PDA

View Full Version : New Aircraft



p51srule
08-23-2008, 02:40 PM
hey every1 its me again. this is a list of aircraft they should add in IL-2.(note some or after ww2 but hey its IL-2 1946 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif )

Lancaster(any model)
sea hurricane
P-61
Gloster Meteor
B-26
A-26
night version of the F4U
Curtiss SB2C Helldiver
P-59
4 engine version of the Ar-234
Ta-154
Me-209
He-219
Ki-44
Fairey Swordfish
Fairey Barracuda
Handley Page Halifax
Heinkel He 177
Lockheed A-29
Aeronca L-3 Grasshopper
Westland Lysander
De Havilland Vampire
Dewoitine D.520
Hawker Tempest
Reggiane Re.2005
F8F Bearcat
Hawker Sea Fury

I hope u liked what I picked.

P51srule http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Jure_502
08-23-2008, 02:56 PM
Nice list, but it's basically very unimportant, beacuse all progress related to Il-2 game series stopped a while ago.

Though, some of these aircrafts are being developted by third party modders, known as AAA.

dirkpit7
08-23-2008, 02:59 PM
Hawker Tempest is already included.

jarink
08-23-2008, 03:22 PM
You forgot....a lot.

wags94
08-23-2008, 03:29 PM
I do agree on the "helldiver." That one needs to be added in http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jdigris001
08-23-2008, 04:27 PM
The Tempest is already in the game, what we are missing is the Typhoon!

I totally agree with:

Lancaster
Vampire
Meteor

But a Wellington would also be nice, and the Stirling and the Halifax to make up the severe shortcoming in pommie bomber a/c

Id also like a whirl in the Whirlwind!

wags94
08-23-2008, 05:24 PM
What about the Mosquito? I'm not sure if its already modeled though, I play more PF than Il-2.

blairgowrie
08-23-2008, 05:29 PM
Too late guys. The dye is already set. No new planes unless by way of a mod.

VW-IceFire
08-23-2008, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by wags94:
What about the Mosquito? I'm not sure if its already modeled though, I play more PF than Il-2.
We've had it for a while http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FB.IV is flyable. B.IV is AI. The Mossie is also in PF because of a limited use in the Pacific.

Jaws2002
08-23-2008, 07:02 PM
Lancaster(any model) <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">in progres</span>
sea hurricane <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">If i remember corectly someone put a hook on it some time ago</span>
P-61 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">They are working on it</span>
Gloster Meteor <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">in progres</span>
B-26 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Don't know, but people are talking about it</span>
A-26
night version of the F4U <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Done, Sort of</span>
Curtiss SB2C Helldiver
P-59
4 engine version of the Ar-234
Ta-154
Me-209
He-219 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">in progres</span>
Ki-44
Fairey Swordfish
Fairey Barracuda
Handley Page Halifax <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">in progres</span>
Heinkel He 177
Lockheed A-29
Aeronca L-3 Grasshopper
Westland Lysander
De Havilland Vampire
Dewoitine D.520
Hawker Tempest <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">You better fly all the planes in game before asking for more http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif</span>
Reggiane Re.2005
F8F Bearcat
Hawker Sea Fury <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">In progres in advanced stage</span>

Jaws2002
08-23-2008, 07:03 PM
Ah BTW....p51 is teh suck. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

dirkpit7
08-24-2008, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
sea hurricane <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">If i remember corectly someone put a hook on it some time ago</span>

Who needs a hook in a Hurricane?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Uufflakke
08-24-2008, 03:15 AM
Two weeks ago there was the same thread actually. With all of our wishes... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4741078776

And about this hook on a Hurricane: I remember that somebody worked on a hook on a Bf-109. This guy found out how to attach the hook but step 2 how to get it up and down seemed to be more difficult. As far as I know it is still WIP.

Phas3e
08-24-2008, 03:24 AM
I've talked a modeler friend of mine to do a Vampire 3d model that maybe usable in IL2

Jure_502
08-24-2008, 03:28 AM
I would be more happy if modders would give their hands on making better flight models and cockpits on planes wich are already ''flyable'' by their aircraft mod pack (porked avangers, B5N6's and still others). Now they're doing a bunch of new aircrafts and we don't even know if they're doing it tehnically, historically correct, or just ''a game friendly FM's'', so we can have a great fun shooting tehnically, historically better airplanes; just for fun. I think modder scene has to make a deep breath, stop for a while, correct the old things wich they promised to be sorted out and then continue the (in most of cases) good work.
my opinion.

HuninMunin
08-24-2008, 04:19 AM
We do not touch stock game contend in terms of game dynamics ( FM/DM/WM).
Wether our flight models are accurate or not one can find out if interested.

And wich old problems did we promise to sort out again?

DKoor
08-24-2008, 07:52 AM
Devastator.

Jure_502
08-24-2008, 12:07 PM
And wich old problems did we promise to sort out again?

B3N6 and B5N6.

HuninMunin
08-24-2008, 12:37 PM
Whats wrong with them?

Jure_502
08-24-2008, 01:55 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Am...
Did you ever fly them? I'm kinda confused cause how can you normally fly plane with such a FM? I mean, you can, but it's very, very hard and frustrating.
Very unstable, no trim and either level stabalizer doesn't work.

Now I do fly them, online also, and I'm still glad to even control it, though with that kind of FM. And I made a pretty much succsess with it.

I just wanted to say that I think modders should also working on old things that are still not working as they should and not just implenting the new aircrafts.

HuninMunin
08-24-2008, 02:29 PM
As I said.
We will not touch existing stock planes.
And I'd like to see the person who promised to adjust the FMs of stock planes.

WTE_Galway
08-24-2008, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Jure_502:
I just wanted to say that I think modders should also working on old things that are still not working as they should and not just implenting the new aircrafts.

The concern is probably that they will be accused of changing things to what they "think they should be". Even Oleg was regularly accused of bias in his FM's.

I assume the worry is modding has been seen as moving IL2 far more towards a game and away from a sim and they are trying to limit the damage.

joeap
08-25-2008, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
As I said.
We will not touch existing stock planes.
And I'd like to see the person who promised to adjust the FMs of stock planes.

Well maybe not but it seems there is a loophole.

Edit: Don't think it breaks the rules but I'm editing, go to the AAA site and search for the P-51 FM topic there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



I mean what is this about "new slot" aircraft? Granted on this thread, the guys tried to talk some sense to the OP (who has trolled here ar UBI before and I am sure will still whine when the "fixed" version comes out) but still what will the new planes be called? If they are really say a P-51K or a FW-190A3 then that is a new model, and P-51Ks can't be used in the ETO if one is being historical. I get the strong impression many of these planes will be just redone stock with a different label to "differentiate" it from the stock.

tragentsmith
08-25-2008, 04:00 AM
Hey, did the modders find how to model new cockpits now ? I mean except adding a few pieces here and there, but make a total new cockpit. Thinking about the Me410 here, or the Hawk75, it would be great to have their original and historical cockpits instead of the one of the Bf110 or P40.

BTW, the 410 is great. Awaiting Warclouds to allow them to fly here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

skarden
08-25-2008, 06:05 AM
ah joeap,I'd get rid of that link if i were you,direct links to AAA are not allowed.

read me (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7441010176)

joeap
08-25-2008, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by skarden:
ah joeap,I'd get rid of that link if i were you,direct links to AAA are not allowed.

read me (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7441010176)

You sure? It's not a link to the mod but to the topic on the forum there, and no mod is linked in that particular topic.

In light of recent events here and at other places this rule seems half-youknowed and obsolete anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

stalkervision
08-25-2008, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by tragentsmith:
Hey, did the modders find how to model new cockpits now ? I mean except adding a few pieces here and there, but make a total new cockpit. Thinking about the Me410 here, or the Hawk75, it would be great to have their original and historical cockpits instead of the one of the Bf110 or P40.

BTW, the 410 is great. Awaiting Warclouds to allow them to fly here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I totally agree. I want the real cockpits! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Jure_502
08-25-2008, 11:17 AM
Quote from maker of 109 B:

''The FM will be True To Game,not True to Life,because the I-16 will catch it even without using the full power.''

And this is what I'm concerned about. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Urufu_Shinjiro
08-25-2008, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Jure_502:
Quote from maker of 109 B:

''The FM will be True To Game,not True to Life,because the I-16 will catch it even without using the full power.''

And this is what I'm concerned about. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I'm pretty sure what he is saying is that it will fit in FM wise where Oleg would have put it, including all the mistakes Oleg has in the game. We all know that Oleg is not perfect and there are some AC that perform better or not as well as they should.

TinyTim
08-25-2008, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Jure_502:
Quote from maker of 109 B:

''The FM will be True To Game,not True to Life,because the I-16 will catch it even without using the full power.''

And this is what I'm concerned about. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

You also have to consider that both versions (all 3 actually) of stock I-16s that we have in IL2 1946 are one of the latest versions and have a 1000hp M-62 engine modelled. Earlier models of I-16 (type 5) that fought over Spain, were mostly 700hp M-25 engined planes, naturally performing considerably worse.

On the other hand keep in mind that Bf109B was powered by a mere 660 HP Jumo210B. I don't find it surprising at all that a much newer version of I-16 with 1000hp (that's 50% more) can catch it.

BTW Jure, a bi se dalo dobit tvoj avatar v večji resoluciji? Daj mi na PM. Hvala! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

joeap
08-25-2008, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jure_502:
Quote from maker of 109 B:

''The FM will be True To Game,not True to Life,because the I-16 will catch it even without using the full power.''

And this is what I'm concerned about. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I'm pretty sure what he is saying is that it will fit in FM wise where Oleg would have put it, including all the mistakes Oleg has in the game. We all know that Oleg is not perfect and there are some AC that perform better or not as well as they should. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well modders are human too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I think Tinytim nailed it...people forget that planes fought their contemporaries for the most part.

Anyway, getting back to the FM thing. I'm sure if someone tried to get the FM true to life someone else would find fault. You always have to make compromises or leave something out.

What rankled me is one of the statements that there are 3 camps; the true to life FM, "Oleg's" world and the my plane pwned everyone else's in real life and should in game too.

What people don't realize is, leaving the last group out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif the first two actually are all interpretations of RL.

The most important point though to consider is the confusion of the individual plane modelling and the overall physics/damage model it "exists" in. That's Oleg's world that all "his" and now the modders planes will have to fly in. If 1C got details of some plane models wrong, it doesn't mean that the underlying engine is bad. If there were limitations built in (or that 1C were unable to implement in 1999-2000 when the basic engine was designed) then these will affect new planes and the ahem "rewrites" of old planes. The same whines will result.

Stir in some ignorance and the typical stuff we know so well here and I hope the modders grow some thick skin.

Urufu_Shinjiro
08-25-2008, 01:51 PM
I agree with all of that. Of the new planes I've flown I think the modders are doing a pretty good job of placing the FM performance squarely where it needs to be in relation to other planes as Oleg has it.

skarden
08-25-2008, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
Edit: Don't think it breaks the rules but I'm editing, go to the AAA site and search for the P-51 FM topic there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



yeah it is pretty borderline i know,I'm actually not sure if linking to just a discusion there isnt allowed now that i think about it.maybe a mod could enlighten us about it.

getting paraniod in my old(er) age http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

HuninMunin
08-25-2008, 05:57 PM
What has been said by Gringo concerning the Bf 109 B was partly a product of a discussion we had.

Basicaly our stance is that, seeing that there are mistakes in the stock FMs for every plane in one way or another, it is the relation between the planes that outweights the absolute number.

@ Joeap
You are spot on about the underlying game engine limitations.
Btw.
I think in some cases a "rewrite" as you call it is direly needed.
For example the A-3 has all reason to be in our sim world because we simple do not have a western front fighter example of the early Fw 190 A series running at 1.42 ATA.
The A-3 will represent the Fw 190 in it's prime.

Until the day when we will be able to create a new version number for a singular core mod installement and engage in a discussion within the community about what is wrong and what can be fixed in the stock game contend, consistency and integrety are mandatory and our working priority.

@ tragentsmith
Thanks m8, we have spend a lot of energy on that one.
I'd love to do a proper pit someday.

jarink
08-25-2008, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
P-51Ks can't be used in the ETO if one is being historical.

Well, the the Lerche, Bf-109Z, P-80, Do-335, Bi-6, He-162C, Me-262HG, Mig-9, Yak-15, yadda, yadda yadda could not be used anywhere by your line of reasoning, but 1C has seen fit to include them all in the game.

Does that mean Oleg killed the historic credibility of his own game? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

luftluuver
08-25-2008, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
If they are really say a P-51K or a FW-190A3 then that is a new model, and P-51Ks can't be used in the ETO if one is being historical.
What are you babbling about? P-51Ks were most certainly flown in the ETO.

All are 8th AF

4th FG - Dec 44
7th PR - Jan 45
20th FG - Dec 44
55th FG - Dec 44
78th FG - Dec 44
339th FG - no date stated
352cd FG - no date stated
353rd FG - Dec 44
355th FG - no date stated
356th FG - Dec 44
357th FG - no date stated
359th FG - no date stated
361st FG - no dated stated

WereSnowleopard
08-26-2008, 11:22 PM
Hey, do you remember legal action against IL2's Pacific over some USN bombers that lead to unflyable. Oh boy.

We had been talk so many time about add more aircraft but already too late as they are focus on SOW even one of post mention Do-17 in this topic, then SOW(Storm of War) already have Do-17. I am sure SOW have more better engine than older IL2 engine so let add new aircraft in SOW instead of IL2./

WTE_Galway
08-26-2008, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by WereSnowleopard:
Hey, do you remember legal action against IL2's Pacific over some USN bombers that lead to unflyable. Oh boy.



ummh ... said legal action was so unethical that the litigants needed to make it a requirement of settlement that it never be discussed ever. Reference to it here usually get the thread instantly locked.

Meanwhile, back on topic ... and just what is wrong with "my plane pwned everyone else's in real life and should in game too" ????

WereSnowleopard
08-27-2008, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WereSnowleopard:
Hey, do you remember legal action against IL2's Pacific over some USN bombers that lead to unflyable. Oh boy.



ummh ... said legal action was so unethical that the litigants needed to make it a requirement of settlement that it never be discussed ever. Reference to it here usually get the thread instantly locked.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yup, that's correct as I had trouble remember it. Shoot! Should I delete that message?

M2morris
08-27-2008, 12:26 AM
...and then there's the Do200.

It's pretty easy to make.

Just put German markings on a Flying Fortress.


http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b206/planegeek/Do200.jpg

WTE_Galway
08-27-2008, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by M2morris:
...and then there's the Do200.

It's pretty easy to make.

Just put German markings on a Flying Fortress.


http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b206/planegeek/Do200.jpg

The similarities are astounding. Even has the same number of engines.

I bet pilots at thetime often got them confused.

joeap
08-27-2008, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Meanwhile, back on topic ... and just what is wrong with "my plane pwned everyone else's in real life and should in game too" ????

Because 90% of the time what they really mean is "I know (think...heard on the history channel...wished so hard that my hero's) plane pwned everyone else's in real life so mine should too" That is based on popular myth not fact. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M2morris
08-27-2008, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:



The similarities are astounding. Even has the same number of engines.

I bet pilots at thetime often got them confused.

It's a captured B-17 in case you didnt know that already.

I don't know the story as to how it was captured.

berg417448
08-27-2008, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by M2morris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:



The similarities are astounding. Even has the same number of engines.

I bet pilots at thetime often got them confused.

It's a captured B-17 in case you didnt know that already.

I don't know the story as to how it was captured. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or Japanese if you prefer:
http://www.j-aircraft.com/captured/capturedby/b-17/captured_b17.htm

ImMoreBetter
08-27-2008, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by M2morris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:



The similarities are astounding. Even has the same number of engines.

I bet pilots at thetime often got them confused.

It's a captured B-17 in case you didnt know that already.

I don't know the story as to how it was captured. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mission report... (http://www.303rdbg.com/missionreports/006.pdf)