PDA

View Full Version : Finishing touches on the IL-2 series--what does it need most?



PlaneEater
04-03-2006, 06:10 PM

Treetop64
04-03-2006, 06:48 PM
I picked option 1 only because of the conspicuously absent ship classes. Other than that, I'm content with the package.

Question, though: whoever used catapults on carriers during WWII? The Brits may have used them to a limited degree, but other than the first Midway class carriers (came too late to see action in WWII) the Yanks never used them. The Japanese certainly never used cats, even on those tiny, literally useless auxiliary carriers they used late in the war. Of course, the Germans and Italians never got to the stage to see if they even needed cats...

3.JG51_BigBear
04-03-2006, 06:52 PM
I picked the fourth option. Although I'd like to see the Pacific content a little more filled out, I think that the best use of time at this point would be to finish off what's already there. Having the best FM, DM and AI for what's already in the game makes the most sense to me. Given the type of game this is those would be the elements that I would think should get the most attention for the final version.

HayateAce
04-03-2006, 06:58 PM
Fix the Bogus UFO 109G2 and the rest of the 109 UFO series. They don't do that, US bob sales are going to be dismal.

Here's hoping for a competing SIM soon.....

R_Target
04-03-2006, 07:06 PM
Fix planes.

PlaneEater
04-03-2006, 07:09 PM
Treetop: I dunno where you got that misimpression, but the USN and RN used catapults extensively. For escort carriers, planes were launched excluseively via catapult.

I've got a 5 DVD set of PTO war footage... lots and lots of cat launches, especially when the planes started carrying heavy ordinance for ground support during the island hopping phase.

3.JG51_BigBear
04-03-2006, 07:14 PM
At the end of the war, I think it was fairly common practice to have the first couple planes off the deck launched by catapults. In game I don't see much of a point for them though.

Obi_Kwiet
04-03-2006, 07:20 PM
I say let us skin everything in the game, let us mod sound (if that's easy) and mabye add support for specular, bump mapping, and high-res skins, if it's easy. Anything major should be ignored for BoB.

VW-IceFire
04-03-2006, 08:02 PM
Given that the three addons are giving us what they are...my vote would be running over the product with a final fine tooth comb. There are some outstanding issues in the community that I think would be nice to have dealt with:

- USN .50cal sway bug*
- AI behaving a little oddly*
- Nav lights on in the middle of the night (spoils immersion of night fighting)
- Minor performance fixes on a variety of aircraft, some of them neglected for some time, while others are as good as can be and should be left alone
- Any practical bonus aircraft with no model changes and boost pressure changes
- Already coming but I would doubly support the improvement of Luftwaffe, VVS, RAF, and USAAF aircraft with regards to skins wherever there are badly detailed or very old skins

* experinced or percieved by some

swambast
04-03-2006, 08:21 PM
Good Lord, Please give us our flyable B-17....

http://www.planetmedalofhonor.com/freebrief/images/mohaa/skylimit/b17.jpg

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2006, 08:48 PM
I would like to see the Pacific theater finnished to the same class as the Eastern front is.

With the inclusion of the following

More Japanese & US aircraft eg KI044 Tojo, Bearcat, Devastator, Kate flyable ect.

A major improvement in offline campaigns. (Third party members are doing a brilliant job here, they cant be thanked enough)

Develop the AI, make the AI & PLAYER flight models the same.

Overall I believe my wishes will all be answered in the next 3 expantions & I am looking forward to buying them. I believe they will complete the series. BOB will have to be at a new level to top this sim.

Can it be done?

fabianfred
04-03-2006, 10:09 PM
i'd like to see the Pacific tidied up with a flyable Kate and a few more ships ... but more than anything.... for the mission-builders

please give us a time-out for the smoke and flames to start when we want them

and make the ship sinkings on a slider

please.... :-)

fordfan25
04-03-2006, 10:46 PM
you guys know what im going to say so im not even going to say that it needs a -4 corsair. nope deffenitly not going to say it needs a -4 THATS -4 CORSAIR. no sir not me cough-4hogcough. AWWWWCHEEEE-4sairWWWWW. excusse me must be the dust thats built upon my book about the -4 corsair thats been siting under the plastic moddle kit of a -4 corsair. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

fordfan25
04-03-2006, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by fabianfred:
i'd like to see the Pacific tidied up with a flyable Kate and a few more ships ... but more than anything.... for the mission-builders

please give us a time-out for the smoke and flames to start when we want them

and make the ship sinkings on a slider

please.... :-) And what i realy want is a -4 corsair hehehehe

GR142-Pipper
04-03-2006, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
I picked the fourth option. Although I'd like to see the Pacific content a little more filled out, I think that the best use of time at this point would be to finish off what's already there. Having the best FM, DM and AI for what's already in the game makes the most sense to me. Given the type of game this is those would be the elements that I would think should get the most attention for the final version. Agreed. And try doing it right this time. The large changes in flight/damage models from patch to patch don't inspire confidence that any lessons are being learned. Also, consider REMOVING aircraft and concentrate on producing a quality job on a limited number of aircraft rather than a mediocre job on many.

GR142-Pipper

appulluk
04-03-2006, 10:58 PM
I will have to slowly accept that no simulation will ever satiate my hardcore needs.

Having just read that there are no carrier crew bugs me. Theres gunners on artillery and enemies running away from blown convoys, etc. I once had F/A-18 Korea and sold it because it didn't have carrier crew.

I don't own IL-2 yet, I want it, but I keep thinking "well it doesn't have this... how inconsistent!"

LuftWulf190
04-03-2006, 11:12 PM
A Bf-109G-14 with a 20mm cannon!

GreyBeast
04-03-2006, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by appulluk:
I will have to slowly accept that no simulation will ever satiate my hardcore needs.

Having just read that there are no carrier crew bugs me. Theres gunners on artillery and enemies running away from blown convoys, etc. I once had F/A-18 Korea and sold it because it didn't have carrier crew.

I don't own IL-2 yet, I want it, but I keep thinking "well it doesn't have this... how inconsistent!"

Dude, the day you buy IL-2 is the day you'll realize we're all spoiled little brats having it all already and still asking for more.

jasonbirder
04-04-2006, 01:37 AM
A major improvement in offline campaigns. (Third party members are doing a brilliant job here, they cant be thanked enough)

Develop the AI, make the AI & PLAYER flight models the same.


Wise words...the biggest improvement we could get...hopefully this is at least partially on the way...with payware Static Campaigns coming (PE2/3 Expansion) and hopefully some AI tweaks in a forthcoming patch...

I know I shouldn't rise to the bait but I can't leave this without rising to the bait...


Fix the Bogus UFO 109G2 and the rest of the 109 UFO series. They don't do that, US bob sales are going to be dismal

Like there are more than a few dozen people that care that passionately about this one...That'll be a real commercial diasaster won't it!

Manuel29
04-04-2006, 01:47 AM
My hopes are in BoB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tjaika1910
04-04-2006, 01:59 AM
I would wish for the end result of Il2 that it contained a fully listing with data of all the added aircraft, and some more offline content. Just to make it feel like a complete package.

WTE_Ibis
04-04-2006, 02:56 AM
Improved rate of climb and turning ability for all 109s.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

actionhank1786
04-04-2006, 02:58 AM
If it wouldn't be too much work, i'd say refine the planes we have now.
Some good things are missing.
Couldn't some of the Bf-109F series planes carry Cannon pods under the wings? (I swear i read about the use of Canons by the JG-27 boys in the desert) and the P-51s sure could use some rockets.

Treetop64
04-04-2006, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by PlaneEater:
Treetop: I dunno where you got that misimpression, but the USN and RN used catapults extensively. For escort carriers, planes were launched excluseively via catapult.

I've got a 5 DVD set of PTO war footage... lots and lots of cat launches, especially when the planes started carrying heavy ordinance for ground support during the island hopping phase.

Well, kiss my face!

I had no idea! I checked it out, and waddaya know...

Laden F-6Fs catapulted from Jeep carriers. After all, it is the only way they could have taken off from those things.

Thanks. Here's hoping that I wont sound so ignorant in the future. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

F6_Ace
04-04-2006, 03:41 AM
How about getting rid of F6 with externals on?

Or, alternatively, how about some realistic DMs for VVS?

alert_1
04-04-2006, 04:38 AM
I afraid that ONLY option 4) is feasible, giving the state of the sim and the workload upon Oleg's team

Sturm_Williger
04-04-2006, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by GreyBeast:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by appulluk:
I will have to slowly accept that no simulation will ever satiate my hardcore needs.
...
I don't own IL-2 yet, I want it, but I keep thinking "well it doesn't have this... how inconsistent!"

Dude, the day you buy IL-2 is the day you'll realize we're all spoiled little brats having it all already and still asking for more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif That is so true !

I personally voted for 4 - because it's what they're sort of doing now, although at the moment I think it's more of a random look through.

I'd love to see a couple of troop-oriented ground objects for mission building though.

jasonbirder
04-04-2006, 05:16 AM
How about a more immersive feeling Campaign - with more going on on the ground - and much more interaction between the air-ground elements in missions.
Better connectivity between campaign missions - debriefs - follow on missions - targets/units struck in one mission affects the next mission etc...rather than the just one random mission after another feel of the current DGEN (not applicable to Static created campaigns I know...)
Better Friendly AI
Better Enemy AI & Behaviour IE Use same flight models/ dont perform ridiculous amounts of Hi G/negative G maneuvers - deflection shooting gets less accurate - non-deflection shooting gets much more accurate!
AI becomes less psychic at spotting you under all circumstances...and likewise your AI buddies stop picking the enemy up under all circumstances...So its possible to hide in the clouds/hide in the sun etc...
Better Comms...
Increase the pilot workload so flying the plane becomes more of a challenge so we're not happily swanning round just waiting for the next dogfight without a care in the world...
Larger maps so Fuel management becomes an issue...we have to watch our fuel state when choosing whether to engage or not etc...

Wow quite a list and asking for the moon I know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I don't really expect much of the above...its just a wish list after all but maybe some of the above in the new BOB would nice!
Obviously I know that any of the above has to be MUCH LESS IMPORTANT to the game than polishing the FMs of 1 or 2 Models in the game a fraction of a % but what the heck!

panther3485
04-04-2006, 05:31 AM
Quote:

quote:
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
I picked the fourth option. Although I'd like to see the Pacific content a little more filled out, I think that the best use of time at this point would be to finish off what's already there. Having the best FM, DM and AI for what's already in the game makes the most sense to me. Given the type of game this is those would be the elements that I would think should get the most attention for the final version.

"Agreed. And try doing it right this time. The large changes in flight/damage models from patch to patch don't inspire confidence that any lessons are being learned. Also, consider REMOVING aircraft and concentrate on producing a quality job on a limited number of aircraft rather than a mediocre job on many."

GR142-Pipper


With you guys 100 percent.

If we're gonna have anything done, let's fix up what we've got now. Go over it with a fine tooth comb and yes, remove some aircraft if absolutely necessary but let's get it right once and for all (as right as we reasonably can, anyway).


Best regards,
panther3485

Brain32
04-04-2006, 05:52 AM
Since we're making a dream wish list http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif:
-proper FW front view
-11lbs Tempest
-rockets for Mosquito
-Lanchaster(AI would be fine also)
-clean(without the racks) P47D
-more Fw190F8 loadouts
-late Me109's with mg151/20 option in the nose
-flyable N1K1 Shiden
-every object skinable
-revision of AI behaviour
-better sounds

JG52Karaya-X
04-04-2006, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by actionhank1786:
Couldn't some of the Bf-109F series planes carry Cannon pods under the wings? (I swear i read about the use of Canons by the JG-27 boys in the desert)

The Bf109F4 was the first Bf109 to carry the 20mm Gondolas but in contrast to its successors it had to be specially prepared to be able to mount them so 20mm gondolas on the "Friedrich" were very rare.
Planes of the G series and later on the other hand could be (un)fitted with the "Rüstsatz 6 - R6" with little effort in the field.

Honestly I'd rather have a lousy bomb or drop tank for the Bf109F2/4/G10 and FW190D9 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


and the P-51s sure could use some rockets.
Nothing against some Bazookas. Panzerblitz rockets for the FW190F8 would be nice as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

slipBall
04-04-2006, 06:49 AM
The release of the DVD complete might be a indication that the patch work has ended. It's been a long happy ride, and I thank Oleg for all he has given us. He certainly has been generous, and showed just a astounding commitment to his baby, and to making us happy. The future Maddox game's should be nothing short of amazing, I really can't wait.

horseback
04-04-2006, 09:28 AM
I went with #4 as well. Fix the AI, get the FMs within 5% of RL values relative to each other without all the sneaky porking by secret test data, oversensitive handling and bogus gunshake effects, increase the damage done by non-explosive rounds to realistic levels, and fix long range vision problems by making the 'dots' white when viewed against a dark background and dark when viewed against a light background.

cheers

horseback

triggerhappyfin
04-04-2006, 11:12 AM
Finishing touches???
Why this burial mode?

As I see it Oleg should get the most out of a winning concept. There isnt any competition out there and as far as we can see it wont we any in near future. The only competition in sight is Olegs own BoB. With FB crowd increasing (on daily bases one see new guys on forums and playing online) the base for FB addon market broadens by every day. FB coming as far it has dont deserve to be scrapped in some years yet.
Lots of development in gameplay is still possible and aircraft missing could still be added.
Oleg should let both BoB and FB co-exist while BoB evolves to take over. BoB will without doubt be amazing but will not offer all the sceneries and planes of FB. Truth is that a lot of people will be having difficulties to enjoy all it´s features in the beginning(as the case has been with IL-2 series). Oleg has proofed to be a developer kean to be in the frontline. Most of us have all the time had difficulties keeping up with the development. So my hopes goes to further life of IL-2 series.

waffen-79
04-04-2006, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by triggerhappyfin:
Finishing touches???
Why this burial mode?

As I see it Oleg should get the most out of a winning concept. There isnt any competition out there and as far as we can see it wont we any in near future. The only competition in sight is Olegs own BoB. With FB crowd increasing (on daily bases one see new guys on forums and playing online) the base for FB addon market broadens by every day. FB coming as far it has dont deserve to be scrapped in some years yet.
Lots of development in gameplay is still possible and aircraft missing could still be added.
Oleg should let both BoB and FB co-exist while BoB evolves to take over. BoB will without doubt be amazing but will not offer all the sceneries and planes of FB. Truth is that a lot of people will be having difficulties to enjoy all it´s features in the beginning(as the case has been with IL-2 series). Oleg has proofed to be a developer kean to be in the frontline. Most of us have all the time had difficulties keeping up with the development. So my hopes goes to further life of IL-2 series.

Agree 110%

we still need the B-17, C-47 and Ju-52 any variant FLYABLE

ohh and the Ar-234, yes you could include it as AI also http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

GerritJ9
04-04-2006, 01:55 PM
I vote for some work on PF. The European theatre is pretty well covered.

ATLAS_DEATH
04-04-2006, 03:15 PM
I'd kinda like to see some tools indigrated for the Map... like a pencil and ruler.. or something... or some way to measure angles.
(For those of us that don't use icons and such)

Summit17
04-04-2006, 04:31 PM
What is BoB? Sorry for the newbie question!

ParaB
04-04-2006, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Summit17:
What is BoB? Sorry for the newbie question!
Battle of Britain, the next Flightsim by Maddox & crew. A new, standalone-game with a new engine and (hopefully) lots of improvements in various fields.

-HH- Beebop
04-04-2006, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by PlaneEater:
... a caboose...

Most trains dont have a caboose, just American ones and those have been abandoned recently.
Now a red light on the last car would be a good idea.

Ships is what we need, lots more ships. Liberty ships, (useful for all theatres), a Japanese battleship and cruiser, general support vessels for oiling, sub/seaplane tenders, (useful for all theatres), small merchants, boxes in at least two sizes, cargo loadout for the Ju-52, and finally ground clutter objects for airbases and beaches.

However, there's really no need to wish for things. Whats in the pipeline is all we are getting. Personally I would like a ton more things but at this point I'm satisifed with what we have, mainly because a lot of it was free and there are very, very few games you can say that about.

Bring on BoB!

Summit17
04-04-2006, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by ParaB:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Summit17:
What is BoB? Sorry for the newbie question!
Battle of Britain, the next Flightsim by Maddox & crew. A new, standalone-game with a new engine and (hopefully) lots of improvements in various fields. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
THanks for clarifying

BfHeFwMe
04-04-2006, 09:12 PM
Same old stuff, gimme this, gimme that, fix my ride. As long as this sims been out, if it hasn't been "fixed" by now, by all means do hold your breath. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

One thing the game desperatly could use is an added .ini file for customizing settings for home useage. Why can't I decide what settings I will use for viewability such as dots, LOD's and distances. Why can't I permanently set my QMB map, side, and fuel states, icons. You know, the kind of stuff that might actually make the game more pleasant to fly.

It's always been a awkward PITA from day one, I've set that damn QMB so many times the paint is worn of the graphical buttons. Game is set up from day one by the inputs of paranoid delusionals trying to enforce some warped sense of something or other. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

ImpStarDuece
04-04-2006, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:


One thing the game desperatly could use is an added .ini file for customizing settings for home useage. Why can't I decide what settings I will use for viewability such as dots, LOD's and distances. Why can't I permanently set my QMB map, side, and fuel states, icons. You know, the kind of stuff that might actually make the game more pleasant to fly.

It's always been a awkward PITA from day one, I've set that damn QMB so many times the paint is worn of the graphical buttons. Game is set up from day one by the inputs of paranoid delusionals trying to enforce some warped sense of something or other. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Don't know about the config.ini, but for the QMB at least, there is a 'save' feature. You can set you plane, warload, fuel, map, opposition, altitude, AAA status the whole nine yards and then save it as a particular file name.

Works for me.

All I have to do is got to QMB, click on the Load button and select whatever of the 30 or so saved files I want to use. It makes settting up for testing FMs easy as pie as well.

-HH- Beebop
04-04-2006, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Same old stuff, gimme this, gimme that, fix my ride. As long as this sims been out, if it hasn't been "fixed" by now, by all means do hold your breath. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

One thing the game desperatly could use is an added .ini file for customizing settings for home useage. Why can't I decide what settings I will use for viewability such as dots, LOD's and distances. Why can't I permanently set my QMB map, side, and fuel states, icons. You know, the kind of stuff that might actually make the game more pleasant to fly.

It's always been a awkward PITA from day one, I've set that damn QMB so many times the paint is worn of the graphical buttons. Game is set up from day one by the inputs of paranoid delusionals trying to enforce some warped sense of something or other. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif
So exactly why do you keep the game on your hard drive then?
One thing the game desperatly could use is an added .ini file for customizing settings for home useage.
Now that is a good idea. The rest of your post makes me wonder how you can possibly tolerate the game.

ak474me
04-04-2006, 11:46 PM
As for me i am just getting into the game as i finally got a good joystick. However being interested in those lesser known planes I would love to see a flyable Martin B-10 bomber that the Dutch used or the Donier 22 or pby flying boat. Furthermore I too would like the TBD Devastator and even the P-35 used in early 42 in the phillipines with the gun pods underneath. In fact the phillipines air force used the p-26 which would be nice to have. Perhaps some of the earlier japanese planes like the Ki -27.

ojcar1971
04-05-2006, 09:05 AM
For me, a little more maps (Burma, Philippines, rest of New Guinea, a little China maybe) planes (Flyable or not) and ships for the PTO, and improvement of AI (same flight model and limitations on visibiliy than you and not "Lee Harvey Oswald marksmanship")

triad773
04-05-2006, 09:22 AM
I would have liked to pick 2, but I picked 5. And here's why: as much as I really love this game, flawed as it is, it's really raised the bar in a number of levels, foremost among that is the quantity and quality of FREE add ons.

This being said, I think that the DVD release is to be the Swann Song of the series, and rightly so. It is the event that marks the turning point in development cycling: the move to BoB would be appropriate. That's why (I feel) that the PE-2 add ons will be download only (see other thread that discusses that).

I think Maddox Games is saying "Here's the whole package- enjoy! For those who really want it, we won't waste resources marketing later ad ons because we're working on other stuff." Fine by me if it moves BoB to fruition sooner.

A tough call though- I really do want improvements to IL-2; but I really feel that the writing's on the wall on this one.

BRING ON BOB http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Triad

mllaneza
04-05-2006, 12:18 PM
E. The glaring omission in Pacific Fighters was single-player missions for each of the flyables. So I'd like to see that caught up. At least a couple of missions for *every* flyable.

hally69
04-05-2006, 12:38 PM
The only thing I really miss is being able to drag a take-off waypoint to the side of the airfields to taxi to the runway. You now have to move it too far away,(dont really know, went from half a km to a full km) I was really puzzled why that was neccessary to change. It was possible in FB prior to AEP. I was so hyped to get that(P-38's)and went back to modify some of my missions and was disapointed to learn that all of my start from parking missions would not work http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Please return this to FB if possible. And if anyone can tell me why that was changed I would appreciate it.

I like some of the other idea's I read along the thread, more ships is a good one, another I did see mentioned was lights on moving trains which should include ships and carriers (nav lights/landing lights)and cars/trucks(dimmed headlights)

More cockpits for planes included as AI, U-2, bf-189,Me-210, B-17's/24's/29's, Pe-8 blah blah blah.

I would be happy with just the parking thing though and I think it should be fairly easy to do along with lights for ships and what not instead of modeling a bunch of new cockpits but there it is.

My choice in the poll is improved FM/DM, because that is the real heart and soul of this sim.(pretty good right now)

BTW IL2 is the best, no question, and a sincere thank you to Oleg and crew, I have been enjoying it for many years.

Aymar_Mauri
04-05-2006, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Fix the AI, get the FMs within 5% of RL values relative to each other without all the sneaky porking by secret test data, oversensitive handling and bogus gunshake effects, increase the damage done by non-explosive rounds to realistic levels, and fix long range vision problems by making the 'dots' white when viewed against a dark background and dark when viewed against a light background.
Couln't said it better myself. Specially: "get the FMs within 5% of RL values relative to each other without all the sneaky porking by secret test data"

Dark_Apostle187
04-05-2006, 04:53 PM
I really only wish for one thing, the Hs 129 as a flyable, with both the 37 and 75mm anti tank guns.

Everyone else has already picked out anything else, but i havent played it enough to comment on the physics and differnces in aircraft both realworld and games wise.

Cheers

Copperhead310th
04-05-2006, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by actionhank1786:
Couldn't some of the Bf-109F series planes carry Cannon pods under the wings? (I swear i read about the use of Canons by the JG-27 boys in the desert)

The Bf109F4 was the first Bf109 to carry the 20mm Gondolas but in contrast to its successors it had to be specially prepared to be able to mount them so 20mm gondolas on the "Friedrich" were very rare.
Planes of the G series and later on the other hand could be (un)fitted with the "Rüstsatz 6 - R6" with little effort in the field.

Honestly I'd rather have a lousy bomb or drop tank for the Bf109F2/4/G10 and FW190D9 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


and the P-51s sure could use some rockets.
Nothing against some Bazookas. Panzerblitz rockets for the FW190F8 would be nice as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually guys, Bazooka tubs & HVAR's would both be needed for the P-51 Series. HVAR"S were used in the PTO, & we know that bazzoka tubes were used in the ETO.

PlaneEater
04-06-2006, 12:44 AM
Guys, please don't drag this thread down into a 'please add these planes' or FM-argument thread. Pick the option you'd be happiest with, or pick 5 and post a reasonable explination of what alternative you'd suggest.

RegRag1977
04-06-2006, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by LuftWulf190:
A Bf-109G-14 with a 20mm cannon!

I'm with you Man!

Odin1956
04-11-2006, 03:38 AM
I want more!!!
I wote 1. The PF part of the TCE €The complete Edition€ Can not be finally when it lacking so much compared to FB+AEP. My thought when 1C and Oleg announced the upcoming PF was €œ A dream coming true€ Ho could develop a Flight PTO better than them I thought. But?
To end the development and add-on patches is sad, until at lest a couple more map-layouts are avilable. Inkluding the rest of Salomon island, Tobruk, and a map of Truk Atoll.
This would at least give the community possibilities to use the FMB to rebuilt major events in the historical PTO that now are missing.
I think those ho bought only the PF stand-alone edition feel a little disappointment.
PF part does not GET! reach the right historical perspective as rest of the iL2 series.
I think this is one of the best WWII Flight Sims ever, for home PC. There will probably be no more PTO Flight sim developed for a long time ahead! Pleas don€t leave this one get!!!
Odin-56

Odin1956
04-11-2006, 05:32 AM
Sorry I ment Rabaul not Tobruk in my earlier post.
Also? I can not believ there is no effort to add-on some Torpedo bombers like the TBF, Hellcat and Kate to PF. The main purpose of a carrier fleet was to take out the enemy fleet, than suport island-landing´s. Torpedobombing and dive bombing was the tool to do the job. SBD`s we have but Torpedo´s? It´s a to great expirienc to miss!!! I would like to fly them. Finaly! Yes I would pay for such add-on that inkluded more mapps and torpedo bombers, as much as i did for the PF-TCE.
Odin-56

Odin1956
04-11-2006, 05:37 AM
BTW. Check this link out.

http://www.cv6.org/gazetteer/solomons.htm

Odin-56

F16_Neo
04-11-2006, 12:11 PM
The 3 most important things to fix in current IL2 series...
1. Realistic sounds
2. Realistic sounds
3. Realistic sounds

...then move on...