1. #1
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
    ELEM posted 16-09-04 05:59
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>:
    Originally posted by Loco-S:
    The only jets that should be allowed on this sim are the 262, he- 163, the ar-234, gloster meteor but no the P 80.

    so if they put in the Beriev thingy that looks like its gonna pop like a bottle rocket, they should include the heinkel 280 shouldnt they?...regarding other prop planes, could be interesting to have them in as a sort of "crimson skyish sim", because some of them never saw production...and no production, no real historical value to affect the combat front, do they?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    If you are refering to the BI-1, it was designed by Bereznyak & Isayev and it's a rocket not a jet. It may not have gone into servce but it did go through flight acceptance tests and was put into production only to have them all scraped before completion. Also, as has already been said, the P-80 did enter service but did not see combat. If third party modelers wish to model these lesser known esoteric types then it is Olegs decision as to whether they should be included. If you wish to model the Heinkel 280 and it is up to Olegs demanding standards then it stands a good chance of being accepted. Although with only 9 prototypes and no production models it was not as close to being in service as the BI-1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I must Apologize fro my lack of knowledge regarding Russian aircraft, what I believed was a Beriev ( the BI-1) was what Elem said, and let me tell you , I know the difference between a Rocket aircraft and a Jet Aircraft,

    The He 280 passed the flight tests with flying colors, including mock up dogfight with a FW 190 during the trial tests, but due to political favoritism the ME 262 model was the one chosen,under your explanation, you say the BI -1 was scraped, so, then you must agree that his apearance in a historical context as a front line aircraft is at best imaginary, now you see my idea?...if they put non service aircraft in the sim, why not to put them all?....


    in my opinion, the Arado 234, Heikel 162, and De Haviland Vampire deserve the same privileges as the BI-1, and why not to put in the pot the Bell P-59?...after all it was a plane that didnt quite make it and was phased out before production began....



    The basic Idea of this sim was to re create the largest and most massive aerial conflict battleground in history with the highest degree of realism, adding non operational aircraft to it, defiles its basic premise.


    and mods, Im not trolling here, i just want to start a constructive and positive thread without the usual "I know more than you " stuff.


    Ad Maiorem Bella Gloriam
    Share this post

  2. #2
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
    ELEM posted 16-09-04 05:59
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>:
    Originally posted by Loco-S:
    The only jets that should be allowed on this sim are the 262, he- 163, the ar-234, gloster meteor but no the P 80.

    so if they put in the Beriev thingy that looks like its gonna pop like a bottle rocket, they should include the heinkel 280 shouldnt they?...regarding other prop planes, could be interesting to have them in as a sort of "crimson skyish sim", because some of them never saw production...and no production, no real historical value to affect the combat front, do they?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    If you are refering to the BI-1, it was designed by Bereznyak & Isayev and it's a rocket not a jet. It may not have gone into servce but it did go through flight acceptance tests and was put into production only to have them all scraped before completion. Also, as has already been said, the P-80 did enter service but did not see combat. If third party modelers wish to model these lesser known esoteric types then it is Olegs decision as to whether they should be included. If you wish to model the Heinkel 280 and it is up to Olegs demanding standards then it stands a good chance of being accepted. Although with only 9 prototypes and no production models it was not as close to being in service as the BI-1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I must Apologize fro my lack of knowledge regarding Russian aircraft, what I believed was a Beriev ( the BI-1) was what Elem said, and let me tell you , I know the difference between a Rocket aircraft and a Jet Aircraft,

    The He 280 passed the flight tests with flying colors, including mock up dogfight with a FW 190 during the trial tests, but due to political favoritism the ME 262 model was the one chosen,under your explanation, you say the BI -1 was scraped, so, then you must agree that his apearance in a historical context as a front line aircraft is at best imaginary, now you see my idea?...if they put non service aircraft in the sim, why not to put them all?....


    in my opinion, the Arado 234, Heikel 162, and De Haviland Vampire deserve the same privileges as the BI-1, and why not to put in the pot the Bell P-59?...after all it was a plane that didnt quite make it and was phased out before production began....



    The basic Idea of this sim was to re create the largest and most massive aerial conflict battleground in history with the highest degree of realism, adding non operational aircraft to it, defiles its basic premise.


    and mods, Im not trolling here, i just want to start a constructive and positive thread without the usual "I know more than you " stuff.


    Ad Maiorem Bella Gloriam
    Share this post

  3. #3
    Maddox Games put certian planes in FB because they were GIVEN to them by 3rd party modelers

    not because they were more historical or not

    not because they were more unique or not

    but because they were made by people who had the time & skill too . . . . . . time which the Maddox Games staff must be short of

    .
    __________________________________________________ __________________________
    want some Flight sim advice ? look here ~~~~&gt; complete user guide for flight sims
    Share this post

  4. #4
    The reason these other jets like the Go-229, the YP-80, the Me-163, etc, etc, is because 3rd party modellers liked these aircraft, and made them, and then sent them to Oleg. As far as I am aware, IC have no created one single aircraft between the release of FB and the release of AEP; all of the new aircraft until then were done by 3rd party modellers. Because 1C didn't have aircraft ready themselves, they took these models, so long as they were up to scratch, and programmed them in and released them.

    If you want an aircraft in the game, model it, submit it, and hope it meets the standards. Otherwise, shush.

    whit ye looking at, ya big jessie?!?!


    Executive Officer, 69th GIAP
    Za Rodinu!
    Petition to stop the M3 motorway through the Tara-Skryne Valley in Co. Meath, Ireland
    Share this post

  5. #5
    gah Tooz beat me to the punch

    i dont want to make excuses for the makers of this game . . . . . im of the opinion that certian planes that are AI are very important to the ETO & should have been flyable from the box release v1.0 . . . .

    .
    __________________________________________________ __________________________
    want some Flight sim advice ? look here ~~~~&gt; complete user guide for flight sims
    Share this post

  6. #6
    LEXX_Luthor's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ussia
    Posts
    8,824
    Loco:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I must Apologize fro my lack of knowledge regarding Russian aircra<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    We have learned something new, something USA Microsoft knows nothing of. Thanks Oleg.


    Loco, Real Life pilots jumped at the chance to fly experimental combat planes, friendly or captured enemy. (Do~335 is good example)


    Do~335 is the only "Fantasy" plane flight simmers never Whinnig about over possible inclusion in FB. Would make fascinating clinical Psycho study of flight simmer mental behavior.



    __________________
    Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

    "You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
    "I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
    "Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
    :
    "Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
    Close this book forever and don't open anymore!"
    ~Oleg_Maddox
    Share this post

  7. #7
    very interesting approach, that of the "if you like it make it, otherwise shut up"

    quite mature,

    what Im trying to know is that why not to make the planes alredy there flyable, instead of adding "imaginary planes" to this sim

    I dont expect to get an intelligent response from people who have limited knowledge on the issue.

    the fact is: if the plane is not historically accurate to the situation, it should not be there in the first place.

    otherwise somebody begin to model 1946 and forward airplanes and stuff them in the sim...

    IIRC there are some models in the projects, from way long ago, say PBY fliable, Dornier 335, and such, that actually saw if not action at least service during ww2 ( and with that im talking of planes that were actually there)


    I know the he 280 was scrapped, the He 112 on the other hand ( THIS WAS A PROP PLANE for the record) saw service at squadron level since the Munich crisis, and some FW 187 ( PROP PLANE) saw service in Norway ( being liked by their pilots over the Bf 110), could be cool to have them in the sim.


    Ad Maiorem Bella Gloriam
    Share this post

  8. #8
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
    Loco, _Real Life_ pilots jumped at the chance to fly experimental combat planes, friendly or captured enemy. (Do~335 is good example)


    Do~335 is the __only__ "Fantasy" plane flight simmers never Whinnig about over possible inclusion in FB. Would make fascinating clinical Psycho study of flight simmer mental behavior.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> &lt;edited to change this colon...

    Lexx, as a RL pilot I can tell you I would fly a broom if it was available for free to fly, but when it comes to a sim like FB I want it Historically accurate, not imaginary planes.

    and thanks for the sarcasm.


    Ad Maiorem Bella Gloriam
    Share this post

  9. #9
    i think that some of the AI planes little is known about how they actualy preformed, therefore making it difficult to accurately model them. and it still comes back to the if u like it so much then make a cockpit for it and if not shutup. and if it happens to be a bomber find all your references and make multiple cockpits

    Share this post

  10. #10
    As soon as someone models them, and they meet 1C's stringent criteria, I am quite confident they will
    be added.

    As for the various "wonder weapons", they seem to have had a short-lived gee-whiz type effect, and
    were quickly dropped from serious consideration, at least on line.

    They very things that make them unique, also make them pretty worthless. The 262, for instance
    rocks in raw speed and hitting power, but have glass engines. It all evens out, IMHO...


    CombatSim.com Forums Moderator
    BlitzPigs Co-WebMaster/Moderator
    Share this post

Page 1 of 4 123 ... Last ►►