Jump to content

Blitz1293

Members
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Blitz1293

  • Birthday 12/16/1993

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS, IL-2, War Thunder
  • Interests
    Gaming, airsoft, reading, bow fishing, writing
  1. If I may, I think what blackbird is getting is that on the surface, yes they are the "same", but it leaves a lot out. The actual experience of flying the fw-190 vs the f-14 is going to be pretty substantially different. So while yes what you're doing on paper is the same, the experience you have will be different and that's where his race car analogy comes in. Now to wrap it around to the topic at hand, that's why planes like the p-61 would be valuable to the game because it would offer a substantially different experience from any other aircraft in the game. It would introduce new systems, and new possibilities that you can't get otherwise, even if the basic mission promise of 'fly from A to B and then back to A' doesnt change and that's what's important, that's how you inject variety in a game like this, because the planes are the medium by which we interact with the sim, so different planes in unique roles is what will shake it up the most.
  2. Okay so • You did say it was "average/bad" in your initial reply, you can retract the second half of that now if you like, but don't say you didn't say it was bad. You did. • Crews not being trained on a piece of equipment in my book is not a condemnation of the equipment but the training, or lack thereof in this case. • Right but when crews talk about the p-61 it's a pretty common theme of 'at first I thought it was ugly and too big, but then I flew in it and was surprised at what it could do." Most of the issues, even ones you laid out in this response are issues of the earliest models, like the cruise speed due to lack of external fuel tanks were addressed with later revisions, which again is a pretty ubiquitous trait of wartime... Everything. Not even planes. Something was always improved, or added to improve the qualities of the tool. • Well, it wasn't used much in Europe because the air war was basically over. That was the biggest reason, not because of a monopoly from the Brits or anything. From what I've read/seen reported the SCR-720 was relatively simple to use, and didn't require overly involved training, I've read accounts from crews and seen an interview from one of the guys who helped design the plane that confirmed as much. It's also worth pointing out that in the same conference you mention later, something like 95% of made contacts with the AI in the 61 resulted in a kill. That's an insane success rate. • Range was addressed later. Mid B models I believe once the Pacific bore out the necessity. It was built for loiter in mind initially (which it did very well) which is why your latter point about its low cruise speed for Max range doesn't really apply, and again comparing it to the mossie in this sense, which was designed as a fast bomber didn't really apply either. For instance, I could say that the p-61 was better for humid climates, but I don't think that would be a fair comparison for the Mossie for. • I feel like I've already addressed the range, this was fixed with later revisions to the aircraft, but also was not a concern with the early concept or in Europe. • Ok the Pax conference. I feel like your read is a little cherry picked. To be clear they didn't say the cockpit was too cluttered, the key remarks said they liked the grouping, only that the instrument panel felt too far from the pilot seat, but this seems almost nit picky tbh. Commander Booth went out of his way to point out the 61 as being the only plane at the conference with "...proper directional stability for a fighter...". When reading the summary it largely got good marks or "other" and that just meant that there was some small tweaks that needed to be done, most of those tweaks came in the mid to late B models. • I already addressed the cruise speed multiple times so I guess I'll skip this one. • The maneuverability was just not a weak point on this plane, it was pretty ubiquitously praised exactly for it's surprising maneuverability, so what might hinder a wellington in or after tight turns, would not apply to the Widow. It had strong roll authority, and the only time it was specifically noted at the conference as suffering in these regards was at or below a "clean 110 miles per hour." At the end of the day, even if I accept the stance that it was "average", that's not an argument against it's inclusion. I would say that most aircraft in service were "average", that seems obvious. What the 61 would offer as a twin engined, turreted, 3 man, radar equipped heavy night fighter actually makes it an obvious choice for it's inclusion in DCS. It offers gameplay that very few planes of the period would. It has one of the most striking designs of the entire wartime period, and even afterward. It's a really cool plane that would actually bring something new with it to the game and I think that's what matters most, and I think like most of the combat machines of the period, pilots who really learn what it can do in a sim environment will take it from average to well above average, and this is born out in it's combat record.
  3. This is a significantly better criticism of adding a plane like the widow or the Ju188/88, because it revolves around a critique of the game not the planes themselves. Of course that's a reason for ED to focus on building out systems to improve the long term experience, and if anything is an argument FOR these different roles to be added (like night fighting) because it would expand the experience.
  4. I made a similar post about a year ago, maybe more. I still think the p-61 would be the most interesting addition, even setting aside my love for the aircraft, its just got so much going on, and so many cool gameplay opportunities, and at somepoint that has to be a consideration in a game. If it was just about most impactful aircraft we wouldn't still be missing the Hawker hurricane, p-38, Zero, Hellcat, ect. At somepoint variety has to influence what gets added, and damnit if the p-61 wouldn't be the most unique aircraft added to date. It could introduce night fighting to the game, it could exist in the European and Pacific Theater, it's multi-role as you mentioned. The only argument against it is that it wasn't very impactful, but I think I sufficiently outlined why I believe that's not a good argument above. They probably won't do it, but I can dream.
  5. This is the most backwards thing I've ever read on the widow. If anything the people who actually operated the aircraft adored the plane, and it was command that was skeptical. If the AAF was trying to cover up the widows failure, they fucked that up by allowing so much open skepticism among the brass. Ground crews didn't care for it because it was maintenance intensive, but thats about as far as it goes. By the accounts of people who actually flew it, and not just skeptics, it was a robust, maneuverable heavy fighter, that was immensely reliable and stable. Also speaking of pervasive myths, the widow was not slow. The early 'A' models underperformed (as EVERY early model plane did, that's not unusual) but most of the 61s were 'B' models, not 'A' models, and only got faster with each revision. You're right to say it didn't have a huge impact, but not because it wasn't a good plane (its actual combat record in a target deficient environment speaks for itself on that front) but because of production issues. The biggest one as far as I can find was Lockheed being at capacity with production due to being contracted to build Vultee Vengeance's of all things. So we have these pros •Maneuverable •In air radar •Nightvision •Very stable in flight •"near perfect" stall characteristics •Fast enough for the job •All weather •Well armed •Flexible in it's role •Deployed in every Theater of the War •Loved by it's crews (None of this to even speak of the unique gameplay opportunities of having a radar equipped WW2, twin engine, 3 man heavy fighter would provide in a sim like DCS. Fun factor IS a factor when you're talking about a game. But sure, let's get more single engine fighters, that'll really shake things up) Cons •Expensive •Protracted Development/limited production •Suffered Teething issues in the first dozen or so 'A' models •Maintenance intensive (It's worth pointing out that none of these cons actually impact gameplay or how players would interact with the plane, and in my opinion are therefore irrelevant in a discussion about adding it to DCS) Saying its a bad plane is like saying the Mossie was bad because it wasn't very useful in the Pacific, thanks to the glue that held it together failing in the humidity. It's a very narrow, small picture assessment, that either dishonestly or ignorantly portrays the plane.
  6. I completely agree, I think I gave that caveat in my post. If I didn't, yes, there are other more important aircraft that could be added that make more sense. Some German heavy fighters as well as working on the main aircraft of the pacific theater at the very least should all come before the P-61. I'm just trying to get people in the community interested, and hopefully we can get this super cool, unique aircraft down the road. ED did say in regards to the Mossy that it was setting a baseline for future similar aircraft so fingers crossed that includes the P-61.
  7. I believe that to be an incredible disservice to the aircraft. As far as price goes, it was about 3 times as expensive as a Mustang, and about $60,000 more expensive than a Mitchell, which considering its radar which accounted for a bulk of the cost makes sense. Let's not pretend though like its cost was what hindered production, it was specifically because Northrop was contacted to build another plane (the Vultee Vengeance,that was ironically more expensive per lbs and less useful in the end, being primarily used as a target tug) which interrupted their initial production run. It actually would have hit the European theater earlier if this hadn't been the case. It was big, yes, but handled well for its size according to pretty much everyone who flew it, it was a dream to fly, and according to Fred Erb who started working at Northrop in 1940 and helped build the first p-61s, on at least one occasion they put P-61 against a p38 and the Widow was better in the roll and turn. It could also famously roll into a dead engine, which many twin engine planes couldn't do. It was heavy and the A was slower than desired but both the B and C models went out of their way to improve its speed. The worst account of the time as far as I've seen was "its a good nightfighter. Not bad, not great, but good." As for it being late, it did arrive late in the war, and yet proved effective in what roles there were for it to fill. Ground pounding, hunting V1s, and in the pacific especially, hunting twin engined planes. It would be a worthy addition, with a lot for players to enjoy.
  8. Ok, so I am a HUGE fan of the P-61 Black Widow that Northrop developed during the Second World War, for lots of reasons. Despite being introduced late in the war due to some production issues on Northrops end, it was fairly successful despite existing in a very target deficient environment, and was well loved by the crews that operated in her. It was used both as an interceptor, and ground pounder. Despite having a post war reputation for being sluggish, this was not the opinion at the time among those who flew her. In one instance it famously out ran an RAF Mosquito in a friendly competition. This is to say despite its size, it was a very capable aircraft in the heavy fighter/nightfighter roll. Unfortunately the early A models were plagued with issues that limited their ability and applicability. Thankfully, later A models, and especially the B/C models fixed most of the issues it had that often are only revealed with combat data. This is a long winded way to arrive at why I believe it's a perfect fit for DCS. With the upcoming release of the infamous de Havilland Mosquito, the precedent for heavy fighters is officially established. Obviously I wouldn't expect the P-61 to be the next heavy fighter in the game, as there are other more influential heavy fighters from other nations that should be implemented. Both the Japanese and Germans fielded large fleets of diverse heavy fighters for a variety of mission types. But, the P-61 should in my opinion be seriously considered because... It offers several unique gameplay opportunities. The first being aerial radar. It was the first plane specifically designed to take advantage of radar. It also had a gunner who sat aft of the cockpit. Both the gunner and the radio/radar operator could aim and control the dorsal 360° turret, that had 90° elevation. They could aim it with swiveling posts attached to their seats that had gyroscopic collimator sight assemblies, and the triggers. The pilot also had the option to lock the turret forward for more forward fire power. Needless to say both the radar/radio operator and the gunner would provide fairly unique gameplay opportunities compared to other WW2 planes, especially among fighters/heavy fighters. Imagine you and your buddies are dispatched at night to intercept a flight of bombers. You take off and climb to altitude. Your buddy on the radar guides you to your target, then you dive down on your surprised foe as you and the gunner open up on them with your 4 20 mm cannons and 4 .50 browing machine guns. Or, its day time and you are dispatched with a few thousand lbs of bombs to raid enemy supply lines and support allied efforts on the front. The team dynamics, and the mission types you could run present unique gameplay loops and I believe that would be only a good thing for the game. This is all to say that the P-61 is an incredibly beautiful, and unique aircraft that would bring its own flavor to a game that seems to have been designed to implement it. Its unfortunate production issues prevented it from being implemented earlier in the war, as I believe like the Mosquito it would have proved to be a versatile platform, and would have a similar lasting mythology associated with it. Build this aircraft for the game, and I think you would have a lot of new fans of one of the coolest planes ever built. I know I for one would spend a irresponsible amount of money for the chance to sit in her cockpit.
×
×
  • Create New...