years. Please forgive the indulgence of a single team member who built a flying meat-grinder in his spare time at home. The add-on is going to be awesome.

I trust you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Moreover,the IL2 serie is already AWESOME at this stage! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

@+

Feathered_IV
08-20-2006, 07:47 PM
Hehe. I agree http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Well done to the fellow who modelled it in his spare time too. No harm done to anybody http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif .

Flying_Nutcase
08-20-2006, 07:47 PM
It's fair enough that the 'paper' birds are not everyone's cup of tea, but those saying they'll leave the sim because of it?? Jeeez, doooods lighten up a little. What's it taking away from what you've got already?

For a lot of us the '46 Add On will be great, for the planes and for the additional FMB objects. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BfHeFwMe
08-20-2006, 08:18 PM
If it really was aimed at the Russian market, than perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a link where I can pick up copies on CD. Surely 1C site or RRG would have a link to buy, but for some reason all Russian links are strangely absent.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

SaQSoN
08-20-2006, 09:58 PM
If it really was aimed at the Russian market, than perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a link where I can pick up copies on CD.
The Russian mail order companies usually will not send the CD in another country. So you would have to visit Russia to buy the disks.
However, so far, only Pe-2 has been released.

Here's the link to the most respectfull Russian Internet shop:

http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/2629696/

Hope, you can read Russian, he-he.

MaxBruder
08-20-2006, 11:07 PM
Check out Luft '46 on the net