PDA

View Full Version : Heat Seeking Missiles



Hashmark13
08-22-2006, 04:43 PM
http://rrgstudios.com/img/1946/34_full.jpg

Are these missiles heat seeking? Notice the trail it has left. Sways and bounces and hits an airborne bomber!

What sort of missiles are these and how reliable were they?

Hashmark13
08-22-2006, 04:43 PM
http://rrgstudios.com/img/1946/34_full.jpg

Are these missiles heat seeking? Notice the trail it has left. Sways and bounces and hits an airborne bomber!

What sort of missiles are these and how reliable were they?

waffen-79
08-22-2006, 04:46 PM
This IS the best Combat Flight SIM EVER!

can't wait for 4.07 '46 addon

berg417448
08-22-2006, 04:46 PM
They were wire guided. Reliability is unknown since they were not used before the war ended.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1050

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-22-2006, 04:47 PM
Flown to target by pilot? Radio controlled???

Viper2005_
08-22-2006, 04:47 PM
http://www.luft46.com/missile/x-4.html

AWL_Spinner
08-22-2006, 04:48 PM
Wire guided, not heat seeking. Like the anti-shipping missiles that the Germans were using operationally at the end of the war. According to a post in one of the other threads I saw these were to be proximity fused so a direct hit was not essential.

Controlled by the pilot via a joystick in the cockpit, similar in concept to some later missiles used by the West (Like the AGM-12 Bullpup, although that was radio rather than wire guided I believe).

VW-IceFire
08-22-2006, 04:50 PM
Wire guided by the pilot. So accuracy was a function of the pilot trying to fly his plane and guide the missile similtaneously.

tigertalon
08-22-2006, 04:51 PM
I still wonder whether we will control the missile via mouse and retain full control of plane through joystick/keyboard (like it is now when you man a gunner seat), or will missile be controlled by joystick and plane not controllable for the time of missile flight...

AWL_Spinner
08-22-2006, 05:00 PM
tt, I'd imagine it'll be like the dual-input air-gunner scenario you describe, can't imagine they'd lock the aircraft controls.

woofiedog
08-22-2006, 07:19 PM
The Ruhrstahl X-4.

Link: http://www.luft46.com/missile/x-4.html

X-4 air-to-air missile
Primary Function: short-range air-to-air missile
Power Plant: BMW 109-448 liquid rocket motor giving 16 kN thrust for 33 s
Length: 2.01 m
Diameter:
Wing Span: 726 mm
Launch Weight: 60 kg
Speed: 325 m/s
Warhead: 20 kg
Range: 1.5 - 3.5 km
Fuzes: Kranich acoustic proximity fuze, tuned to the pitch of a bomber's propellers
Guidance system: FuG 510/238 "D√ľsseldorf/Detmold" MCLOS visual guidance with wire control
Unit Cost:
Date Deployed: never

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Ruhrstahl_X-4_missile.jpg

The first flight test occurred on August 11, 1944 using a Focke-Wulf Fw 190 to as the launch platform. Subsequent tests used the Junkers Ju 88 and Messerschmitt Me 262, although they were not launched from the latter. The X-4 had originally been intended for launch from single-seat fighters, but the problems in guiding both the missile and the aircraft at the same time proved this to be unworkable. Instead the X-4 was re-directed to multi-seat aircraft like the Ju 88, while the R4M rocket was to be used on the single-seaters.

The X-4 was designed to be easily assembled by unskilled labour. By early 1945, Ruhrstahl's Brackwede factory had produced over 1000 airframes (the number 1300 is typical), and were waiting for the rocket motors when the factory that produced them (BMW's Stargard factory) was bombed. It is possible that some X-4s were used in the closing weeks of World War II, although it was never delivered to the Luftwaffe.

Link:

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1050
http://balsi.de/Bilder/x4.jpg

leitmotiv
08-22-2006, 07:51 PM
Ah, in other words, another fanciful product of the CRIMSON SKIES II team---when it was meant for twin-engine aircraft, we will see them being used by Ta 152Cs. Bring on the clowns!

VW-IceFire
08-22-2006, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Ah, in other words, another fanciful product of the CRIMSON SKIES II team---when it was meant for twin-engine aircraft, we will see them being used by Ta 152Cs. Bring on the clowns! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Still...in a fantasty 1946 scenario things would have had to work out where the use was needed by a single seater and the factory wasn't bombed. Not too hard in alternative history to justify the weapon. Seeing as use was initially meant for single seaters its not rediculous to concieve that conditions would be such that it could be used by single seaters in a time of desperate measures.

leitmotiv
08-22-2006, 07:57 PM
Reaching. Really reaching.

VW-IceFire
08-22-2006, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Reaching. Really reaching. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well it does beg the question then "so what?" Its already in the semi-believable zone so why not add something thats fun. It LOOKS like fun. Thats what this hobby is supposed to be about http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'd rather have a Typhoon but I'm not calling the shots.

orkan_3d
08-22-2006, 08:40 PM
leitmotiv, if you go to Grece, you can find one monastery, where moto of its monks is "Orthodox feith or death". It looks like you share same philosophy...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

PBNA-Boosher
08-22-2006, 09:14 PM
If you don't want it, don't fly it or don't buy it. Simple. The rest of us who do like it will use it. Nobody's saying we're n00bs, HaXoRz, etc... Nobody's saying you are. We have different opinions, and we must respect everyone's. YES, even Oleg's.

BBB_Hyperion
08-22-2006, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Ah, in other words, another fanciful product of the CRIMSON SKIES II team---when it was meant for twin-engine aircraft, we will see them being used by Ta 152Cs. Bring on the clowns! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ta had autopilot , but the sweeped wings on the x4 were for jet figthers not for props.

Jaws2002
08-22-2006, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
.... but the sweeped wings on the x4 were for jet figthers not for props. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not only for jets:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/fw-190_0087.jpg

One more thing. They chose the wire guidance knowing how easy was to jam radio signals.

leitmotiv
08-22-2006, 10:40 PM
Fw prototype carrier. The fun I'm having is reading all the rationalizations for an item shedding more of its credibility daily, and realizing how little desire there is for any.

Waldo.Pepper
08-23-2006, 01:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They chose the wire guidance knowing how easy was to jam radio signals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is completely correct. The anti shipping missiles (Fritz-X etc) were VERY vulnerable to jamming.

BiscuitKnight
08-23-2006, 02:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
If you don't want it, don't fly it or don't buy it. Simple. The rest of us who do like it will use it. Nobody's saying we're n00bs, HaXoRz, etc... Nobody's saying you are. We have different opinions, and we must respect everyone's. YES, even Oleg's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But if I want to play online I have to buy it, so your argument is flawed.

FritzGryphon
08-23-2006, 03:02 AM
Very cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I might have to get '46 just for the guided missiles.

I hope it's for Ju-88 and Heinkel too. It's payback time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

JG52Karaya-X
08-23-2006, 03:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BiscuitKnight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
If you don't want it, don't fly it or don't buy it. Simple. The rest of us who do like it will use it. Nobody's saying we're n00bs, HaXoRz, etc... Nobody's saying you are. We have different opinions, and we must respect everyone's. YES, even Oleg's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But if I want to play online I have to buy it, so your argument is flawed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why wouldnt you be able to play online anymore? From a technical point of view it will change nothing, you will still have a multiplayer mode, and still HL support. If there will be enough pre-VVS46 servers online is another question but that's not Luthier's (or Oleg's) problem. You know you could still fly coops or NGEN campaigns with friends http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

jasonbirder
08-23-2006, 03:16 AM
I just don't understand it...
‚£10 (perhaps $20)
The price of a few beers...
Even if you just want the Ar234, New Ground Objects and the Kiev map...It represents decent value for money...
Plus with that you'll then be able to get the free 4.08 add on with Norway, Burma and possibly a few new early war planes (heres hoping) Now that makes it a steal...
The Pe2 add on was MUCH needed something like 12,000 Pe2/Pe3 were built as many as the F4 or P38 and imagine the furore if THEY had been left out of the game!
Manchuria...well who can complain at some much, much needed IJA planes other than to say...we would have like more of them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
All 3 add ons represent decent value for money...Anyone here spend less than ‚£10/$20 on a night out?

joeap
08-23-2006, 03:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Fw prototype carrier. The fun I'm having is reading all the rationalizations for an item shedding more of its credibility daily, and realizing how little desire there is for any. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry dude, you're reaching. Since we are both MSFS fans let me ask you, does the variety of planes, including snoopy doghouses and witches on broomsticks detract from the potential realism of MS one iota? If an MS 2004 install had say the Realair Spit or Firepower Fw-190 installed AND the snoopy plane does that make the flights with the universally praised fighters less realistic? Does it degrade the FM if the owner wants to do some silly stuff with the doghouse once in awhile?

The only difference is these planes will be added to all who get the addon. But those who want can keep flying realistic scenarios (with extras like I hear ground objects and the arado)without touching the new planes. I flew the 109Z once or twice and have not touched it since.

FritzGryphon
08-23-2006, 03:20 AM
If the missile was included in PF or something, that would be out of place.

But this is '46, pure fictional theatre. Anything will slide here. Could have flying saucers if they wanted.

I will get to work falsifying drawings for the Snoopy plane.

WOLFMondo
08-23-2006, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They chose the wire guidance knowing how easy was to jam radio signals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is completely correct. The anti shipping missiles (Fritz-X etc) were VERY vulnerable to jamming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were still very effective. One almost sunk the Royal Navies most famous battleship of the 20th Century.

BaronUnderpants
08-23-2006, 05:07 AM
Regarding controles of the X4, isnt it more lightly that u would controle the rocket AND the AC at once? If the rocket climbs so does the platform ac...and so on.

The futher away the rocket goes the smaller movements u would need to controle the rocket.....movements the would be hardly noticeble in the aircraft?

Just a thought.

That would be the easiest way to go. The hardest would be to controle either a Fw190 OR a ramped rocket on steroids with your LEFT hand. And in the case of the rocket with the mouse AND your left hand...if u really wanna make it a challange. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Engadin
08-23-2006, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They chose the wire guidance knowing how easy was to jam radio signals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is completely correct. The anti shipping missiles (Fritz-X etc) were VERY vulnerable to jamming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ruhrstahl X-4 were potentially vulnerable to countermeasures like this:

http://www.scissorsonline.com/store/g/446.jpg

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

JG53Frankyboy
08-23-2006, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
I just don't understand it...
‚£10 (perhaps $20)
The price of a few beers...
Even if you just want the Ar234, New Ground Objects and the Kiev map...It represents decent value for money...
Plus with that you'll then be able to get the free 4.08 add on with Norway, Burma and possibly a few new early war planes (heres hoping) Now that makes it a steal...
The Pe2 add on was MUCH needed something like 12,000 Pe2/Pe3 were built as many as the F4 or P38 and imagine the furore if THEY had been left out of the game!
Manchuria...well who can complain at some much, much needed IJA planes other than to say...we would have like more of them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
All 3 add ons represent decent value for money...Anyone here spend less than ‚£10/$20 on a night out? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the Burma map will be fortunatly alreadya be in the IL10/MAnchuria 4.06 adon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


as for the X-4 - we have to attack US B-29s escorted by soviet MiG9 or Yak15 in offline or coop missions............
or to fake the Tu-4 (even its first flight was 1947 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).
im also looking forward how they will program the guidiance.

jasonbirder
08-23-2006, 06:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the Burma map will be fortunatly alreadya be in the IL10/MAnchuria 4.06 adon </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Didn't know that...thats great news!

Bearcat99
08-23-2006, 06:58 AM
Hmmmm I have a heat seeking missle.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Ah, in other words, another fanciful product of the CRIMSON SKIES II team---when it was meant for twin-engine aircraft, we will see them being used by Ta 152Cs. Bring on the clowns! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont see that happening. Contray to popular believ server admins have a lot of control over what goes on in thier servers... they can set the plane sets... the maps the whole 9... so I dont see why so many people get thier drawers in a knot over stuff like this. If you dont want to fly on some server that has this feature then dont. If there isnt one then get some maps and launch your own.. believe me.. regardless to your settings or plane set someone will be interested. To compare what 1C has done with this sim to Crimson skies is strtching it quite a bit.. even the new Crimson Skies.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BiscuitKnight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
If you don't want it, don't fly it or don't buy it. Simple. The rest of us who do like it will use it. Nobody's saying we're n00bs, HaXoRz, etc... Nobody's saying you are. We have different opinions, and we must respect everyone's. YES, even Oleg's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But if I want to play online I have to buy it, so your argument is flawed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it isnt at all.... you can still fly online with PF as a stand alone... Is it Oleg's & 1C's fault that everyone wants to go merged? Make no mistake.. it is the hardcore who dictate how this sim goes in that respect (online).. and by hard core I mean simply the ones who have no doubt whatsoever that whatever comes out.. they are buying it ASAP because contrary to all the gripes saying other wise...It IS that good..... but no one will twist your arm.. certainly not Oleg... Most of us will be too busy looking at the shiny parts and drinking in the nectar.. istead of griping about the grey part of the cloud.. or the spots on the glass...

I just dont get it..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I say bring it on.. and I can be confident that it will be done well..... realistically.. this sim is still going strong.. even of BoB were delayed for 2 years... there is still enough potential in this engine to keep this thing fresh and new.... Heck.. the new maps alone would be worth it.. frm what I hear they will be done very well.... having the planeset we will wind up in this sim.. and being reasonably confident that it is hack free? Priceless..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Engadin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They chose the wire guidance knowing how easy was to jam radio signals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is completely correct. The anti shipping missiles (Fritz-X etc) were VERY vulnerable to jamming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ruhrstahl X-4 were potentially vulnerable to countermeasures like this:

http://www.scissorsonline.com/store/g/446.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah if he could see the wire... or get close enough to it at 400+MPH... LOL

AWL_Spinner
08-23-2006, 07:42 AM
My argument of the day award goes to joeap for the MSFS contribution. Well done, sir, that's an excellent point.

I had an X-wing in MSFS once, and I'm fairly sure it didn't detract from my enjoyment of ILS 757 landings in zero vis.

Xiolablu3
08-23-2006, 08:53 AM
This 1946 addon will be a really fun way to round off the Il2 series.

Will be amazing for creating fantasty campaigns using prototype German aircraft in a 'Secret Weapomns of the Luftwaffe' type of way.

People who are moaning about it are just whining for nothing. The game willnot change. Server admins will still limit the use of some planes on maps if they dont fit. The game will not change.

You will however have much more material fotr crating great content, for real and fantasy campaigns. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Also no doubt there will be tweaks to the whole engine to improve flight models/effects.

Cant wait. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Xiolablu3
08-23-2006, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BiscuitKnight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
If you don't want it, don't fly it or don't buy it. Simple. The rest of us who do like it will use it. Nobody's saying we're n00bs, HaXoRz, etc... Nobody's saying you are. We have different opinions, and we must respect everyone's. YES, even Oleg's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But if I want to play online I have to buy it, so your argument is flawed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No you dont.

Host a server using 4.04m or 4.05m, whatever you want to use.

You have lost nothing.

Do you have the right to play on other servers? No youhav the privilige.

If you dont want to keep up witht he servers addons, then you lose that privilige.

Set up your own server in that case. Problem solved.

Monty_Thrud
08-23-2006, 10:43 AM
PFFT!...wire guided missiles http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif...whatever next...pigeon guided missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

waffen-79
08-23-2006, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Ah, in other words, another fanciful product of the CRIMSON SKIES II team---when it was meant for twin-engine aircraft, we will see them being used by Ta 152Cs. Bring on the clowns! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
if by clown you mean spit25lbs... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif j/k

Divine-Wind
08-23-2006, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Hmmmm I have a heat seeking missle.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

leitmotiv
08-23-2006, 04:45 PM
I do not care what people do in their spare time, joeap; they can go to X-PLANE and see what they can do with the Ta 153 or the Stoat or Videbeeste or whatever that thing is called which looks like a flying Dairy Queen. They can take as many liberties as the like with X-4s and what not. But, Maddox always kept up pretty high standards. Their previous flirtation with '46, a Go 229, was fine as far as I was concerned. While the combat version never flew, doing one was not that far-fetched---anyway, I liked it. If they had done the X-4 as an air-to-air weapon for twin-engine fighters like the Ju 88G, I would not have minded. It is this really far-fetched extrapolation like the Dairy Queen and single-engine fighters able to use the X-4 (which they couldn't) which gags me. If the Maddox gang wanted to do Wonder Weapons, why not a Dornier bomber with the Fritz-X guided armor-piercing bomb, or the He 177 with the Henschel anti-ship rocket, or the B-24s in the Pacific with guided missiles used against ships, or the B-29 with the phenomenol Eagle radar which allowed it to hit small targets at low altitude in the dead of night? All of these were real weapons with a history so that hit probabilities and performance could be found. The X-4 and the Dairy Queen had no history; they were completely unknown quantities (and the US Navy's real VERTOL fighter tested in the '50's was a huge flop). This is not something I would think Maddox would want associated with his flagship design. Who knows? Maybe land war projects are interesting him more now and IL-2 ETC doesn't matter.

joeap
08-24-2006, 02:35 AM
Well I respect your opinion, it's just that having these models will not affect the realism, or lack thereof, of the other stuff we have. My example was with the MSFS series which many like to trash here, unjustifiably so IMHO. I was thinking of picking up this payware Mig-21 that got rave reviews for its FM, now imagine again that plane in the same planes folder as my Snoopy doghouse. (I don't have MSFS installed currently was thinking about doing that again. My computer would not explode. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


I understand being upset about the symbolic meaning of this addon, but consider this. It is the last addon (except for one free patch I think after that for the last adjustments, maps and maybe a Fokker or two) and all the others like Pe-2 and Manchuria are certainly historical.

Then that's it, nada zilch. On to BoB and ToW which hopefully will continue the tradition of historical stuff.

P.S. I agree would have much preferred the Fritz X. Maybe for BoB, with a model of the Roma. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

orkan_3d
08-24-2006, 07:35 PM
IL2 series was very often regarded as a dry simulation, so for the end, little imagination won`t hurt. Loosen up a little!

BBB_Hyperion
08-24-2006, 08:36 PM
The controlling problem of the missiles and flying the plane at the same time can be denied as ta152 had an autopilot (that is not like you press autopilot ingame most planes never had autopilot). So the argument it is not possible to keep the plane under control and fly the missile at the same time is not valid on all planes.

------
The X4 sweped wing design was changed to that form to allow jet fighters 262 etc to carry the rocket without high drag values at high speed developing from normal straight wing forms.

893 km/h is not supersonic (depending on air density and temp) is below high drag zone developing under Mach 1.

http://virtualskies.arc.nasa.gov/aeronautics/tutorial/wings2.html

Bearcat99
08-24-2006, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Well I respect your opinion, it's just that having these models will not affect the realism, or lack thereof, of the other stuff we have. My example was with the MSFS series which many like to trash here, unjustifiably so IMHO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only CFS I bash regularly and rightfully so is CFS3... CFS1 was what got me hooked on flight sims... and CFS2 was a good sim..... thats what made cfs3 so bad.. it was like the went backwards... and sideways.

I agree with you though.. it can only help and add to the sim.

carguy_
08-25-2006, 12:15 PM
Personally I am really wondering why didn`t they think about more post WWII props.

The Ta152C and Ar234 IS THE STUFF IM TALKIN BOUT!

Why not Dora D11,12 why not even more Me109 types,why not more superboosted Mustangs,Spitfires,P38,Yaks,Lavockins?If they model the Lerche then anything is possible.

If there`s a legitimate reason behind so crazy `46planeset it is the 3rd party completed stuff I think.Otherwise I`d think someone who was behind it is not too bright.

The Ta and Arado are the only two planes I`m buying this product for.Allied guys have little or nothing here I`m affraid.


And why no Korea?I mean it is so obvious ppl would like to have that too.

NonWonderDog
08-26-2006, 12:48 AM
I think the reason is that we already have seventy FW190, Me109, Mustang, Spitfire, P38, Yak, and Lavockin models all-together. Do we need 10 more planes that are nearly identical to what we already have -- that add nothing except a few more mph top speed? Or wouldn't you rather have 5 completely new and different planes?

WWMaxGunz
08-26-2006, 01:36 AM
If you don't buy Luft 46 then will you be able to use the final free addon?

I don't use the Russian rocketplane and somehow have no problem with it being included.

But it would be better if the X-4's would be bomber weapons. Imagine Stuka with rearward
firing X-4 or 2 for defense? Or He-111 with forward and rear facing for all-aspect fire?

It's just too good, everyone should have them! LMAO!