PDA

View Full Version : Oleg your thoughts on this flyable planes thread in PF forum please.



Mysticpuma2003
11-09-2004, 10:10 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=7831036932

LEXX_Luthor
11-09-2004, 12:59 PM
Flyable B~24 would best match up with Flyable MC~202, Flyable Reggiane~2001 and Flyable Fiat G.55 that will be added soon over the FBP http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

That thread poster in that link only asks for Flyable 4-engine bombers, mostly B~24, at the expense of other flight simmers who would also like Flyable 2-engine bombers added like G4M and (according to SaQSon possibly Ki~21).

That poster wanting honest answer about 4-engine cockpits can use 3dsMax...

here ~~> http://www.3dmax.com/index.asp

If he/she can make B~24 cockpit over the FBP we would be Very Happy to use them in combat against the new Italian Flyables coming soon. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

B~24 just made the planeset seriously larger. That thread says "plane-set in FP+AE+FB is getting seriously large" and then claim B~24 is both "added" and "original" plane for FP. Sloppy...but then deceptive arguments depend on Slop Talk. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif When the Sloppy get what they want Flyable, they want to slam the door shut on other flight simmers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif I just tell them if they don't like new planes, they don't want B~24 as AI or Flyable.

Mysticpuma2003
11-09-2004, 11:55 PM
Lexx, thanks for taking the time to post. The thread I started on PF about this has already reached 60 posts, and turned from a question of flyable planes , into a flame about Piracy!!!!!!

I'll quote something from my last post on the thread here, which Oleg may take onboard.

Quote" Look how many people have bought this game. Hundereds of thousands. Look how many people bought B-17 and B-17 2, hundereds of thousands.
Now, the B-17, B-25,24 and 29 are all externally modelled. Lets say Oleg gets the interior of these modelled. Suddenly, the buyers of the B-17 and B-17 2 games have a new flight sim, with dyanmic campaign generators to go out and buy. The Il2 community swells, the 1C company becomes more profitable"

I just want to be in a sim, with as many flyers as possible, maybe more bombers will help Oleg to dominate the sim?
Cheers, Neil.

A.K.Davis
11-10-2004, 12:08 AM
Sorry, the game engine is totally unsuited to strategic-bombing operations. Would be an utter disappointment, both online and offline. Plus, the time that would go into developing the B-17 interior alone could probably be used to make 3 or 4 single engine aircraft flyable, or add 6 or 7 new AI aircraft. Misuse of resources for Oleg and Maddox Games.

Now if some third-party wants to take it on...well, that's happened and been dropped repeatedly.

LEXX_Luthor
11-10-2004, 12:16 AM
Ignore AKDavis. Flyable heavy bombers would be "okay." TB~3 is my fave...and unique for a flight sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Especially the new I~16 parasites.

FB engine would be Perfect for lower altitude "old heavy" bombers like B~10 (B~what?)

oh and Italian SM.79 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ...puma is 3 engines enough for you?<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Select Left Engine
Select Right Engine
Select Centre Engine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Puma's sloppiness is claiming the smaller planes get in the way of the larger planes. Maybe he/she doesn't know who makes FB planes, probably thinks Oleg makes them.

A.K.Davis
11-10-2004, 12:23 AM
The type of ignoring I most enjoy is turning around and supporting exactly what I said. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
11-10-2004, 12:25 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Mysticpuma2003
11-10-2004, 07:33 AM
Quote "is claiming the smaller planes get in the way of the larger planes".
Maybe I haven't phrased it correctly but I was just thinking that Oleg has, at the moment, the best fighter combat sim and by just adding a few more flyable bombers, he could encourage a larger selection of players, the example being players who at the moment only have CFS3 and B-17, to come across to the sim, and therefore make more money for 1C. Which in the long run, is better for us because the more money they have, the more money they can invest on future games.

I just guess at the moment, a lot of the bomber models are in development but are being held back, for release in with BoB, which is a shame for the FB community.

A.K.Davis
11-10-2004, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
Quote "is claiming the smaller planes get in the way of the larger planes".
Maybe I haven't phrased it correctly but I was just thinking that Oleg has, at the moment, the best fighter combat sim and by just adding a few more flyable bombers, he could encourage a larger selection of players, the example being players who at the moment only have CFS3 and B-17, to come across to the sim, and therefore make more money for 1C. Which in the long run, is better for us because the more money they have, the more money they can invest on future games.

I just guess at the moment, a lot of the bomber models are in development but are being held back, for release in with BoB, which is a shame for the FB community. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Believe it or not, Oleg does not like to implement features into his sims half-**** simply to try and convert a few CFS3-fans for $$$. He knows his sim is not suited to strategic bombing and has kept the focus where it belongs and where Il-2 shines.

Flatlander1961
11-10-2004, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
Quote "is claiming the smaller planes get in the way of the larger planes".
Maybe I haven't phrased it correctly but I was just thinking that Oleg has, at the moment, the best fighter combat sim and by just adding a few more flyable bombers, he could encourage a larger selection of players, the example being players who at the moment only have CFS3 and B-17, to come across to the sim, and therefore make more money for 1C. Which in the long run, is better for us because the more money they have, the more money they can invest on future games.

I just guess at the moment, a lot of the bomber models are in development but are being held back, for release in with BoB, which is a shame for the FB community. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Believe it or not, Oleg does not like to implement features into his sims half-**** simply to try and convert a few CFS3-fans for $$$. He knows his sim is not suited to strategic bombing and has kept the focus where it belongs and where Il-2 shines. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about this game engine is not suited for bombing it has he111 and b25 does it not

A.K.Davis
11-10-2004, 10:07 AM
He-111 and B-25 are both used as tactical bombers in game, not strategic bombers.

Flatlander1961
11-10-2004, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
He-111 and B-25 are both used as tactical bombers in game, not strategic bombers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe the B25 was used quite often for strategic bombing. The only minor adjustment need would be slightly larger maps.

Tintin-B17
11-10-2004, 11:52 AM
yeah ignore ak.davis....he seems to know everything what oleg wants, lets see oleg come in and explain and not ak.davis not speaking for him all the time.

LEXX_Luthor
11-10-2004, 12:00 PM
Correct. He~111 missions in 1940 Berlin and 1941 Moscow were, to the best they could try, somewhat more strategic than tactical.

What the FB engine cannot handle right now with current AMD/Intel is massive formations of bombers all in combat at one time with fighters and escorts. This contrasts with the hundreds of bombers that made formation in Rowan's BoB sim...which demonstrated the strategic formation sizes of bomber formations using 2-engine aircraft He~111. Oleg said he would consider using AI "accuracy bubble" much like in Rowan't BoB and MiG~Alley ... but it must give calculated results consistent with full AI calculations or just go back to full AI combat calculations across the map.

You see puma, as 4-engine bomber fan you are not making friends with the majority of simmers by trashing the aircraft they want to "make room" for what you want, and if you wanna go onwhine play, you may find fighter escorts, even 2-engine escort pilots (Flyable Mosquito comnig soon), let you down if they find out who you are. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Flatlander1961
11-10-2004, 01:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Correct. He~111 missions in 1940 Berlin and 1941 Moscow were, to the best they could try, somewhat more strategic than tactical.

What the FB engine cannot handle right now with current AMD/Intel is massive formations of bombers all in combat at one time with fighters and escorts. This contrasts with the hundreds of bombers that made formation in Rowan's BoB sim...which demonstrated the strategic formation sizes of bomber formations using 2-engine aircraft He~111. Oleg said he would consider using AI "accuracy bubble" much like in Rowan't BoB and MiG~Alley ... but it must give calculated results consistent with full AI calculations or just go back to full AI combat calculations across the map.

You see puma, as 4-engine bomber fan you are not making friends with the majority of simmers by trashing the aircraft they want to "make room" for what you want, and if you wanna go onwhine play, you may find fighter escorts, even 2-engine escort pilots (Flyable Mosquito comnig soon), let you down if they find out who you are. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can see that being a problem in a single player campaign but I am looking at online play say like 5 B17's escorted by 10 fighters and maybe 10 - 15 axis interceptors I would think the current engine could handle that yes/no?

A.K.Davis
11-10-2004, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flatlander1961:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
He-111 and B-25 are both used as tactical bombers in game, not strategic bombers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe the B25 was used quite often for strategic bombing. The only minor adjustment need would be slightly larger maps. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said in-game, but regardless, the B-25 was not often used for strategic bombing. That's why there were no B-25 groups in 8th Air Force.

As for the He-111, by the time you get to the Moscow map in an He-111 campaign, that is no longer strategic bombing.

And "slightly larger maps" is no minor adjustment. First, they would have to be far more than "slightly" larger. Second, the maps are already as large as they can get with the FB engine for the average user.

MOhz
11-10-2004, 01:52 PM
AKD, ain't this a difficult world, lol! Everyone is like "Ignore the bast..."!

However I do aggree with him, but it is my opinion and I have no clue what Oleg wants. Some more twin engined bombers wouldn't hurt, and they are coming anyway.Four-engined is totally different story!

Flatlander1961
11-10-2004, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
He-111 and B-25 are both used as tactical bombers in game, not strategic bombers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If the game isnt suited for bombers than why are they there? A bomber is a bomber.

A.K.Davis
11-10-2004, 03:58 PM
Am I not speaking English?

DRB_Hookech0
11-10-2004, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
I said _in-game_, but regardless, the B-25 was not often used for strategic bombing. That's why there were no B-25 groups in 8th Air Force. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I refer you to:

http://www.455th.ukpc.net/tomfeise/8thusaaf/markings.htm

where there were several Bomb Groups that flew B-25s and B-26s.

Now for the love of god I am not asking for a "Flying Prositute" as the B-26 was sometines called due to it's stubby little wings "It had no means of support". The B-26 from every thing I read was a horrible plane to fly.

Also other than the B-29 raids over Japan which started at high level until they figured out that you cant bomb from high level IN the jet stream...almost all the bombing was medium alt. at or arounf 20000 feet. And there were not for the most part (excluding the B-29 raids) 100's of bombers taking part in the raids. Most were around 36 bombers not including aborts (of which there were many). In the PTO you just didnt see a bomber string streched out 100 miles long with multiple air divisions taking part. Also by mid to late 43 the B17 was being phased out of the PTO in favor of the B-24 due to the mission distances and bomb loading requirements.

Would I like to have a flyable B17 and B24 and B29? Hell yes, who wouldnt. But I would much rather have a flyable B24, the B25J, and the P61 and as the pics in the other thread on the B29 show a flyable B29 if for no other reason than to fly that wonderful bird.

I am loving this game and am looking forward to any flyable planes we can get. Hell I'm just waiting for someone to start crying about the lack of the SB2C Helldiver......LOL!

A.K.Davis
11-10-2004, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DRB_Hookech0:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
I said _in-game_, but regardless, the B-25 was not often used for strategic bombing. That's why there were no B-25 groups in 8th Air Force. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I refer you to:

http://www.455th.ukpc.net/tomfeise/8thusaaf/markings.htm

where there were several Bomb Groups that flew B-25s and B-26s. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I refer you to "The Mighty Eighth" by Roger Freeman. To a degree, you are confusing 8th AF units with units stationed at 8th AF bases. With a few exceptions:

The 15th BS (L) flew the first 8th Air Force bombing missions in A-20s borrowed from the Brits. This was before the U.S. strategic bombing campaign was underway, and they flew their last mission from Britain in Oct. '42.

Several medium bombardment groups did serve briefly with the 8th AF during 1943, but only the 310th BG with B-25s, giving the 8th 250+ mediums for a time.

The 47th, 310th, 319th and 320th all transferred to the 12th AF in N. Africa after training under the 8th in England. The remaining mediums (all B-26s, I believe) did not prove suited to the 8th's strategic bombing aims:

"Eaker decided that since VIII Bomber Command was fully committed to furthering the strategic bombing campaign, to which the Marauder units could apparently add little weight, the mediums would be placed under VIII Air Support Command, an organisation primarily devoted to the support of ground forces and hitherto a quiet backwater of the Eighth's operational activity."

These groups generally flew medium-level missions in the occupied countries until all were transerferred to the tactical 9th AF in Oct. '43.

An excellent case of the exception proving the rule: medium-bombers did not play a significant role in the 8th AF's strategic-bombing campaign against Germany.

DRB_Hookech0
11-10-2004, 06:20 PM
I have that book but have not looked at it for a year or so....going to have to look at it again. But I did just finish Martin Middlebrooks "The Swinwfurt-Regansburg Mission" and as part of the initial force was medium bombers attacking the airfields and coastal areas prior to the Regansburg mission. The Schwinfurt missio was 2 hours IIRC late due to fog over the air fields.

I will look into this further, one thing I do know is that my Grandfather was flying B25's over there hauling the High Brass around but that is not operations....just wanted to give gramps his props http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Anyway...where were we? Hmmm...well...er...

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

Flatlander1961
11-10-2004, 10:55 PM
tactical or strategic who cares what you call it its still bombing for peets sake just different types of target and how do you define the two types of bombing and who cares we just want to bomb your airfield to piss you off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mysticpuma2003
11-11-2004, 09:15 AM
From another thread:

Why doesn't Oleg approach a company like GMX Media who created fIrepower, and work with them to bring their already modelled cockpits and interiors across to FB? I know Maddox is a small group of people, but this could be a supremely beneficial move for the FB community.
Look forward to hearing your responses, cheers, Neil.

A.K.Davis
11-11-2004, 12:51 PM
I'm sure Microsoft would allow that...

Tintin-B17
11-11-2004, 05:54 PM
huh?

Mysticpuma2003
11-12-2004, 05:36 AM
Ok guys you win, we don't need any more bombers modelled, lets just keep having more fighters, that'll make the game more interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Tintin-B17
11-12-2004, 11:05 AM
see look what u did to poor puma, u evil fighter people u!

A.K.Davis
11-12-2004, 04:23 PM
Oh, I am all for more bombers. We've got the Ju-88 and the Pe-2 coming, but how about the Blenheim? Or B-26? Or Ki-67? Or Mosquito? Or any number of other bombers that played important roles on the tactical battlefield.

Now let's find people with the time to model them!

avimimus
11-14-2004, 05:21 PM
Much more important and easily enjoyable to have HS-123, Do-17 and cockpits for the Po-2, Hs-129, Fw-189.

That said a B-24 would be nice. Still a flyable blenheim might add just as much or more to gameplay.

Is-4

Von_Zero
11-15-2004, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flatlander1961:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
He-111 and B-25 are both used as tactical bombers in game, not strategic bombers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If the game isnt suited for bombers than why are they there? A bomber is a bomber. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
a bomber is a bomber? well the Stuka is a bomber... so does the B-24, right? Then why the hell the USAAF didn't used Stukas for strategic bombing?
do you have the slightest ideea about what TACTICAL and STATEGIC means? sure u don't sound like u do...
The b-17 formations wete flying from UK to germany, and back. now that menas strategical, when it comes to range.
A russian B-25 would Fly from Taganrog to Stalino to bomb the airfield there.... this is tactical.
put it this way:u have to choose between geting a flyable TBF and a flyable HS-129, or u could get the B-17?
Well both the TBF and the Henshel, would be superbly suited for the game, with lots of possible scenarios to develop. The B-17 on the other hand would be useless, for what could u possibly use it (historical al least)? NOTHING!!! You're going to take off from Frankfurt Am Main , circle the airfield for half an hour until u reach 8000m and then go bomb Berlin anbd get back??? Ridiculous!
Adding the B-17 just to atract CFS players? Well, if they haven't olready realised that Microsoft is on the losing side, and they still switched to il2 then they don't deserve to...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I can see that being a problem in a single player campaign but I am looking at online play say like 5 B17's escorted by 10 fighters and maybe 10 - 15 axis interceptors I would think the current engine could handle that yes/no? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Have u ever flown online? U have any ideea how difficult is to find and coordinate those 30 players willing to engage in such an action? Yeah, maybe for an online war would be suited, but we are talking about 30 players here, have u ever tried anything similar online? u should...
ah and to stay ot... we don't need any heavy bomber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Esckey666
11-16-2004, 12:44 AM
Just give me a flyable Mossie, flayble typhoon and flyable P-61 and I'll be happy..........for a bit. There are way to many **** fighters in the game, need more flyable jap stuff too. Got enough russian and american planes in the games now

Mysticpuma2003
11-16-2004, 04:50 AM
"Oh give me a home, where b-24's roam and the and the 51's and the 47's all play"

C'mon Oleg, give us a flyable B-24, please,please,please,please,please!

J_Weaver
11-16-2004, 09:35 AM
I would love to see a flyable B17, B24, etc. However, it might be more pratical to have more medium bombers like the Mossie, Ju88, or maybe some of the other B25 variants.
This game engine was never designed for long range strategic bombing, it was made for low level ground pounding. I think its amazing that we have gotten all that we have Thanks Oleg!
Just my 2 cents http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif