PDA

View Full Version : The Helldiver



Hydra454
06-30-2007, 03:21 AM
Is there a reason why its not in the game?I've always had abit of a soft spot for it since I was a young child after I had the honor of meeting a man who flew them during the war and actually like it.

Does the reason its not gonna be in the game have something to do with rights and what not? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Korolov1986
06-30-2007, 03:28 AM
SB2C was a Curtis plane, so I have no idea on what the deal is with it. Lack of time would be my first guess.

R_Target
06-30-2007, 03:41 AM
Long before the copyright rumor mill spun wildly out of control, the SB2C model was rejected as substandard. No model, no plane.

leitmotiv
06-30-2007, 03:51 AM
Curtiss was shut down by the Feds after WWII for gross corruption, hence, no copyright.

Skarphol
06-30-2007, 08:16 AM
Though I'm not really sure, I think Curtiss quite simply went out of buissness after the war. They had really no good planes after the very sucsessful P-40. The C-46 Commando was good, but an fairly old design, far supreseded bu others from Douglas and Lockheed as the war ended. All the trouble with the SB2C (the "Son of a b1tch, 2nd class"-stuff) had drained a lot of resources. After the war they tried to produce new fighters as the P-55 Ascender and F-87 Blackhawk, but none of these led to any production, and it seems like that was the nail in the coffin for Curtiss.

Curtiss shut down it's Aeroplane Division and sold its assets to North American, wich might explaine why the SB2C isn't in the game.

Skarphol

Hydra454
06-30-2007, 11:56 AM
So the rights for the Helldiver are some where in legal limbo?

Cause come to think of it,I've never seen it in any WW2 flight game.Arcade or other wise http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Korolov1986
06-30-2007, 01:06 PM
I think it's just not a very popular aircraft.

Sturmtrooper
06-30-2007, 01:52 PM
P-40 Warhawk is Curtis built.
So is the 75A Hawk.
I think they are both in the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
06-30-2007, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Korolov1986:
I think it's just not a very popular aircraft.

BF-109Z was? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
06-30-2007, 02:29 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Don't get me started. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Polyperhon
06-30-2007, 05:42 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Me too.Instead of having in the sim some paper planes that remained fiction, it should haven been much better if the Helldiver was present, another reason is the fact that the Avenger is not present at all. it makes the scenarios really poor, especially for the period 1944-45.And this type or airplane,the single engined light bomber, as Ju87 and indeed the IL-2 itself (even if not dive bomber), is very funny to play missions with, and quite fun to "fly" too.

Another plane of this kind that is really missing is the Yokosuka D4Y...

ploughman
06-30-2007, 05:46 PM
Don't worry. The Spit Mk XIV will be in 4.09m. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Skarphol
06-30-2007, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Sturmtrooper:
P-40 Warhawk is Curtis built.
So is the 75A Hawk.
I think they are both in the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You are right about that one, and I might be out on a limb here, but wasn't it all the fuzz about legal rights on using copyrighted planes in this sim that prevented the inclusion of a flyable Grumman Avenger? Still the Grumman Wildcat and Grumman Hellcat are in the game as flyable.
Most american aircraft producers are incorporated; North American, Curtiss, Boeing, Consolidated, Grumman, Lockheed and Douglas to name those I can remember in the game right now. But still there are some legal problem with american planes in this sim. I haven't really read up on what this legal problem is, but someone could probably drop by and inform us...

Skarphol

Hydra454
06-30-2007, 06:22 PM
I just think it's a dang shame that such an important a/c has been left out of the sim is all.

Despite all the biased things said about the SB2C,it did do its share in winning in the PTO.Most of its problems were hammered out in the later varients,just like another famous plane.The B-26 Marauder http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
06-30-2007, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Don't worry. The Spit Mk XIV will be in 4.09m. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
That'd be a dream man...but it'd never happen.

Nimits
06-30-2007, 06:49 PM
The simplest and I believe most accurate explanation is that, after a legal copyright fiasco involving Pacific Fighters, Ubisoft, and a company that shall remain nameless cost Maddox games some of their profits and deep-sixed a couple of critical PTO-themed projects, Maddox & Co just lost interest any further PTO planes or ships (except to the extent they fit into VVS operation in the Far East). There is no legal reason we could not have a D4Y, flyable B6N, Mogami CA, TBD (probably) flyable SB2C, etc.

LEBillfish
06-30-2007, 07:33 PM
Think you all are forgetting or in some cases were not in the sim yet.....Yet 3.0 or pacific fighters, was to be THE END of the series....

Luckily for us, a key plane the G4m1 Betty was not included due to the Ubi pressed for release date.....That fact alone inspired new FMs, time to finish maps, objects and planes not intended to be included...(a whole lot..great big whole lot of them in fact)...and even since time permitted more to be added and finished, my guess would be PE2 Peshka, Sturmoviks over Manchuria, and 1946 to be added to the series.

Yet, if not submitted by X date, or in a workable fashion, the project was scrapped/circular filed, whatever. So it's my guess that a number of planes that were started were set aside, and when new chances came about were simply not picked up again.

It would be great to have all we want, or even things like loadouts added to.......Yet when you compare 1946 to 3.0 Pacific Fighters, you'll see in the end we got the better bargain.

Perfect, no.......Miles ahead of what we were supposed to get...Heck yea. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

RamsteinUSA
06-30-2007, 07:39 PM
the glass is <STRIKE>1/2</STRIKE> 1/4 full.. (of $%$%$##@)
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

LEBillfish
06-30-2007, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
the glass is <STRIKE>1/2</STRIKE> 1/4 full.. (of $%$%$##@)
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Well, there is always CFS3.....I'll stick with this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hydra454
06-30-2007, 09:13 PM
I'm not saying that what we have isn't enough.This is probably (IMHO it is) the most complete WW2 flight sim on the market.It just sucks that there are still some "major" players during the war still MIA.

Polyperhon
07-01-2007, 04:24 AM
The 1946 add-on went on the wrong direction for me, and I think it's not just me that thinks that.Instead of having failed prototypes and paper planes, would have been much better to have some key planes that participated in combat operations, some of them just versions of existing planes.In most cases, a few bits are missing to make certain campaings. E.g. if they could had offered us flyable Bf 110C, P-36 and MS 406, this would have been enough to create a credible battle of france campaign.Or a few more versions of Mc 200, a Gladiator Mk II and a AI SM 79 could have been enough to create a much more complete African campaign, plus the added bonus of the greece campaign.And all these with much less effort that the one that was done for the paper planes....

ake109
07-01-2007, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Korolov1986:
I think it's just not a very popular aircraft.

BF-109Z was? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More than the Lerche!

Hydra454
07-01-2007, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Polyperhon:
The 1946 add-on went on the wrong direction for me, and I think it's not just me that thinks that.Instead of having failed prototypes and paper planes, would have been much better to have some key planes that participated in combat operations, some of them just versions of existing planes.In most cases, a few bits are missing to make certain campaings. E.g. if they could had offered us flyable Bf 110C, P-36 and MS 406, this would have been enough to create a credible battle of france campaign.Or a few more versions of Mc 200, a Gladiator Mk II and a AI SM 79 could have been enough to create a much more complete African campaign, plus the added bonus of the greece campaign.And all these with much less effort that the one that was done for the paper planes....

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

Sillius_Sodus
07-01-2007, 12:26 PM
Maybe 1C was trying to be a little different. As nice as it would be to have all those planes mentioned earlier, it would just add a lot of stuff with very similar performance and sometimes looks to the stuff already in the sim. Back in the day, SWOTL was great, AOTP 1946! even better with all the aircraft that didn't quite see action in WWII or were in prototype and/or drawing board stage.

Having aircraft that have never been represented in any sim to date isn't so dumb if it encourages people to purchase IL2 1946 because it isn't "just another WWII Spit/P-51/109/Zero sim"

Good hunting,
Sillius_Sodus

Polyperhon
07-01-2007, 02:01 PM
I don't know myself many sims that have Mc 200,P-36 or Ms 406.Having a similar general configuration doesn't mean that all these planes are "similar". This is a simplification.With that way of thinking, then all modern airliners are "similar" as well, as are all the general aviation planes etc.In fact if they wanted to give us something really different (but something that REALLY existed), then well, what about Meteor, P-55,P-59,P-61 or P-67 (since prototypes are not a problem it seems)or even B-17/B-24,He 177 & H8K??...and why not C-47 or U/Po-2?

The truth is after the 4.04m and all these late (and mostly italian) additions everybody (or at least many) thought that the "mediterranean expansion pack" was on its way. Why this didn't happen? Nobody really understood.What was needed ro be done? Not much.Just these slight additions and a few more maps (Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt, Sicily, calabria/campagna and Greece, at least a selection of some of them)

TAW_Oilburner
07-01-2007, 08:02 PM
Any plane called "Son of a ***** 2nd Class" is worth inclusion I would think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
07-01-2007, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Polyperhon:
The 1946 add-on went on the wrong direction for me, and I think it's not just me that thinks that.Instead of having failed prototypes and paper planes, would have been much better to have some key planes that participated in combat operations, some of them just versions of existing planes.In most cases, a few bits are missing to make certain campaings. E.g. if they could had offered us flyable Bf 110C, P-36 and MS 406, this would have been enough to create a credible battle of france campaign.Or a few more versions of Mc 200, a Gladiator Mk II and a AI SM 79 could have been enough to create a much more complete African campaign, plus the added bonus of the greece campaign.And all these with much less effort that the one that was done for the paper planes....
I don't disagree with you...but I wonder if some of that has been reserved for Battle of Britain and forthcoming additions after that. There's talk of a D.520 and we know the Bf110C will be flyable so I think we'll see that made up to us later on.

LEBillfish
07-01-2007, 11:16 PM
well I like 1946, fascinating stuff, and actually a LOT of fun....Still having after all these years only flown maybe 30% of what we have.

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

woofiedog
07-01-2007, 11:26 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif If you have CFS2 disc hanging around...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/ScreenShot131.jpg

Sillius_Sodus
07-02-2007, 12:06 AM
It just goes to show you how right 1C actually got it. The sim is what? Five years old now? And we still want more aircraft types to fly, in spite of the sim's limitations. Forget patches, personally I'd pay for expansion packs that add more aircraft, maps and campaigns.

Good hunting,
Sillius_Sodus

Hydra454
07-02-2007, 02:56 AM
Indeed the fact that we do still cry out for more is a good sign they're doing things right.Well said Sillius http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Polyperhon
07-02-2007, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
It just goes to show you how right 1C actually got it. The sim is what? Five years old now? And we still want more aircraft types to fly, in spite of the sim's limitations. Forget patches, personally I'd pay for expansion packs that add more aircraft, maps and campaigns.

Good hunting,
Sillius_Sodus

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

The limitations in comparison with newer sims are there that still the fundamentals are so good that I don't think there is a better sim around
Oleg and his mates forgot that Spiteful and Me 209 failed to substitute Spitfire and Bf 109...when you have something that good, creating something as good as it was on its time is not an easy task. I proposed them to do a cold war area sim,but they don't listen...do they really think that WINGS OVER VIETNAM is so good that is too hard to compete? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Lurch1962
07-03-2007, 05:29 PM
Hydra,
You wrote that as far as you knew the Helldiver wasn't included in other sims/games. Not so sure about AOTP (Aces of the Pacific), but I'm virtually certain that Microprose's 1942 Pacific Air War had it.

--Lurch--