PDA

View Full Version : Happy that Dinah is AI.



TimTam27
08-07-2004, 02:41 AM
It constantly amazes me that people want every aircraft in this sim to be made flyable. For me, only limited classes of aircraft ought to be made flyable and I think for the most part Maddox have got this right by concentrating on fighters and ground attack aircraft.
Personally I found the inclusion of flyables like the TB3 and He111 in FB of dubious value. Level bombers are essentially passive, you just fly along in a straight line while the fighters dictate the course of events. Twin bombers like the A-20 and B-25 are worthy of inclusion because much of their mission profile included low level attack.
But aircraft like the Dinah should never be made flyable. They have no offensive armmament and a successful mission would involve no contact with enemy action. Remember PF is a COMBAT flight sim, if you want to fly for long distances with nothing happening perhaps FS 2004 is the sim for you.
And the fact that each flyable takes as much effort to produce as three AI aircraft should be taken into account when people demand that even aircraft like the C-47 be flyable. Would FB have been better with a flayble Li-2 instead of the inclusion of AI SB-2, TB-3 and IL-4?

As far as I am concerned PF needs very few flyable multi engine bombers and those are the ones we are already getting. The US A-20 and B-25 did lots of low level and anti shipping work and on the Japanese side the Betty was a very active torpedo bomber.
We don't need a flyable B-29 and B-24. We need a comprehensive, historical flight set and a comprehensive, historical set of ship and ground objects instead. And AI is just fine.

TimTam27
08-07-2004, 02:41 AM
It constantly amazes me that people want every aircraft in this sim to be made flyable. For me, only limited classes of aircraft ought to be made flyable and I think for the most part Maddox have got this right by concentrating on fighters and ground attack aircraft.
Personally I found the inclusion of flyables like the TB3 and He111 in FB of dubious value. Level bombers are essentially passive, you just fly along in a straight line while the fighters dictate the course of events. Twin bombers like the A-20 and B-25 are worthy of inclusion because much of their mission profile included low level attack.
But aircraft like the Dinah should never be made flyable. They have no offensive armmament and a successful mission would involve no contact with enemy action. Remember PF is a COMBAT flight sim, if you want to fly for long distances with nothing happening perhaps FS 2004 is the sim for you.
And the fact that each flyable takes as much effort to produce as three AI aircraft should be taken into account when people demand that even aircraft like the C-47 be flyable. Would FB have been better with a flayble Li-2 instead of the inclusion of AI SB-2, TB-3 and IL-4?

As far as I am concerned PF needs very few flyable multi engine bombers and those are the ones we are already getting. The US A-20 and B-25 did lots of low level and anti shipping work and on the Japanese side the Betty was a very active torpedo bomber.
We don't need a flyable B-29 and B-24. We need a comprehensive, historical flight set and a comprehensive, historical set of ship and ground objects instead. And AI is just fine.

JG53Frankyboy
08-07-2004, 02:52 AM
as mainly flying COOP mission online with my squad (also making a lot of them) i totaly agree !

AI planes are a very great enrichment !

BUT, pls dont forget to make a Ki45 flyable http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cragger
08-07-2004, 03:08 AM
Some people enjoy navigating, flying thru AAA defenses and avoiding or fending off an interception and settings up the bomb run for the satisfaction of watching those bombs hit their target. Applying your standard of fun and importance to others is great folly.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.jpg

Texas LongHorn
08-07-2004, 03:25 AM
TimTam, I cracked up when I read your post, I had just fineshed posting about a flyable Dinah ARMED version, the Ki-46 III KAI. I really want the Dinah. IMHO there are lots of folks like me who would love to fly the Dinah, the Betty, heck the Emily for that matter <ggg.> The same with the Catalina and that goofy looking thing they used with the single big pontoon that they could stuff guys into, amazing. I personally would also love the concept of recce and SAR stuff with working flyingboats on all sides of the playing field. Heck my friend, they already gave us the little dude on the raft that looks like luthier, now they gotta' throw in the SAR's. LOL. I love this sim, where is my twelve step group for sims, it's nearly two-thiry in the morning in western Washington State, USA. I must be nuts, all the best, LongHorn

http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v149/msdavis/My_Sig_Image2.jpg

ElAurens
08-07-2004, 05:33 AM
TimTam, there are as many different types of people flying this sim as there were different types of aircraft. The more flyables the better.

I normally find myself in a fighter, but I tell you there is nothing more satisfying than attacking an enemy column in a TB3. I fly it like a dive bomber, gaining speed by diving from 2000 meters, line up on the column, drop all the eggs in a max load out, fend off the attacking fighters and land safe at home.

So Tim, don't force your idea of how the game should be played on anyone else. It is selfish at best and downright juvenile at worst.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Future-
08-07-2004, 06:40 AM
While I'm not all too sure about what the Dinah actually was meant to be (recon plane? courier?), but I think many people like me really like the TB-3 and He-111, and are looking forward to the hopefully-made-flyable B-29 and possibly B-24.

So TimTam, don't speak in plural if you actually only tell your own opinion.

It's not "we" who don't wanna have the big birds, it's (in this case) just you.

- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

Lateralus_17SS
08-07-2004, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cragger:
Applying your standard of fun and importance to others is great folly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There you go.

What a pompous, arrogant person the OP is. If you are so intent on dictating how other online players choose to enjoy this game, or any other for that matter, perhaps it is you who should reconsider partaking in online gaming.

Oh, and Heinkel 111s were used extensively in low-level attack missions, so you're wrong there too.

LEXX_Luthor
08-07-2004, 07:38 AM
It is only Natural that some see air combat as making internet Brownie Points flying their favorite Hollywood fighters. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Flyable Fw~189 please http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

WereSnowleopard
08-07-2004, 08:58 AM
Lot of people in IL2 community hate to have some planes unflyable. Plus, Some players had been asking for playable reco. campaign that will get award point for find and photo importand targets even bonus point for find hidden targets. It should be excite missions. Also It may be useful for VEP as players want find targets by send reco. planes to search for targets. Also Reco plane may able find AAA hot spots and tell us to altered routes to aviod them. Right now, It is only my wild guess but Maddox may don't show all candies until release. I may believe that playable heavy bombers will have to take off from special bigger airfield.

Cheers
Snowleopard

goshikisen
08-07-2004, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lateralus_17SS:
What a pompous, arrogant person the OP is. If you are so intent on dictating how other online players choose to enjoy this game, or any other for that matter, perhaps it is _you_ who should reconsider partaking in online gaming.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't that a bit harsh? I think the originally poster has a point. What's better? A half-assed flyable F4U-1 and a half-assed flyable B-24 or a great F4U-1 and an AI B-24. I'd go with the latter. The game is "Pacific FIGHTERS" after all.

The vast majority of the folks who will be playing PF will be using fighters. Already in this thread I've seen one or 2 posters who fly bombers for kicks, not in any dedicated fashion. Why waste a truckload of development time on a bomber when most folks will fly it once or twice and then move on to fighters again? I know I'm not speaking for everyone... I'm sure there are some out there who take the bombers quite seriously but I don't doubt that they are a minority.

I hope development time is dedicated to getting a few flyable aircraft really good... not a whole whack of them so-so.

Regards, Goshikisen

wickedpenguin
08-07-2004, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The game is "Pacific FIGHTERS" after all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, so I guess IL-2 Sturmovik and IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles should only have flyable IL-2's and no other type of aircraft? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The vast majority of the folks who will be playing PF will be using fighters. Why waste a truckload of development time on a bomber when most folks will fly it once or twice and then move on to fighters again?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely NOT true. Personally, I prefer mudmoving over dogfighting. I feel like I'm actually getting objectives done.

Last night, for instance, the fighters on my side were getting shot to pieces by enemy AAA. I loaded up a P-38 with 12 HVAR's and took out four AAA batteries in 2 rocket runs, which greatly helped our cause along.

If you look at the history of fighter aircraft in WWII, a considerable percentage of their missions were simply escort missions for bombers. It's great that both aspects of the mission can be flown.

I think that the main reason people don'tdon't fly mudmovers online is that the sim doesn't model appropriate damage to the enemy bases. Yes, you can blow up hangars and fuel tanks. However, it fails to model the most important thing: If you bomb a runway, the damage is only a 2D decal - enemies can still take off right over it. If they include actual craters and airfield damage models, I think a lot more people would be doing ground attack missions.

"Fear is the mindkiller"
- Dune
----------------------------------
[b]Wicked Penguin Corporation[/b[
Web - Flash - Multimedia - DVD Authoring

Lateralus_17SS
08-07-2004, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Isn't that a bit harsh? I think the originally poster has a point. What's better? A half-assed flyable F4U-1 and a half-assed flyable B-24 or a great F4U-1 and an AI B-24. I'd go with the latter. The game is "Pacific FIGHTERS" after all.
Regards, Goshikisen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, coming back to this thread after a few hours, it was a little harsh. Sorry.

I don't agree with your analogy though. It would only be bad if more flyable aircraft actually decrease the overall quality. I have in good faith that the development team will only release top-notch work (they have so far, haven't they?)

And I didn't interpret the name Pacific Fighters doesn't mean they're focusing on fighter aircraft. I thought it a synonym for "Pacific Warriors", with many different aircraft types, fighter, bomber, etc. represented.

YMMV, of course.

goshikisen
08-07-2004, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wickedpenguin:
Um, so I guess _IL-2 Sturmovik_ and _IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles_ should only have flyable IL-2's and no other type of aircraft? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok... you've got me there. I guess what I'm thinking of is a bomber in the B-24, B-29 sense of the word (4 engines - Heavy). Strategic as opposed to Tactical bombing was their forte... For me personally, a B-29 mission as pilot or bombardier, would be slow as molasses and about as exciting as watching paint dry.

An IL2, SBD, Stuka... their mission was somewhat different (CAS, Anti-Armor, Anti-Shipping). These were single engine aircraft with some level of maneuverability... makes things a bit more exciting than trying to coax a Superfortress into a turn that takes a humungous amount of time and space.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why waste a truckload of development time on a bomber when most folks will fly it once or twice and then move on to fighters again?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely NOT true. Personally, I prefer mudmoving over dogfighting. I feel like I'm actually getting objectives done.

Last night, for instance, the fighters on my side were getting shot to pieces by enemy AAA. I loaded up a P-38 with 12 HVAR's and took out four AAA batteries in 2 rocket runs, which greatly helped our cause along.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again... I have no problem with using fighters in the Air to Ground role, I'm thinking along the line of Heavy Bombers. I too find taking out targets with a fighter bomber to be pretty cool. I don't, however, have any interest in flying the HE-111... a bomber in the truest sense of the word. I'm sure there are many out there who do enjoy flying it... but I don't think the game engine is cut out for dedicated bomber scenarios.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
_I think that the main reason people _don't_don't fly mudmovers online is that the sim doesn't model appropriate damage to the enemy bases. Yes, you can blow up hangars and fuel tanks. However, it fails to model the most important thing: If you bomb a runway, the damage is only a 2D decal - enemies can still take off right over it. If they include actual craters and airfield damage models, I think a lot more people would be doing ground attack missions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make a good point... it would be somewhat more satisfying if the dive bomber/fighter bomber missions resulted in some realistic damage. Again... I don't think the designers were thinking "bomber" when they designed the game and the results of bomb usage reflect this.

To clarify... The IL2 game engine does a great job with single seaters and I'd rather see a lot of effort put into what then engine does best and have some additional high quality AI aircraft instead of a bunch of not so great flyable aircraft. (fanboy alert) This is just an opinion and, to tell you the truth, I'll be happy with whatever the Maddox crew produce because so far they've done a kickass job.

Regards, Goshikisen

Tater-SW-
08-07-2004, 01:22 PM
FWIW, both the B-17 and B-24 were routinely used for skip bombing attacks in the SWPA. They're not just strategic bombers.

tater

goshikisen
08-07-2004, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
FWIW, both the B-17 and B-24 were routinely used for skip bombing attacks in the SWPA. They're not just strategic bombers.

tater<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No argument there... as I said, strategic bombing was their "forte" but it wasn't their only mission.

Goshikisen

Bull_dog_
08-07-2004, 01:46 PM
Trolling maybe?

All planes should be flyable...just a matter of product choices and taloring the product to its audience in the hopes of selling the most games.

If it were truly a choice of resources to expend...you can get more single engined fighters than bombers, but the whole concept of AI is totally bizaar to me. If I were a game developer I'd put in Generic cockpits with generic gauges before I'd leave a plane ai...I think it is a great waste and a source of frustration to have aircraft in a sim that can't be flown...to the point that in FB/AEP folks will edit AI planes into their on line missions and fly from external views!!!! Surely a generic cockpit and generic gunstation would be better until the plane is finished?

The tyranny of OR

I can have fighters OR bombers OR ships OR good flight models OR good graphics OR a good mission builder OR good damage models OR good immersion.

The developer that doesn't subscribe to the Tyranny of OR sells the most games...right now that be Oleg and I'll bet on Luthier.

Tater-SW-
08-07-2004, 02:02 PM
It also may depend upon the FM data. Someone suggested planes that are AI have a simplified FM. If this is the case, then there is serious reason for leaving some out as flyables.

Regardless, I'm all for throwing every possible plane, even if AI, into the game---shoot me. Of course, anyone willing to fly in external view obviously wouldn't (and certainly shouldn't) care about the FM, either (same with wonderwoman glass airplane view, etc).

tater

Future-
08-07-2004, 06:55 PM
In some cases, the conclusion that all ai planes use simplified FM came from watching ai pilots maneuver.

However, truth is not all ai planes are as "simple" as some people want us to believe.

In fact, some of the ai planes already have received improvements/fixes/changes in both their FM and DM, to put them a little more in line with their real historic counterparts. Example: the development of the B-17 G in FB/AEP.

For the most part, the only really weird and incorrect thing ai-wise are the ai pilots, which tend to perform crazy maneuvers with all planes. Seems everytime an ai pilot uses a plane in the game, the game hits a secret "override" button on a plane's FM. Lol.

And the most probable and most simple reason why we don't have generic 'pits and stations is that Oleg wants to do a plane right or don't bother making it fully flyable. Of course, there have been a few "exceptions", but over all, Oleg tries to do quality work.

- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

LEXX_Luthor
08-07-2004, 07:05 PM
He~111 is Fun for torpedo runs.

Full Real Flyable Fw~189 doesn't need a Cockpit Off key http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TimTam27
08-08-2004, 08:00 AM
I have to say that when I read the responses to my original post I was a bit hurt.
Arrogant, pompous, selfish and juvenile. (Then again, at my age the last one may have been meant as a compliment) But if you got to know me you would find I am really a nice guy. Dogs and old people like me so I can't be that bad.

But Lateralus did say one thing that I think needs correction. He (or she? I don't want to be accused of being sexist as well) suggested that I am an online player. I would like to state that I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the online gaming community.
I am part of the 70% (Last I heard) of IL2 owners who play offline exclusively.

Offline And Proud. Say It Out Loud.

p1ngu666
08-08-2004, 08:21 AM
try flying a bomber tbh
it can be fun

a bomber adds way more than another corsair ofcourse http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

xenios
08-08-2004, 02:37 PM
I disagree with the assertion that bombers are no fun to fly, but I agree that the focus should be on tactical bombers (twin engine) rather than strategic bombers (4 engine). Why? Because the B-25 can do double-duty while the B-17 has only one purpose. A B-25 can strafe and rocket, skip-bomb, low level bomb, and some versions can still level bomb from high alt. You can simulate a lot of B-17 (or B-24) missions using B-25s outfitted with the Norden sight. Making the B-25 flyable is a better use of the limited modelling resources available, because it is more versatile and more people will play it.

There are quite a few people who enjoy flying bombers--remember that a lot of online players fly objective-based coops. In coops with bombers, you still see people taking slots in He111s. And a lot of coop players actually know how to use the bombsight.

I flew a nighttime He111 mission online last week which was very tough. I had to weave through a curtain of flak, then very quickly level out and line up the target through the bombsight. I already had dialed up the TAS and alt. settings I planned on using (3000m and 300kph) beforehand. I had also already trimmed for level flight at that alt and speed, because you can't count on the autolevel. Then searchlights near the target blinded my bombadier--our jabos were supposed to take those out but failed. I aimed the best I could while blinded and waited a few tense seconds as the heavy flak began finding my altitude. Then bombs away and I twisted and turned and dove out of the area.

I formed up with the rest of the squadron just in time to meet with the defending hurris. I switched to the top gunner seat and got one attacker smoking just as he shot off my right engine. I saw my wingman go down with both engine smoking. The hurris left to lick their wounds while I struggled to keep my flak and bullet riddled crate aloft until I could land in friendly territory.

I takes a certain kind of skill to carry out a successful bombing mission. A lot of people don't have the patience to learn level bombing and the bombsights, but it can be very challenging.

Flygflottilj16_Sulan
08-08-2004, 02:38 PM
I´m for bombers, and as to the orriginal post saying the TB-3 and He-111 didnt add much to the game!?!?!

I think those 2 and the Ju-87 and Bf-110 has been the greatest addition ever in terms of more aircraft... And flying a bomber in full-real is certainly not remaining passive!

Tater-SW-
08-08-2004, 02:54 PM
5th AF B-17s and B-24s routinely skip bombed and strafed in the SWPA, they're not one trick ponies. In additon to strafing with the stock gunner positions, at least 1 B-17 I've read about had a gun fired by the pilot striaght ahead. He claimed a plane downed with it, too! (and field mods in the SWPA were common, that's where strafer B-25s came from in the first place.


tater

HamishUK
08-10-2004, 07:39 AM
I for one love the multi engined 'flyable' bombers!

I have done a couple of Coops where you are the gunner on one of these and there is nothing more exciting as knowing the pilot has to fly level for a number of minutes during the bombing run. Whilst the gunners have to fend off any enemy intrusion!

Horses for courses and the best thing is that players of AEP have the choice!

I think the fact that the bomber comes into it's own in 'online' play shows why you are not happy with it Tim. Since you are an 'offliner' you don't get the full effect of what scenerio's are open to you when you are having the AI control your aircraft.

The Heinkel is a blast in early war Coops as either low level or at altitude. My preference is a long range bombing run with these beasts. Get a dozen or so players to play inside them and you have a huge amount of entertainment!

Bring on the heavies I say!

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/Ham1.jpg

Baco-ECV56
08-10-2004, 04:00 PM
Count me in for the Heavys...

There aren´t many other thrills that compare to have a succesfull drop of ordinance and try to bring your wounded bird home.

With CEM, fire extinguishers, Feadering Props, and the excellent damage and fligth model of FB its a shame not to have more bombers....

Leave the fancy BFMand acrobartics to the Fighter pilots, mi thing is droping bombs on the enemy...

"Fighter pilots make movies, Atack (and bomber) pilots make history...."