Richard Dastardly

It would need the will to rebuild Combined Arms - this is probably one area where throwing a few devs at something might well work given no-one seems to be owning it right now. My dream would be to see an interface to an infantry squad simulator ( not least so we couldn't just carpet-bomb everything & call it CAS, but mostly so what we do actually has tangible value ) but there would be some rather huge problems with a properly realistic infantry squad sim... Working with others who're building sub/ship sims might be an idea anyway - is anyone building a tank sim? the last one I can think of is nearly 20 years old now - to save duplicating effort in a very niche market.

Strategic lifter no, Tactical lifter yes - provided we get rough field support. Preferably one with some sort of intruder package so you've got tools to take it into danger.

Generally water *is* the floor of a map if there's sea involved, it just makes sense ( although you'd be in trouble if your land went below sea level... ). We do need a couple of convoy escort warships for either side, I think - Axis convoys down the channel were not a thing I can remember ( more around the Baltic or close to it ) but we don't have to be that limited here. Allied convoys stayed out of the channel too, but obviously defending them from U-boat ( and E-boat, and Ju-88 ) attacks should be a thing we can do. Texas was actually there at D-Day - if we get that I demand we get Warspite, though!

I run my email & any rare calendar stuff off a 7 year old Raspberry Pi ( cost about £30 back then ), and use free full featured office software which do way more than I need. I could just use Google stuff too if I wanted marginally less hassle setting something up across devices *shrug*. One's subsidised by advertising, and the other is subsidized by goodwill & happy thoughts. What you're basically advocating is renting seat time in aircraft modules, which may work for real flying but I suspect is not going to be broadly popular for sims, at least not sims lacking a central service like that civil one in the works.

Like this? RN MTB/MGBs & Kriegsmarine E-boats might be good additions too, although I don't know how much work the E-boats were doing by later 1944 ( which I think is our time period ). E-boats were certainly a threat on D-Day. I kinda wish the map/time had been the Mediterranean though ( even if my house is supposedly on the Normandy map ), both sides were running convoys/submarine strikes/large naval units/coastal forces around there on top of amphibious assault & desert campaigns. If combined arms were more fully developed then ships might be nice things to drive around, but it's a long way off ready for that I think.

And that was a very American-centric list, too. Might be easier to do a EH-101 than a CH-53 if Sikorsky are awkward, for instance. IMO - * Lynx - naval strike / utility helicopter or battlefield utility heli, thoroughly modern rotor head makes it acrobatic & seriously fast. Torpedos, depth charges, antiship missiles, or cannon/rockets/TOW missiles, usual door guns, small enough to operate off frigates, and it's also different & west European which makes a change. Not very much like the Huey. Also the older ones were the angriest aircraft I have ever heared, when they're coming towards you. * If you want a H-53 make it the MH-53 - while there was only a tiny number it does everything the CH-53 does and a lot of things on top, and more importantly things the Mi-8 doesn't do. * Sea King/SH-3/S-61, if there's enough things for it to do to make it unique as oppposed to another large utility heli. There were a bunch of licensed versions of this which might help. Then again if you're rationalising like that, why do we have the F-16 when the Hornet exists...

Could try asking Westland, they built one & have had a lot of Sikorsky licenses in the past too ( albeit the ones they built have generally been rather heavily modified ) Do UH-60s carry anything like the armament our Hueys do? ( as in do they, not can they potentially carry armament )

Works absolutely *terribly* for development at iRacing - look at how notoriously long it takes them to do anything at all relating to new features. iRacing provides servers ( and indeed forces you to use their servers ) and a matchmaking system, that's where the subs goes mostly. IIRC they're actually funded as a rich guy's pet project & until recently ran at a loss. In case you haven't guessed, I voted no. What would I get for my subscription? would I get every new module included in it? if I didn't, what am I paying for, and why should I pay twice for a module? what happens if I don't like whatever module is next in the pipe? having paid for my modules what happens if I find an increaase in subscription fee unbearable? I'd be interested in the legal implications of locking someone out of a license they've already paid for by moving access to it behind a paywall, too. MS/Adobe/Autodesk as far as I'm aware have not blocked access to their previous standalone products. No support contracts, obviously, which matters more to corporates. I think ED are simply going to have to charge more for modules at this point if they need more cashflow, or stop building modules that take so much work. There's lots of 3rd-gen aircraft that'd take far less time than a late block F-16 but would still sell well, as a simple example.

Debating what torpedo dropper I'd like to see right now - tossup between the Beaufighter X and the Swordfish :) did the Russians have indigenous torpedo bombers? do any still exist if so? Also, is the Swordfish the only biplane to carry radar? ( they were fitted with ASV radar to hunt subs ). In addition, apparently sunk more tonnage than any other allied aircraft ( including the Avenger ) Incidentally we're limited to 8 engines, which is a few more options...

Do all the default cameras have the same FOV? it'd be absolutely absurd not to build the cockpits 1:1, there's no advantage in building them to some weird dimensions. Texture size won't change.

I was curious about the justification - what makes the H-60 a better battle platform than the Huey? or at least "a better platform to fly into combat". Sea King ( SH-3 if you're pedantically US / must have the Sikorsky version ) before any of the other mentioned helis though, IMO.

Yeah, wasn't saying it was inaccurate, I wanted to know why it was there. Thanks folks.

I *think* this happens when someone has a connection issue & starts warping around at insane speeds, generating ludicrous wake turbulence - if it is that ( I've seen this whole thing enough to not be too surprised anymore ) then it could be at least neutered by a sensible clamp on aircraft speed when it's calculating wake turbulence...

MIST ( scripting ) has polygonal trigger zones, iirc. Doing an in-zone check for a circle is obviously very simple ( just check for distance to centre ), but checking you're in a polygon of not many sides is a well solved problem, I think most of the time would be spent doing the mission editor UI part...

Up to 8 engines right now. I asked about the B36, would just have to enable more engines, apparently :p

Pretty sure it's on Razbam's wishlist/statement of intent.

I spent many years writing software, & some time distilling physics & systems for a few sim DLC. The FM is the same amount of work no matter what the age of the aircraft, the artwork is obviously dependent on the model itself but externally, honestly they're not that different even for large aircraft ( the interior of a large aircraft is another matter ), a piston engine is rather more complex than a turbine to simulate in depth, but the sheer quantity of systems to model on a modern aircraft is *horribly* time-consuming, especially the interactions between them. It's not just creating them all, it's all the debugging work that also scales.

Could you even get flight data from a Do335? sounds? Same problem with an Uhu, unfortunately - night fighter duels between a NF Mossie & a 219 would have been fun, but we're going to struggle to even get a Ju88.

The C-160 Transall is similar, but much longer serving.

Italy was on the allied side by then :p </quibble> But yeah, planes for theatres makes sense if you're going to do a theatre, like the other one does it. At least that gives some cohesion.

Wouldn't say no, but the marine corps of other countries use a lot more helicopters than those two...

Yep - there's no reason for it though, I've landed helicopters on all sorts of odd bits of terrain & not had them immediately roll away down a hillside. The limitation is something to do with the aircraft having to actually be in contact with the FARP, I am guessing - which there's also no need for, you can just replace that by a combination "in trigger zone and on ground" test.

It's so it doesn't sink into the ground if you put it on a slope, or a crest or so on. The model stays level no matter what, it doesn't snap to the ground other than taking height data.

Have thought from the beginning that there needs to be more cohesion in releases - and then we get things like late-block F-16s making it even worse by dragging the window even further open. Gameplay-wise the ( just ) pre GPS era forces much more to actually do - you still have precision guided weapons in the form of LGB and if you really wanted to go there, cruise missiles, but you also have the involvement of older nav systems, older radar, very basic if any SA via datalink so you have to actually keep track of the picture yourself, older radar, etc etc etc. In gameplay terms modern A-G ordinance might as well be orbital death rays - fly to point X, push button without seeing target, fly home., you don't actually need a human pilot for that. And look at what handling your own SA does to A2A engagement, as well as your BVR missiles being not very BVR. 3rd gen or even early 4th gen aircraft have far simpler systems than modern ones, they should be able to be finished far quicker & they still have much actual involvement to fly ( in a lot of cases quite a lot more involvement given you have to do so much yourself ). Generally they're out of service so hopefully easier to obtain documents on, given service life a broader selection of ex-users to question, possibly a selection in public ownership to study. A bunch of aircraft on both sides with GW1-era systems seems a great idea, as does a bunch from say, 1970, or maybe pick points every 20 years, 1955, 1975, 1995. Noone will ever be satisfied with whatever meet-point you picked but at least having a focus point would help make the in-game experience more cohesive.

Defining FARPs by trigger zones would fix most of it - add a few statics for looks but move the functionality to something that doesn't care about terrain.