PDA

View Full Version : I was thinking, about cancelled aircraft...



HotelBushranger
10-18-2005, 02:27 AM
I remember talking to PBNA-Boosher several weeks ago online about the cancelling of making the Hawk 75 flyable. Apparently there weren't enough resources. All fine by me, that's understandable. But I was thinking, theres still one flyable Hawk 75 left in the world yes? And its an A-3 AFAIK. So, next time it comes to an airshow, wouldn't it be simple to get someone to take very detailed photos of the inside? Then noone could complain about lack of resources http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif The same applies to all flyable, airshow visiting aircraft left in the world (unless you are associated with one and can get near to it). The way I see it, we still have this chance to get the things we need to see this bird into the air. Once it's gone, then what are we gonna do?

http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/8356/hawktaxiingsmall0on.jpg

nakamura_kenji
10-18-2005, 02:36 AM
they somewhat selective when come aircraft and data them for. they good job make bf-109Z cockpit consider the plane never exist ^_^ for all know it could have be pink inside with standard fluffy dice ^_^. probab guess bf-109Z 3rd party modeler make pit a oleg thought close enough it do if noone know what look noone can complain. wish could have do same for B5n/N1k1j shiden p_q

before people jump say no idea how hard is model t-62 series tank for other game and am go have make interior for M,MV,U varient which i no information for >_< though can take idea and euipment/fire control system from T-55/T-80 which share thing with they varient t-62 stuck with

Philipscdrw
10-18-2005, 06:40 AM
To be honest, I don't understand the requirement for absolute perfection and accuracy in aircraft cockpits in Il-2. Many of Oleg's team are aeronautical engineers, i.e. the people who design aircraft - why can't they look at similar aircraft (to understand the philosophies of the original designers) and then redesign the cockpit themselves, with respect to the philosophies of the original designers?

LEXX_Luthor
10-18-2005, 06:58 AM
I think the reason is Oleg wants to build a form of "professional" reputation inside the real life aviation community. Russia has a very large professional aviation community, never mind the whole world aviation community is watching.

But, I think its a mistake unless Oleg were to make a Perfect Test Pilot simulation where you just fly around as the only airplane in the whole sky.

Oleg may be overly paranoid of looking like "Xbox" console arcade Cheese, but I hope he learns he can find something between "real life" Perfection and Cheese -- IL-2 Field Mod is a good example of compromise since the gunner is not playable, although that is rather extreme, since top rear gunners are very fun and immersive to play, unlike the (never to be used) side and belly gunners or "radio person" position which has delayed the Pe-2 internal model.

Example. If Oleg cannot make Flyable SB bomber in the future because of astronomically high standards, he is only hurting Fans of early war military aviation (especially Fans of Soviet 1930s aviation) and will find the as illusion the social "points" scored by making Perfection at the cost of interesting aircraft to society. Flyable Su-2 and R-10 are other great examples.

danjama
10-18-2005, 01:35 PM
I would really like to see the Hawk75 flyable. I saw that one in the pic fly in July its a lovely plane. I dont think it will be made flyable though.

Stigler_9_JG52
10-18-2005, 02:42 PM
This is really one of Oleg's blind spots.

I can certainly understand a desire for accuracy; but this carries it too far. In fact, I'd prefer to see such unbending standards applied to the flight modeling.

The pits are great, and nice to look at, but does it matter if a small switch that has NO EFFECT on the sim, or controls a system that is not modelled, is 100% correct in size, color, placement, and which way it rotates??? No. There is definitely room here to say "close enough" especially when real examples or even reliable sources are rare or non-existant.

IMO, there should certainly be enough credible resources to model a pit for a Hawk 75. And a Pe-2, for that matter... and for several other planes.

Kuna15
10-18-2005, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
I would really like to see the Hawk75 flyable. I saw that one in the pic fly in July its a lovely plane. I dont think it will be made flyable though.

I share that thoughts. And... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I would happily give flyable Bf-109Zs for flyable Hawk, although this issue has already been http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/deadhorse_1.gif .

major_setback
10-18-2005, 03:45 PM
I think 'time' is the resource that's in short supply. That is: time to blend the cockpit model with a plausible flight model, redo and do again, and then get real world pilots to try it out etc. ...and all the corrections needed (demanded by the community).

It seems like the development team 'wasted' a lot of their valuable development time (for the new BoB) on PF and it's patches; a game that they never really intended to release. They won't want to waste any more time. Just think.. if it wasn't for PF being released (originally a third party venure?) me might all be awaiting the release of Maddox's BoB now instead of waiting for patches/updates for a sim that will soon become dated (this one).

I for one am worried that by the time BoB comes out it will be a bit behind the times (not optimised for the best and latest graphics/cards).


The only good solution would be for the development team to fully abandon this project, letting others take over, and hopefully continuing to better this sim.

Try to imagine the frustrations of the dev' team (who no doubt get to fly the beta versions of BoB) with these continual delays to their latest project.

Taylortony
10-18-2005, 04:31 PM
I do believe there is still another patch in the offing and that one always was planned to carry some of the planes we have not got yet, the latest patch never was....... Reason why he keeps a tight reign on things........ simple, it's for quality, go fly some of the stuff on other sims that folks have done, they could outclimb the Starship Enterprise on full impulse power, and in straight and level flight they would break the warp ten barrier, which as every StarTrek fan will tell you is impossible in theory... ask Jester he told me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif they have Gun flashes like a Klingon warbird , warp across the sky like a Romulian battle cruiser, and turn like a Ferangies head with a gust of wind in his ear lobes. Jim Bean me up Snotty

major_setback
10-18-2005, 07:18 PM
I'm sure they will finish all outstanding obligations (promised content). No doubt at all.

After that though (IMHO) they could do with some space so they can concentrate 100% on getting the next project finished!

I am very much looking foreward to BoB and all that follows it. I can only imagine the benefits that come from starting over again from scratch (for ex. hopefully AI will show some sort of intelligence/ won't have X-Ray vision, in BoB).

Oleg has as much as said that no more (FB/PF) content will be coming from the present dev' team after they have fulfilled their obligations (though third party stuff could well be included after screening).

As far as I'm concerned: the faster we get BoB the faster we get the other theatres/planes as add-ons in the future.

StG77_Fritz_X
10-18-2005, 08:11 PM
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/9708/westtexas40347gw.jpg

Then there is this one. Took the pic a few weeks ago in Midland TX.

Enforcer572005
10-18-2005, 08:40 PM
the above aircraft is a T-6/SNJ that has been heavily modified to give it the appearance of a quasi-P-64....several have been done this way. it looks a bit like a hawk, but is still way off. Nice machine though, and id like to see some airborne shots, or any shots actually from the midland airshow-havnt seen the caf show since the last one in harlingen in 90.

there is a P-36 in teh USAF museum in ohio, and a hawk-75 wiht fixed gear at the thai airforce museum in thailand, so plenty of reference material.

I dont think that is the problem, as stated above, especially considering that we are at teh point of generic battleships etc in pacific fighters. Id settle for a slightly modified p-40 cockpit.

and i think talortony kinda likes star trek....Im a Klingon at heart, you bloodworm eating targs....... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Grey_Mouser67
10-18-2005, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:


In fact, I'd prefer to see such unbending standards applied to the flight modeling.

There is definitely room here to say "close enough" especially when real examples or even reliable sources are rare or non-existant.



Stiglr...never have you spoke truer words...if you want to have the perfect simulation..make the perfect flight model and damage model...

There should be no such thing as AI aircraft...the concept itself is an abomination in the face of Oleg's standards...model a Pit on every plane and a bombsight/bombadier station where required and add gunner stations as time, resources and third party modellers are able...imagine if we took every wasted gunner station on the B-25, A-20, Betty and Heinkle and made a cockpit out of it...we'd be flying the Hs129, Ju-88, hard nose B-25, Pe-2, B-17, B-24, Avenger, B-29, Pe-8, Catalina...you get the picture...

Different folks like different things, but if I wanted an accurate, good looking, good sounding sim with crummy FM and DM...frankly speaking I'd still be flying Janes WWII fighters!

I want planes...lots of planes and maps to fly them on...a great (not good) mission builder...the game already has Great Multiplay! Keep up the good work....Oleg, immerse yourself in FM's and DM's...this isn't a resource issue as much as it is a choice in priorities in terms of how to expend resources...there will never be enough to satisfy all the wants...I just marvel over the wasted time and energy spent on waist gunner positions, belly gunner positions etc that could have been new flyable aircraft...what a waste!

PBNA-Boosher
10-18-2005, 09:10 PM
Planes like the Hawk-75, Hard nose B-25, etc... oleg decided would be 3rd party projects. On the H-75, Bluestone was having a LOT of trouble getting specific resources, IE- color of the cockpit. When referenced that it was the same color as the P-40B pit, by NARA, there were more problems he found, then later bringing on the same excuses. I somehow got the feeling that there was a backstory I wasn't getting.

Daiichidoku
10-18-2005, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
for all know it could have be pink inside with standard fluffy dice



please dont generalize, NK, it wasnt merely "pink", but actually "RLM #786 "upper rhine salmon"

the fluffy dice is a myth, they to be produced by kazhakistani slave labour at the No. 16 Comfortable Throttle Lever factory, after it was overrun by army group Lateral in march 42, (and depriving the VVS of the I-185) but technical problems relating to lint were never fully overcome, willy M. then compromising by instead installing "dangle balls", doing the same job, but at a weight penalty



oh, yea, and what Stiglr said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

jarink
10-18-2005, 10:55 PM
My biggest gripe about the hyper-accurate cockpit requirement? Most production aircraft built during WWII were not all the same. Different production blocks, different factories and even different manufacturers all did things slightly different. Then there were often modifications made at depots in different theaters, further differentiating planes from other 'identical' ones.

So there's no way to have a 100% accurate cockpit for any planes that were built in any kind os numbers. Maybe Oleg needs introduced to the 80-20 rule.

Tater-SW-
10-18-2005, 11:00 PM
I agree about the multi-seat planes. Imagine if the majoprity of gunner stations were just AI, and the work had instead gone into cockpits...

tater

p1ngu666
10-18-2005, 11:34 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif @ po2 radioman position
never knew they even carried such a thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

side gunners where mostly useless, much like myself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

top, rear gunners most used, bottom, then front...

side gunners would probably need the most modding aswell

Sharkey888
10-18-2005, 11:40 PM
Apparently there weren't enough resources

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

From:http://www.largescaleplanes.com/Reference/P-36.html

Beauchamp and Cuny: 'Curtiss Hawk 75' (ViP Press [USA], 1996; 344 pages; ) -- AIRCRAFT TYPES INCLUDED: Curtiss Hawk 75 (P-36, Curtiss H-75, Mohawk), XP-23 (P-23), XP-1 (P-1), P-6, BFC, BF2C (Hawk II, Hawk III, Hawk IV), XP-31 (P-31), P-26, Seversky 1 XP (Sev-1XP), XP-37 (P-37), Seversky AP-4, XP-42 (P-42), Dewoitine D.21 C-1, P-40 (Curtiss Hawk 81); COCKPIT DETAIL: Curtiss Hawk 75 A-4 (p. 31, 34, 93), P-36C (p. 32, 33); WHEELWELL DETAIL: YP-37 [P-37] (p. 30); MISCELLANEOUS DETAIL: Curtiss Hawk 75 [P-36] cowl (p. 17, 97), cowl guns (p. 278), engine (p. 28, 35, 37), fuselage panels (p. 24), gunsight (p. 285, 286), landing gear (p. 27, 28, 100), propeller (p. 30), tail (p. 23, 26), underwing bombs (p. 285), wings (p. 22, 24, 25, 30), wing guns (p. 276, 279-284); Finnish Hawk 75 Revi C/12/D gunsight (p. 286); Mohawk IV gunsight (p. 286); XP-37 [P-37] engine mount (p. 44, 48); P-40 [Curtiss Hawk 81] Allison engine (p. 38); MULTI-VIEW DRAWINGS: Hawk 75 [Curtiss H-75] prototype (p. 327), retractable-gear version (p. 323-326, fixed-gear version (p. 328), supercharged version (p. 331), "all-flying tail" version (p. 332); XP-37 [P-37] (p. 333); XP-42 [P-42] (p. 329, 330); GENERIC CAMOUFLAGE PATTERNS: Mohawk IV (p. 242-245); GENERIC MARKING PATTERNS: Mohawk IV (p. 242-245), P-35 (p. 233), P-36 (p. 233, 234); SPECIFIC MARKING PROFILES: Hawk IV [BF2C] (p. 252), Hawk 75 [Curtiss H-75] prototype (p. 252), Hawk 75 "Hawk Special" [fixed-gear version used by Gen. Chennault] (p. 258), Hawk 75A-1 (p. 258-260), Hawk 75A-1/2/3/4/6 [Finland] (p. 247, 248), Hawk 75A-2 (p. 261, 264), Hawk 75A-3 (p. 262, 263), Hawk 75A-4 (p. 263, 265), Hawk 75A-5 (p. 267), Hawk 75A-6 (p. 260, 264, 265), Hawk 75A-7 [Netherlands] (p. 263), Hawk 75A-8 [Norway] (p. 265), Hawk 75A-9 (p. 267), Hawk 75M [China] (p. 259), Hawk 75N [Netherlands] (p. 259), Hawk 750 [Argentina] (p. 258), Hawk 751[?] [France] (p. 263), Mohawk IV (p. 242-245, 251, 262, 266, 267), XP-31 [P-31] (p. 252), Y1P-36 [P-36] (p. 253), P-36A (p. 253, 255, 256, 261), P-36C (p. 254, 257), XP-37 [P-37] (p. 255), XP-40 [P-40 prototype] (p. 257), XP-42 [P-42] (p. 257); COMMENT(s): Revised English translation of Collection Docavia No. 22, by Cuny & Beauchamp. Softcover. Dated 1996 but actually issued in 1997

Cuny and Beauchamp: 'Curtiss Hawk 75' (Collection Docavia series, No. 22; Editions Lariviere [France], 1985; in French; 360 pages; [out of print]) -- AIRCRAFT TYPES INCLUDED: Curtiss Hawk 75 (P-36, Curtiss H-75), XP-23 (P-23), XP-1 (P-1), P-6, BFC, BF2C (Hawk II, Hawk III, Hawk IV), XP-31 (P-31), P-26, Seversky 1 XP, XP-37 (P-37), Seversky AP-4, XP-42 (P-42), Curtiss Hawk 81 (Curtiss H-81) ; COCKPIT DETAIL: Curtiss Hawk 75 A-4 (p. 270-271, 309-312), P-36C (p. 269); WHEELWELL DETAIL: Curtiss Hawk 75 [P-36] (p. 267), XP-37 [P-37] (p. 268); MISCELLANEOUS DETAIL: Curtiss Hawk 75 [P-36] cowl guns (p. 303), cowl & prop (p. 206), wings (p. 263, 264), tail (p. 264, 265), landing gear (p. 206, 266, 280, 281, 283), engine (p. 267, 293-295), underwing bombs (p. 313), wing guns & panels (p. 270, 283, 305, 307); Curtiss Hawk 81 [Curtiss H-81] engine installation (p. 352); P-40 engine (p. 297); CUTAWAY DRAWINGS: Curtiss Hawk 75 [P-36] (inside back cover); MULTI-VIEW DRAWINGS: Mohawk III [Curtiss H 75A-3] (p. 260, 261, 284, 285), P-36 (p. 31, 263), XP-37 [P-37] (p. 51), XP-40 (p. 56-59), XP-42 [P-42] (p. 68, 69, 71); GENERIC CAMOUFLAGE PATTERNS: Mohawk IV (p. 334, 335); GENERIC MARKING PATTERNS: Mohawk IV (p. 334, 335); SPECIFIC MARKING PROFILES: Hawk IV [BF2C] (p. 177), Hawk 75A-1 (p. 188, 189), Hawk 75A-2 (p. 188, 191, 195), Hawk 75A-3 (p. 190, 191-193), Hawk 75A-4 (p. 194), Hawk 75A-5 (p. 199), Hawk 75A-6 (p. 190, 192), Hawk 75A-7 (p. 196), Hawk 75A-8 (p. 198), Hawk 75A-9 (p. 199), Hawk 75H [China] (p. 186), Hawk 75M [China] (p. 187), Hawk 75N [Netherlands] (p. 186), Hawk 750 [Argentina] (p. 187), Hawk 751 [France] (p. 194), Mohawk IV (p. 193, 196-198, 334, 337), XP-31 [P-31] (p. 177), Hawk 75 [Curtiss H-75] prototype (p. 178), Y1P-36 [P-36] (p. 178), P-36A (p. 179-181, 183), P-36C (p. 182, 184 [PHOTO of war-games scheme, p. 315]), XP-37 [P-37] (p. 185), XP-42 [P-42] (p. 200)

Drendel: 'P-40 Warhawk' (Walk Around series, No. 8; Squadron/Signal [USA], 1996; 80 pageshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- Hawk 75-O [P-36] cockpit detail (p. 6, 7, 10), cowl gun bay (p. 10), engine [Wright GR-1820-G3] & engine bay (p. 3), landing gear (p. 7); P-40B [P-40C] landing light (p. 14)

Fleischer: 'Curtiss 75 "Hawk"' (Wydawnictwo Militaria series, No. 103; Wydawnictwo "Militaria" [Poland], 2000; in Polish and English; 76 pageshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- AIRCRAFT TYPES INCLUDED: Consolidated PB-2A; Curtiss Hawk H-75 (Curtiss Model 75 prototype), Hawk 75A-1, Hawk 75A-2, Hawk 75A-4, Hawk 75A-5, Hawk 75A-6, Hawk 75A-7, Hawk 75A-8, Hawk 75H, Hawk 75M, Hawk 75N, Hawk 75O, Hawk 75Q, Mohawk IV, P-6E, XP-31 (P-31, XP-934, Swift), Y1P-36, P-36A, P-36B, P-36C, XP-36F, P-36G, RP-36A, RP-36G; Northrop Model 3A; Seversky SEV-1XP, SEV-2XP, AP-1, P-35; MULTI-VIEW DRAWINGS: Curtiss Hawk H-75 [Curtiss Model 75 prototype] [side view only] (p. 61), Hawk 75A-5 (p. 62-64), Hawk 75A-7 [side view only] (p. 66), Hawk 75B [side view only] (p. 61), Hawk 75M [side view only] (p. 62), Hawk 75N [side view only] (p. 67), Hawk 75O [side view only] (p. 67), Mohawk IV [side view only] (p. 66), P-36A (p. 59, 65, 68-70), P-36C [side view only] (p. 60), P-36D [side view only] (p. 59, 60), P-36G [side view only] (p. 66); SPECIFIC MARKING PROFILES: Curtiss Hawk 75A-1 (inside front cover, p. 77), , Hawk 75A-2 (inside back cover), Hawk 75A-4 (inside front cover, p. 77), Hawk 75A-6 (p. 78, inside back cover), Hawk 75A-7 (p. 73), Hawk 75M (back cover), Hawk 75O (p. 72), Hawk 75Q (back cover), P-36A (p. 71), P-36C (p. 74, 75), P-36G (p. 75), RP-36A (p. 76), RP-36G (p. 76)

Green and Swanborough: 'US Army Air Force Fighters, Part 1' (WW2 Aircraft Fact Files series [unnumbered]; Arco [USA], 1977; 76 pages; [out of print]) -- Hawk 75A-4 [Mohawk IV, P-36] cutaway drawing (p. 60, 61),

Gunston: 'The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Combat Aircraft of World War II' (Bookthrift/ Salamander [USA / UK], 1978; 256 pages; [out of print]) -- Hawk 75 [P-36] cutaway drawing (p. 212)

Keskinen, Stenman and Niska: 'Finnish Air Force Camouflage and Markings [Suomen Ilmavoimien Maalaukset ja Merkinn├┬Ąt]' (Apali Oy [Finland], 1996; in Finnish and English; 192 pageshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- Curtiss Hawk 75A [(P-36] wheelwell detail (p. 153)

Ketley: 'French Aces of World War 2' (Osprey Aircraft of the Aces series, No. 28; Osprey [UK], 1999; 96 pageshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- Hawk 75A [P-36] cockpit detail (p. 69)

Kinzey: 'P-40 Warhawk, Part 1' (Detail & Scale series, No. 61; Squadron/Signal [USA], 1999; 79 pageshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- P-36 [Hawk 75] canopy (p. 25), cowl flaps (p. 27), cowl gun bay (p. 26), engine [P&W R-1830-13] (p. 37), exhausts (p. 37), landing gear (p. 30, 31), propeller (p. 37), tail (p. 32), wheelwell detail (p. 28, 30, 31), wings (p. 28, 29); P-36A cockpit detail (p. 17, 26, 38, 39), multi-view drawing (p. 17-19)

Matt: 'Paul Matt Scale Airplane Drawings, Volume 1' (Aviation Heritage series [unnumbered]; SunShine House [USA], 1991; [pages not numbered]http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- P-36 multi-view drawing (no page numbers)

Mizrahi: 'Air Corps' (Sentry Books [USA], 1970; 144 pageshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- P-36 [Hawk 75] cockpit detail (p. 28)

O'Leary: 'USAAF Fighters of World War Two in Action' (Blandford Press [UK], 1986; 478 pageshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- P-36C cutaway drawing (p. 46, 47)

Pearcy: 'Lend-Lease Aircraft of World War II' (Motorbooks International [USA], 1996; 176 pageshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- Mohawk III [P-36, Curtiss Hawk 75] flap interior (p. 66)

Rys: 'Curtiss P-36 Hawk, cz. 1' (Monografie Lotnicze series, No. 61; AJ Press [Poland], 2000; in Polish; 80 pageshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- P-36A skiis (p. 37); MULTI-VIEW DRAWINGS: Hawk H-75 [Curtiss Model 75 prototype] (p. 65-67), Hawk H-75B [side view only] (p. 68), Y1P-36 [side view only] (p. 68), P-36A (p. 68-71), P-36C [side view only] (p. 72), XP-36D [side view only] (p. 72), XP-36E [side view only] (p. 72), XP-36F [side view only] (p. 72), P-36G [side view only] (p. 72)

Rys and Fleischer: 'Curtiss P-36 Hawk, cz. 2' (Monografie Lotnicze series, No. 62; AJ Press [Poland], 2000; in Polish; 72 pageshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- AIRCRAFT TYPES INCLUDED: Hawk 75A-1, Hawk 75A-3, Hawk 75A-4, Hawk 75A-7, Hawk 75A-9, Hawk 75E, Hawk 75B, Hawk 75H, Hawk 75M, Hawk 75N, Hawk 75O, Hawk 75R, Hawk 75S, Mohawk III, Mohawk IV, Y1P-36, P-36A, XP-36B, P-36C, XP-36D, XP-36E, P-36G, XP-42 (P-42); COCKPIT DETAIL: Curtiss Hawk 75O (p. 32, 33, back cover), P-36A (p. 30, 31) ; WHEELWELL DETAIL: Curtiss Hawk 75A (p. 34), P-36A (p. 35); MISCELLANEOUS DETAIL: Curtiss Hawk 75A-3 propeller hub (p. 25); Hawk 75A-4 cowl & propeller hub (p. 28); Hawk 75A-7 cowl gun installation (p. 36), wing gun (p. 37); Hawk 75O cowl gun installation (p. 37), landing gear (p. 35); P-36A canopy (p. 30), cowl gun installation (p. 36), tail wheel (p. 35); XP-36E [Hawk 75Q] underwing gun pods (p. 36); Pratt & Whitney R-1830 engine (p. 39); Wright Cyclone R-1820 engine (p. 38, 40); CUTAWAY DRAWINGS: Hawk 75A-7 (inside back cover), P-36A (p. 42, 43); MULTI-VIEW DRAWINGS: Curtiss Hawk 75R (p. 56-58), Curtiss Hawk 75S (p. 59-61), Mowhawk IV (p. 52-54), P-36A (p. 42, 43), XP-42 [P-24] (p. 62-64); SPECIFIC MARKING PROFILES: Curtiss Hawk 75A-3 (p. 69-71), Hawk 75B (p. 65), Curtiss Hawk 75H (p. 65), Curtiss Hawk 75M (p. 65), Mohawk IV (p. 65, 72), P-36A (p. 66, 67), XP-36B (p. 69), P-36C (p. 68)

Shamburger and Christy: 'The Curtiss Hawks' (Wolverine Press [USA], 1972; 271 pageshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- P-36 [Hawk 75] cockpit detail (p. 92, 101), fuselage gun installation (p. 92), fuselage structure (p. 92)

Stanaway and Hickey: 'Attack and Conquer: The 8th Fighter Group in World War II' (Schiffer [USA], 1995; 320 pageshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- P-36 propeller (p. 14)

------: 'Luftfahrt Bilder, Texte Dokumente: Handbuch 9' (Luftfahrt Handbuch series, No. 9; Mittler [Germany], 1978; in German; 482 pageshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif [hard-bound version of "Luftfahrt International," issues 25-27] -- P-36 [Hawk 75] armament & armor (p. 3987

Next, I can give you sources on the "Kate"!!!

GR142-Pipper
10-19-2005, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
To be honest, I don't understand the requirement for absolute perfection and accuracy in aircraft cockpits in Il-2. Many of Oleg's team are aeronautical engineers, i.e. the people who design aircraft - why can't they look at similar aircraft (to understand the philosophies of the original designers) and then redesign the cockpit themselves, with respect to the philosophies of the original designers? Agreed. As long as the cockpit is decently close, that's fine by me. I'm FAR more concerned about accurate flight and damage models.

GR142-Pipper

IL2-chuter
10-19-2005, 05:17 AM
Some might suggest that if Oleg isn't interested in the particular plane, for whatever reason (and there could be several), then there are too many technical obstacles to overcome to include the plane or cockpit in the game.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

blindpugh
10-19-2005, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by major_setback:
I'm sure they will finish all outstanding obligations (promised content). No doubt at all.

After that though (IMHO) they could do with some space so they can concentrate 100% on getting the next project finished!

I am very much looking foreward to BoB and all that follows it. I can only imagine the benefits that come from starting over again from scratch (for ex. hopefully AI will show some sort of intelligence/ won't have X-Ray vision, in BoB).

Oleg has as much as said that no more (FB/PF) content will be coming from the present dev' team after they have fulfilled their obligations (though third party stuff could well be included after screening).

As far as I'm concerned: the faster we get BoB the faster we get the other theatres/planes as add-ons in the future. What other theatres-we-got russian/europe/britain and channel-coming/pacific/far-east/what else is there in wwII.

Feathered_IV
10-19-2005, 06:24 AM
What other theatres-we-got russian/europe/britain and channel-coming/pacific/far-east/what else is there in wwII.

China pre-1941 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

PBNA-Boosher
10-19-2005, 06:58 AM
I really do wish we got the Po-2 though. THat pit was done. Completely done, as was the gunner position.

LEXX_Luthor
10-19-2005, 09:19 AM
pingus, Pe-2 had the radio person position. You remember that episode when Aggy posted Pe-2 was "in trouble" because Oleg suddenly demanded radio person position and 5 minutes later the board went down for 2 weeks? Panic.

That's why I call it U-2. Po-2 name came later and people here confuse Polikarpov with Petalyakov.

major_setback
10-19-2005, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by blindpugh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by major_setback:
I'm sure they will finish all outstanding obligations (promised content). No doubt at all.

After that though (IMHO) they could do with some space so they can concentrate 100% on getting the next project finished!

I am very much looking foreward to BoB and all that follows it. I can only imagine the benefits that come from starting over again from scratch (for ex. hopefully AI will show some sort of intelligence/ won't have X-Ray vision, in BoB).

Oleg has as much as said that no more (FB/PF) content will be coming from the present dev' team after they have fulfilled their obligations (though third party stuff could well be included after screening).

As far as I'm concerned: the faster we get BoB the faster we get the other theatres/planes as add-ons in the future. What other theatres-we-got russian/europe/britain and channel-coming/pacific/far-east/what else is there in wwII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I mean:
Other theatres than the BoB one (for Maddox BoB), when the BoB sim eventually expands.

Stigler_9_JG52
10-19-2005, 09:44 AM
@Grey Mouser:

I think you miss my point. I certainly don't feel time was "wasted" on tail gunner pits and other positions on other planes. Where the info exists, why not produce the best quality stations you can??

What I'm saying is, if you can only get so accurate a pit because of lack of resources, and what you're missing doesn't really affect game play past pure esoterics, then it shouldn't derail the project. You can make a reasonable guestimate about "what knob was on the left hand console just behind the thingamajig switch" without making a hash of things.

I find it completely stupid that we don't have a flyable Pe-2 for lack of a few cockpit details, and yet we still manage to have a flyable I-185, and the flight models for various planes are constantly in question and shifting. And on top of that, someone showed (with photos to back it up) that the canopy frame of the Yak9 we have modelled isn't even 100% accurate... and that's a plane for which many sources of data exist!!!

Misplaced priorities...

LEXX_Luthor
10-19-2005, 10:04 AM
Mouser and Stiglr are correct, and Mouser offers an additional viewpoint. Why do 3rd Parties almost always complete single seat Dogfighter cockpits but fail with multi-crew aircraft interiors? If we look at the history of 3rd Party modding, many multi-crew aircraft were started but very few of them were completed. This is because of the difficulties in modding all crew stations to Oleg's high standards. Here we combine Mouser's view with Stiglr's.

(1) (Stigler) Leave out Detail that only aircraft restoration professionals would know about.

(2) (Mouser) Leave out un-used crew positons like side gunners and belly gunners.

HOWEVER...I can see a disadvantage to eliminating less popular crew positions -- human controlled gun stations may be avoided by human fighter players online, or AI fighters could be programmed to avoid human controlled gun stations. However, a compromise would be to mod the gun stations to a lower standard than we have now. The pilot station should be the best modded.

As long as there is *one* single seat Dogfight plane not yet modded, no matter how "fantasy" the plane, it will automatically displace any and all multi-crew aircraft needed, so we have He-152 displacing Do-217 (as much as I ~love~ the -152 and it's modders). As long as all crew stations are required to be modded with artificially high standards that don't effect gameplay, the single seat Dogfight planes are easier to mod and will always take first priority. Another reason for focusing on single seat Dogfight cockpits is the focus on Online Dogfight "kill score" shooter gaming.