JU-87D-5/G-2

[shagrat]

Well, I find it peculiar, that we discuss how likely people will have fun in this plane in DCS or not, while we have threads begging for B-17 Bombers, C-130 Cargo Haulers/AC-130 Gunships and what not...

 

Similar arguments were around for the MiG-21bis (too old, no match for xyz), the Mirage (F-15C has AMRAAM/will own them) and F-5E (inferior to modern Fighters, not enough AIM-9, no mid range missiles).

 

We currently have this discussions for the AJS-47 Viggen (Bomber, too task specific) and the P-40F (performance inferior to the 1944 P-51D, Bf. 109 K and FW-190 D) and the Helicopters in general, where thought to be no more than easy targets...

 

In the end ALL of these inferior modules have their fans, get flown, have appropriate missions, even in MP and everybody enjoys them.

 

I've seen F-15C's and Su-27s got shot down by Mirage 2ks, Mig-21s and F-5e.

 

I've seen and enjoyed Helicopters in ground support roles, or as snipers for SAM cover, hiding and sneaking through valleys and that does not take PvE missions into account, where you can simply balance the threat from AI, accordingly.

 

I guess even for a Zeppelin you will find a bunch of people who would love to have it and enjoy it.

 

So why the heck, should a JU-87 Stuka not be fun to fly and fight in DCS? :dunno:

[ChillyWillies]

My two cents;

From my discussions with my community, we are interested in the Stuka. It is a very interesting aircraft with a lot of great nuances. It is like the Spitfire Mk. IX in that way.

 

At the end of the day, from what I see streaming the game everyday, DCS is a sandbox. We'll enjoy flying the module if it is done well. It is up to us, the community to facilitate the direction of the multiplayer scene. Let's not giveup our chances to experience a legendary aircraft with the fidelity that only DCS can provide. :)

[WinterH]

Oh yes, I was, and still am very much looking forward to Ju-87D & G.

 

It has interesting characteristics, historical significance, and would also be the first dive bomber to have in DCS.

 

A late D version would have cannons to strafe with, as well as pretty decent bombload for a single engine plane, including various cluster bombs, or some pretty big bombs in excess of 500kg class even!

 

G version is pretty famous itself with twin 37mm cannons cracking open even well armoured tanks.

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

just remains to be seen whether we will get one...no doubt it would contribute to an even better dcs experience..it would be the first module i would buy from polychop, as im not into helicopters.

[msalama]

So why the heck, should a JU-87 Stuka not be fun to fly and fight in DCS? :dunno:

 

It would be absolutely awesome to have a Stuka in DCS.

 

But yeah, people complain. Let them, and just ignore it. When ED announced the L-39, a veritable carpstorm broke out about how said plane is nothing but useless. But what these whinybirds didn't understand is how great a COIN plane it is, and how much fun it is to fly. True, it doesn't have flares, LWS, MWS, or any of that modern hi-tek thingamajiggery, but so what? Just make up low-intensity counter-insurgency scenarios and fly them at night if need be!

 

So yeah, small is beautiful. In DCS too!

[javelina1]

Kanonenvogel Please!

[MickeEinSweden]

Yes indeed Polychop, we really would enjoy this Stuka mit kanonen. Please!

[NeilWillis]

I believe the kanonenvogel was listed as one of the options from the get go.

 

That alone will make the Ju-87 a must have module. Imagine the mess that would make of a Mustang! (Yeah I know it's not an air superiority fighter).

[Pikey]

Hmm, this thread is interesting. Was public PvP performance cited as a reason not to want an iconic WW2 fighter? Go internet!

[golani79]

I´m sure there are plenty who´d enjoy a Stuka in DCS.

 

I´ve already had a lot of fun flying a Stuka in BoX although I got shot down pretty often.

I´ve even taken out a Yak who didn´t seem to take me serious :D

 

Every WWII module adds to the whole picture and more and more interesting missions / scenarios will be possible.

So why even think about it?

 

Should we get a Stuka or not? It´s a no-brainer really ..

[msalama]

Kanonenvogel Please!

 

Absolument d’accord :thumbup:

 

EDIT: Speaking of divebombers, how about a DCS Pe-2? Would be an awesome addition to the sim IMO.

Edited January 14, 2017 by msalama

[ChillyWillies]

It would be absolutely awesome to have a Stuka in DCS.

 

But yeah, people complain. Let them, and just ignore it. When ED announced the L-39, a veritable carpstorm broke out about how said plane is nothing but useless. But what these whinybirds didn't understand is how great a COIN plane it is, and how much fun it is to fly. True, it doesn't have flares, LWS, MWS, or any of that modern hi-tek thingamajiggery, but so what? Just make up low-intensity counter-insurgency scenarios and fly them at night if need be!

 

So yeah, small is beautiful. In DCS too!

I agree. At the end of the day, DCS multiplayer is entirely up to the community to drive. We can have as much fun with it as we will. :)

[IIIJG52_Otto_]

Are there news of the project? ...I have my money ready in the pocket . .. when we can fly it? :joystick: :pilotfly:

[razo+r]

no news, otherwise i'm sure you'd see it in this or another JU 87 named thread

 

but you can fly it soon, but not your definition of soon, another soon

[rrohde]

no news, otherwise i'm sure you'd see it in this or another JU 87 named thread

 

but you can fly it soon, but not your definition of soon, another soon

 

Probably a lot sooner than our sun dying and going supernova. :thumbup:

[spiddx]

Probably a lot sooner than our sun dying and going supernova. :thumbup:

Well this could be a long wait as our sun is way too tiny to go supernova. Sorry to be the party buster. :(

 

/smartass off :smilewink:

[Ohgr]

I wouldn't hold out much hope guys.

[javelina1]

I wouldn't hold out much hope guys.

 

Being the OP of this thread, that kinda sums it up... bummer man, a real bummer... Would loved to have seen this bird.

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Well unless there is an official word from Polychop then I'm going to assume it is still WIP. Regardless of wither the gentleman who left was working on it it is their property so I'd assume later on down the road we will get some official news.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Ohgr]

Well unless there is an official word from Polychop then I'm going to assume it is still WIP. Regardless of wither the gentleman who left was working on it it is their property so I'd assume later on down the road we will get some official news.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

That is where you are wrong sir. It is not "their" property.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Ohgr

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

That is where you are wrong sir. It is not "their" property.

As far as I am aware someone who is employed by a company to produce a product is thereby producing the product for the company which holds rights to the creative product being created in said process. Last I checked the person in question whom left Polychop stated they were no longer continuing to work on the Ju87. No word about withholding the produce from poly nor any statement from poly saying that they were now unable to finish the product only that work had halted and would continue on sometime in the future. For instance at my place of work. If I design a device, product, or method it is thereby intellectual property of my employer. Unless you have a signed copy of the contract between poly and said individual.......

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Schnelli]

As far as I am aware someone who is employed by a company to produce a product is thereby producing the product for the company which holds rights to the creative product being created in said process. Last I checked the person in question whom left Polychop stated they were no longer continuing to work on the Ju87. No word about withholding the produce from poly nor any statement from poly saying that they were now unable to finish the product only that work had halted and would continue on sometime in the future. For instance at my place of work. If I design a device, product, or method it is thereby intellectual property of my employer. Unless you have a signed copy of the contract between poly and said individual.......

That may be true, but the thing is that Ohgr himself is the person who worked on the stuka and he probably knows a thing or two about all these details. Nevertheless i'm also keeping my hopes high... it would be a shame not to see the Ju at some point in DCS :cry:

[rrohde]

Independent contractor relations might be different, and we're not privy to any of that anyway....

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

That may be true, but the thing is that Ohgr himself is the person who worked on the stuka and he probably knows a thing or two about all these details. Nevertheless i'm also keeping my hopes high... it would be a shame not to see the Ju at some point in DCS :cry:

If oghr was indeed said individual, then him coming out and making an unofficial claim , would that not be a breach of contract or agreement with polychop? To me that just seems unprofessional. I am not doubting his work nor am I stating that his decision was wrong. It just seems odd to me that an ex member of a highly regarded 3pd is coming out with these loose ended comments as such. I will await official word from Polychop itself before taking the words of a non 3pd member as set in stone.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Buzzles]

If oghr was indeed said individual

 

He is. Oghr is his new non-Polychop forum name.