PDA

View Full Version : Avengers



Scharnhorst1943
03-14-2005, 10:25 PM
This is a pretty hot topic that seems to quickly stray into a "bash everyone we can" match.
This is a simple problem. undoubtably there is a loophole in the system somwhere. And if not, would a compramize be in order.
What i mean is this,
Would the gaming comunity be willing to fly avengers without cockpits or with hodge podged cockpits from other planes that are "in the ballpark"?
I don't know about you guys, but a would have a blast even without a cockpit. besides, wasn't the Me 110 flyable in Forgotten Battles with no cockpit before AEP?

Scharnhorst1943
03-14-2005, 10:29 PM
on a second note, if this was done by the comunity as an unofficial addon, then Oleg doesn't have to pay rediculous fees and we get our carrier torpedo planes.
If i'm wrong or out of line someone please tell me.

VW-IceFire
03-14-2005, 10:33 PM
No on the 110...pre AEP we flew the Bf-110 just like you can fly any plane right now. From the external view.

Oleg also said he wouldn't be doing this sort of thign either. So I would think that that squashes things.

Bloody lawyers...

Scharnhorst1943
03-14-2005, 10:40 PM
I don't want to start another blame game session but ****! It just aint the same. I compare to the old Aces Over the Pacific from Dynamix. To me, IL2 and PF come ever so close to that standard. BTW would it be possible to skin a B6N kate in USN markings and add it to the DCG. It wouldn't be an avenger but it would be some form of american torp plane.

strewth
03-15-2005, 12:39 AM
Well there's more than one way to skin a Kate!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Oh boy, I just crack myself up sometimes.

I for one think that from a sim community point of view, this could work to show that if the big AC companies want to play greedy, then we skin a kate like an avenger and they don't get a cut. Nor for that matter much recognition.

I say "SKIN THE KATE!! TO BLAZES WITH GREEDY A/C PIGS!! SKIN THE KATE!!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Woah! that felt good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-15-2005, 01:06 AM
Been experimenting with IL~2T torpeco bomber just in case, and it takes off from fast moving 55km/hr carriers okay, and eazy to land with the torpedo dumped. Excellent forward view, and soft and slow landings on deck.

Scharnhorst1943
03-15-2005, 12:16 PM
So would it be possible to ...

1. skin the b6n jill that is flyable w/ next path and add it to american dynamic campaign

2. add an arestor hook to the IL2 to give another flyable carrier torp bomber.

If anyone has any ideas or ways to add the hook to an IL2 let me know.

So we don't get the avenger ... who cares? all i want is a flyable American torpedo bomber.

IV_JG51_Razor
03-15-2005, 05:23 PM
I'm still very curious, because I've yet to get an answer for this question, what does the Lawyers from Northrup have to do with our lack of a cockpit for the Avenger? The plane is already in the game, so it must have already been "paid for". Why is it that every time this question is brought up, people start ranting about lawyers and such? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

heywooood
03-15-2005, 06:06 PM
Razor -

If I read one of Olegs last posts correctly...one of their (or any 3D developers) main resources -in fact Oleg called it crucial- was the MFG's original documentation...which includes photos and wiring schematics and lots of three view drawings, etc....and I believe that those are the items that N/G is either charging too much $ for now, or refusing to release to flight sim developers without a percentage. Those are the things that are copyrighted.

What Oleg said in regard to this recent turn of events was that if this doesn't change, we may have seen the last of that MFG's airframes for a long time... as well as any others that might follow N/G...

Scharnhorst1943
03-15-2005, 09:28 PM
leave it to good old american corporate greed to screw the pooch and ruin everyone (ie Boeing).

atomicali
03-15-2005, 09:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
Razor -

If I read one of Olegs last posts correctly...one of their (or any 3D developers) main resources -in fact Oleg called it crucial- was the MFG's original documentation...which includes photos and wiring schematics and lots of three view drawings, etc....and I believe that those are the items that N/G is either charging too much $ for now, or refusing to release to flight sim developers without a percentage. Those are the things that are copyrighted.

What Oleg said in regard to this recent turn of events was that if this doesn't change, we may have seen the last of that MFG's airframes for a long time... as well as any others that might follow N/G... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yay for ridiculous copyright laws.
So even tho the AC and its panels have been out of production for years, and they have no intention of restarting manufacture they can still claim a fee for others using the stuff?
Talk about stupid, cretinous, greedy (and any other disparaging adjective you can think of)suits.

Sharkey888
03-15-2005, 11:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
I'm still very curious, because I've yet to get an answer for this question, what does the Lawyers from Northrup have to do with our lack of a cockpit for the Avenger? The plane is already in the game, so it must have already been "paid for". Why is it that every time this question is brought up, people start ranting about lawyers and such? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, we haven't got a good answer yet. The lawyers'/ greed argument is way old. I bet nobody made an Avenger cockpit or it wasn't up to snuff.

There is mountains of info on the Avenger, really no need to go to N/G for this. Anyway all of these legal ramifications should have been known by Ubi and or 1C!!

VW-IceFire
03-16-2005, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sharkey888:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
I'm still very curious, because I've yet to get an answer for this question, what does the Lawyers from Northrup have to do with our lack of a cockpit for the Avenger? The plane is already in the game, so it must have already been "paid for". Why is it that every time this question is brought up, people start ranting about lawyers and such? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, we haven't got a good answer yet. The lawyers'/ greed argument is way old. I bet nobody made an Avenger cockpit or it wasn't up to snuff.

There is mountains of info on the Avenger, really no need to go to N/G for this. Anyway all of these legal ramifications should have been known by Ubi and or 1C!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually its a new trend...they have been screwing RC and model manufacturers too. I heard there are ammendments in court somewhere to US copyright law which may destroy the legal case and help us out but I'm not really an expert on that.

SeaNorris
03-16-2005, 09:17 AM
Well if they did that they may as well put all the planes with arrester hooks.

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

SKULLS_Exec01
03-16-2005, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
Razor -

If I read one of Olegs last posts correctly...one of their (or any 3D developers) main resources -in fact Oleg called it crucial- was the MFG's original documentation...which includes photos and wiring schematics and lots of three view drawings, etc....and I believe that those are the items that N/G is either charging too much $ for now, or refusing to release to flight sim developers without a percentage. Those are the things that are copyrighted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I used to volunteer at a ww2 aircraft museum that had a tbm/tbf and I emailed Olegs group offering to photo the cockpit and everything around it and scan the original manuals (flight and repair) and what ever else they needed -and I never even got a reply from them. So not sure if they already had what they needed or maybe my email got lost in the bit bucket.
But either way - they've requested info before and the community responded - so same could have been done here!!!
But sounds like all US planes are dead till what ever the legal issues are get resolved.

Tooz_69GIAP
03-16-2005, 01:56 PM
the IL-2T is great working off carriers.

Part of my squads carrier training is to be able to take off and land an IL-2T five times on deck in one mission without damaging the aircraft.

It can take off fine with a torp and 50% fuel, and touchdown speed is around 150kmh (slower if possible), and the brakes on the thing are great!!

Scharnhorst1943
03-16-2005, 02:08 PM
Is it feasable or worth the time to complete such a campaign? Would other people care? I don't know about anyone else, but how fun would it be to have kates and IL2-Ts trying to torp carriers in online maps? Now the fighters have two strategic concers, PROTECT THE BOMBERS and PROTECT THE CARRIER! that should add a bit more of a challenge as well as spicing up diversity.

But seriously, is it worth it or am I digging up a coffin that was burried earlier on the forum?

Tooz_69GIAP
03-16-2005, 03:59 PM
eh....you do know that Kates are not flyable in PF right?? They are AI only. There are no japanese aircraft which can carry torpedos flyable in PF yet. The only axis aircraft capable of carrying topredos which is flyable is the He-111H-6.

Scharnhorst1943
03-16-2005, 04:50 PM
sorry, I wasn't clear enough. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifmeant fly kates or Jills with the upcomming patch. By the way, Which is it? Are we getting a flyable kate and an AI Jill, or a Flyable Jill whilst leaving the kate AI? Either way, we are getting a flyable torp bomber for japan that can take off and land on flattops.

Back to the original question, would it be worth the trouble to get an IL2-T into the us dynamic campaign, or would it be better to wait and skin the jill/kate (whichever is flyable) in US paintscheem and add it to the US dynamic campaign?

Tooz_69GIAP
03-17-2005, 05:32 AM
Well, the B6N is being worked on I believe, but I haven't heard that it's definately going to be in the next patch, or that it's going to be flyable.

Do tell where you hear your info.

And as for sticking in the IL-2T in place of the Avenger, I don't believe there is a US campaign for this aircraft simply becuase it's an AI aircraft.

What you can do though, is edit the campaign files in the conf.ini file, and substitue any aircraft in to a campaign you want. I'm not 100% sure on what to edit, as I've never done it, but I know it's a pretty simple affair to do so. A good place to ask is the mission builders forum.

IV_JG51_Razor
03-17-2005, 08:11 AM
Tooz, in your CarQuals with the IL-2T, is the carrier under way? If so, are you able to get stopped in time to have enough deck left out in front of you to take off again?!!

Heywoood, thanks for that response. It makes more sense than anything I've heard up to now.

Tooz_69GIAP
03-17-2005, 11:04 AM
yes, the carrier is underway. And I have managed to come to a full stop about halfway up the deck.

To take off again, I turn the thing around and roll down the deck to a suitable take off point, and turn around again, chocks in, full power, flaps, etc, then off I go. I haven't tried taking off from where I stop. Never thought about that.

I was using the Saratoga for the qualifiers, but this proved to be too short to deal with landing an A-20 (advanced qualifier http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) so I switched to the Akagi. But the IL-2T works fine off the Saratoga.

Scharnhorst1943
03-17-2005, 12:42 PM
I get some info from posts, but mainly trust what i hear from dev. team.

1. The new shots you may see on Dev. Update page.

Oleg ready room
2 Currently in work:

New planes (or cockpits to make flyable)

Ki-100-I Ko (flyable. ready)
G4M1 (flyable. ready)
MC-200 (waiting from third party to put in engine and program)
MC-202 (almost done in 3D engine)
MC-205 (waiting...)
Re-2000 (waiting...)
Re-2001 (waiting...)
Cr-32 (possibly AI)
Mosquito B.Mk.IV (currently AI)
Mosquito FB.Mk.VI (flyable)
Do-335 (working with the own external model)
Fokker D-XXI (AI)
Tempest Mk.V (AI, waiting for a cockpit)
Spitfire Mk.XIV (waiting for a cockpit)
Avia B-534 (AI)
CW-21 (need to be finsihed).
Fiat G-55 (waiting for a cockpit input)
J2M3 (ready cockpit)

*B6N2 (ready external model in 3D engine, third party working over cockpits)

Pe-2 (currently on a CD only for Russian market. I'm sorry for this)
Ju-88A-4 (cockpit and the plane. Sorry need more rework. We started it finally ourselves)B6N2 (ready external model in 3D engine, third party working over cockpits)
Pe-2 (currently on a CD only for Russian market. I'm sorry for this)
Ju-88A-4 (cockpit and the plane. Sorry need more rework. We started it finally ourselves)

If they are working on the cockpit ... isn't it flyable?

Tooz_69GIAP
03-17-2005, 02:27 PM
Don't count on seeing everything on that list get into the game. Probably we will see the B6N as AI. Flyable would be excellent, but I think it will depend on how quickly the pit can be finished, otherwise it probably wont be included.

We shall see.

Philipscdrw
03-17-2005, 03:17 PM
Heheh. If N/G won't let us use the Avenger, then lets substitute it with a Russian aircraft - I love that idea! We just need a tailhook, for those without a PhD in Naval Aircraft Operations...

Aaron_GT
03-17-2005, 04:21 PM
"Well I used to volunteer at a ww2 aircraft museum that had a tbm/tbf and I emailed Olegs group offering to photo the cockpit and everything around it and scan the original manuals (flight and repair) and what ever else they needed -and I never even got a reply from them."

They might have been under instructions from lawyers not to reply. Plus material in the manuals was probably originally created by Grumman, so Grumman would have copyright on that. If the cockpit was built from photos only (or 3D reconstructions from multiple photos - software is increasingly available to do this) it might be a way round, but Maddox Games might have to prove to Grumman that absolutely none of their copyright materials were used in the process, which might be hard to do. Maddox Games is small and SLAPP suits are a risk.

Scharnhorst1943
03-17-2005, 04:22 PM
actually not even that. Lex_Luthor sparked the idea, so all thanks to him!

But anyway, no tail hook is even needed. The AI will takeoff and land on the US carrier as is. The player can do it easily as well. Just use your brakes at touchdown. Durring takeoff carrier must be at 50 m/hr or so, otherwise you'll hit the drink everytime. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

The only thing I cannot figure out yet is how to incorporate it into dynamic campaign. Through feedcack on other posts have combined several of other peopl's ideas ...

1. alter conf.ini file to make IL2-T flyable in certain maps (havn't tried yet but will)

2. Develop custom campaign using DCG3 v3.10. Am still tinkering with this one. (unsure how to combine custom campaigns so that when player completes coral sea he advances to midway map)

3. hand craft each mission individually and combine them so that the game chooses them at random. (this is the last case scenario i wish to avoid if possible)

4. Generate as many missions desired in UQMG and again combine them so sim chooses at random. (second to last choice).

I know there is a way to do this, but am I unsure as to if I'm the only one who cares about a USN torp bomber. Am I just waisting time and agravating those who put so much time and effort to this game by suggesting something so radical?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gifAm I pushing this too far?
I sympathis with all who are angry about no avenger or devastator, but instead of pout I thought I would see what I could do about it.
If I'm outa line please tell me.

heywooood
03-17-2005, 07:19 PM
Just a thought for those who care about such things...

There was a certain pride I had for what my country accomplished after it entered WWII, both in terms of the people who fought it out, and the ones who worked so hard at home to develope and then produce in record numbers, the equipment to fight and help to win the victory...and then to reconstruct viable govenments in the aftermath in Japan and Germany.

But the pride has waned...the country has changed.
You would hope that the people behind corporate entities like Northrup Grumman and Lockheed would understand how important it is for those machines they built to remain in our minds as icons of that strength and that capability to answer the call when hardest pressed...to hold certain things up high and be proud to have them represented well in such devices as these flight simulations and scale models. For the single most important reason there ever was....our young people. Our 'future generations' that must be shown what tremendous things a country can do when it works with a common purpose.
A common purpose someday might mean working for a new, clean energy source..or an end to terroristic militant tactics. It might be necessary to have an example of once apon a time...when many nations worked together...or when one country made a difference when its people got together like never before.

Anyway - I look at the N/G situation as an opportunity for a corporate giant to realize a chance to give something vital back to the country that bore them up and allows them to reap shameful profits from our tax coffers.

They just seized it as another chance to screw us...so our children learn to 'look out for number one' and to hell with anyone else...another example of selfish greed gone wild. Who else was indicted or was he convicted? today...oh yeah the Worldcom guy...hope his a$$ rots in prison after Bubba gets through with it.

VonKlugermon
03-17-2005, 08:33 PM
Grumman and the rest really don't have the "rights" to the aircraft, the US government does and I believe this is the argument going through the system now. The public has already paid for these aircraft, so the public owns the rights to them.

I'm no legal expert, but I still think a simple solution is to call the airplane something else, i.e., Gromman Avinger (spelling intentional). Looks like a Grumman, flys like one, just ain't called one! Heck, the British called the Wildcat a Martlett. Just say it's a stolen copy, like the Russian Tu-B-29!

Willy

Bearcat99
03-17-2005, 09:28 PM
http://www.plexico.net/avengers/covers/av0.jpg

or

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005MKOL.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

heywooood
03-17-2005, 09:48 PM
Willy - you might be right about the people owning those planes and equipment...in fact, I know you are. It is high time 'we the people' started throwing our weight around for a change instead of letting these giant megacompanies dictate to us. HArrumph! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

The Avengers..lol havn't thought of that ol' show in a looong time....The Prisoner was a cult classic Brit show as well...sweet.

Sharkey888
03-17-2005, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
Anyway - I look at the N/G situation as an opportunity for a corporate giant to realize a chance to give something vital back to the country that bore them up and allows them to reap shameful profits from our tax coffers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do realize that IL2 was made by a RUSSIAN company and distributed by a FRENCH company for profit!?

Sharkey888
03-17-2005, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VonKlugermon:
Grumman and the rest really don't have the "rights" to the aircraft, the US government does and I believe this is the argument going through the system now. The public has already paid for these aircraft, so the public owns the rights to them.

I'm no legal expert, but I still think a simple solution is to call the airplane something else, i.e., Gromman Avinger (spelling intentional). Looks like a Grumman, flys like one, just ain't called one! Heck, the British called the Wildcat a Martlett. Just say it's a stolen copy, like the Russian Tu-B-29!

Willy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many times, DON'T use the manufacturer name on the box unless you give them credit for it on the box.

It is a TBF "Avenger" NOT, REPEAT NOT, GRUMMAN TBF AVENGER!!!

heywooood
03-18-2005, 11:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sharkey888:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
Anyway - I look at the N/G situation as an opportunity for a corporate giant to realize a chance to give something vital back to the country that bore them up and allows them to reap shameful profits from our tax coffers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do realize that IL2 was made by a RUSSIAN company and distributed by a FRENCH company for profit!? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ofcourse - I would have to be pretty GD lame to have been around here as long as I have without knowing whats what, now wouldn't I?...

You and N/G miss the point - It doesnt matter who the feck makes the sim or who the feck distributes it...Americans are buying it and flying it, many times with their kids, their sons, at their side. And where will future pilots come from?...what will be their inspiration if some of the best, or most important of our planes are absent?...

And if this copyright issue takes hold - what then?...no Spitfires? the RAF wants $ for the use of 'their' roundels...No Migs?...Russian firms need money too.

Who else out there has taken their sons to an airshow...or a scale model exhibit at a museum, and then gone home and flown FB/PF with them?
What a great way to promote aviation in general and generate a pool of military pilots specifically. What a great way for N/G or Lockheed to enhance their icons in the minds of young aviators.
On the other hand - what a lost opportunity it is to deprive the flight sim developers and scale model MFG companies of these historically vital aircraft.

Thats what the hell I realize, Shark Guy