When coherent theater for coherent planes ?

[Gunfreak]

29 minutes ago, stuart666 said:

Id rather they didnt do Battle of Britain yet at all yet. If they just put in a G6 and a Typhoon, we would have a near complete set for Normandy. An extended channel map and a Tempest, nearly everything we need for the Ardennes in 44. When you look at BOB, they dont really have a single one of the aircraft used. Even the Ju88 is a later variant. Thats huge work towards that. Id welcome it of course, but finishing some of the other things they were seemingly working towards would I would think be a better start.

I truly dont mean to sound critical, I was working in route development for a popular train simulator company. i know compromises have to be made. So its not the compromises I find so saddening, its the lack of joined up thinking, the finishing of a trend they were seemingly working towards. They really seem to want a Lord Beaverbrook as far as WW2 as concerned. Its more like a cat with a laser pen at the moment.

Perhaps there is much more happening behind the scenes. I hope so.

 

Personally I don't have any interest in dcs bob, I get my bob some place else and is complete, with like almost every single plane needed.

I understand others might want dcs bob, but I feel it would spread ww2 dcs even more.

ED claims they can't do Typhoon or Tempest because of lack of flying examples(not that it stopped them from making the Kurfurst) fine i guess, but they said as far back a 6 years now that AI Typhoon and G6 was planned (as well as 4 other US bombers) it has not happened yet. So any idea the ED would somehow make even a half hearted bob experience just doesn't fit what ED has done the last 10 years.

 

Make G6, Me110, Typhoon AI, as well as those promised bomber AI.

Then make a flyable G6, add payed expansion to the P51, giving it a graphics update and add the B/C models. Add racerback P47.

Add a few odd and ends like more ships, and infantry models and you got a pretty damn complete set for the major stuff from late 43 to fall of 44.

And it only requires 1 completely new model(G6) 2 upgrades for existing models(one large upgrade and one mostly cosmetic) everything else is AI.

 

Then expand the channel map eastward to make Market Garden/Bodenplate map, and suddenly the K4 actually has a map it belongs to, you can then think about adding Mk XIV Spitfire and AI tempest. This is all much more doable  Then starting with BOB. 

[grafspee]

@Gunfreak I must remind that Kurfurst flight model burns up numerous heated discussions so it isn't good example  Maybe they don't want to made same mistake.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

12 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

not that it stopped them from making the Kurfurst

But K4 as they explained has plenty of resources and it was a heavily studied aircraft in the after war period, even more than earlier variants as they explained. There're NACA tests, wind tunnel tests, there're everything. Not so with other examples, and even with a well known aircraft as the P-47 is, look what they had to go through to make it happen. K4 FM isn't "disputed", it's gorgeous, it's only the Luftwhiners wanting an invincible machine in their twisted minds who aren't happy to find it's "just" an aeroplane with aeroplane quirks going on, but that's true for any other module they don't pay attention to. The module itself is gorgeously made and researched as anyone can see just reading the documentation available, one ""just"" have to read it leaving our own bigotry aside.

An IA sample on the other hand is a whole different kettle of fish, they don't nearly need as much resources as for a full module, the problem with that is a different one. The problem with IA for those aircraft happening is the moment the public see those beautiful 3D models done and in IA condition, the moment people will start demanding asking, "hey, we already have that, just make them flyable"… and you know, "just".

 

But I'd be delighted to have all of that and more in game? Yeah, of course, where do I sign for that . And that includes a properly made DCS level BoB scenario, of course it does.

[Slippa]

1 hour ago, stuart666 said:

They really seem to want a Lord Beaverbrook as far as WW2 as concerned. Its more like a cat with a laser pen at the moment.

I made the same argument ages ago when talking about DCS WWII. Made me chuckle, you coming to the same conclusion.

Beaverbrook… We need a Beaverbrook.

”If a job’s worth doing, it’s worth doing properly”.

[stuart666]

3 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Personally I don't have any interest in dcs bob, I get my bob some place else and is complete, with like almost every single plane needed.

I understand others might want dcs bob, but I feel it would spread ww2 dcs even more.

ED claims they can't do Typhoon or Tempest because of lack of flying examples(not that it stopped them from making the Kurfurst) fine i guess, but they said as far back a 6 years now that AI Typhoon and G6 was planned (as well as 4 other US bombers) it has not happened yet. So any idea the ED would somehow make even a half hearted bob experience just doesn't fit what ED has done the last 10 years.

 

Make G6, Me110, Typhoon AI, as well as those promised bomber AI.

Then make a flyable G6, add payed expansion to the P51, giving it a graphics update and add the B/C models. Add racerback P47.

Add a few odd and ends like more ships, and infantry models and you got a pretty damn complete set for the major stuff from late 43 to fall of 44.

And it only requires 1 completely new model(G6) 2 upgrades for existing models(one large upgrade and one mostly cosmetic) everything else is AI.

 

Then expand the channel map eastward to make Market Garden/Bodenplate map, and suddenly the K4 actually has a map it belongs to, you can then think about adding Mk XIV Spitfire and AI tempest. This is all much more doable  Then starting with BOB. 

Which may be fair enough as a flyable one (I would suggest there is a very good book that just came out on the 'horsepower race' which would solve a lot of the riddles about the horsepower of the engines, that and the actual existence of a surviving intact Typhoon, and 2 in the midst of rebuild), but as an AI, that argument just doesnt stand up. There isnt any flyable Ju88's either, yet they modelled one just fine.

TBH, Id pay for an extension of the Channel map into the low countries. Yes, people would screech about it, its probably true. But Id buy it, and use it. And whats more, so would everybody else.  Im really impressed with Channel map. Unlike Normandy (which not picking a fight with, but outside of the immediate area of Normandy isnt as accurate as one might wish, at least as far as the railways and road system is concerned), Channel map certainly seems to be very accurate. Id love to see that taken east, and can see no realistic argument for not doing so. Dont want to take it into Germany? Fair enough. Give us an extension to the border of the Netherlands and some of Denmark. That will do me just fine. I only want to bomb the phillips factory an various Gestapo headquarters in me mozzie.

I really dont want this to be taken as a rant, because what we have is fantastic. Im really starting to get into the WW2 side of it again (largely because aircraft are so much easier to learn!). But it could be even better, if they just steered it in a single direction and worked to that.

 

2 hours ago, Slippa said:

I made the same argument ages ago when talking about DCS WWII. Made me chuckle, you coming to the same conclusion.

Beaverbrook… We need a Beaverbrook.

”If a job’s worth doing, it’s worth doing properly”.

Its not that Beaverbrook got everything right either. But there was a singlemindedness about what he was trying to achieve, that for the most part worked. We would probably loathe a Beaverbrook in charge of the WW2 side of DCS. But if it created some kind of  unerring direction, we would swiftly forgive them, maybe even love them for it if it came up with some cohesion.

 

What would I do next? Id do a crewable Ju88. With the full breadth of the Normandy map, and the presence of Mosquito, we have the real potential for some really good night bomber scenarios. I feel sure that would get some bums on seats.

[Slippa]

Beaverbrook gave everyone the kick up the arse required. Production went bananas, we could do with that drive.

i’d love to see a Typhoon in here. Then again, I’d love to see them all. I’d pay for an Eastern expansion of the Channel map. I’d like to see it go North too, at least into Lincolnshire with Bomber Command airfields.

Eagerly awaiting the Lanc, that should keep us all happy for a bit.

[NineLine]

5 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

ED claims they can't do Typhoon or Tempest

I missed this, where did we say this?

[Gunfreak]

30 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I missed this, where did we say this?

ED stated many times they need access to a working flying aircraft to replicate it in DCS. And that's the line totet when someone asks "can we have x or y moduals " we're told ED(or 3rd party) needs access to all documentation, and a working aircraft.(Not always said by ED themselves but users on the forum who I assume are repeating ED standards)

Since there are no working Sabre engine aircraft, those planes are not an option. (someone is trying to restore a Typhoon, but that does not mean they would give access to ED/3rd party developer)

[NineLine]

6 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

ED stated many times they need access to a working flying aircraft to replicate it in DCS. And that's the line totet when someone asks "can we have x or y moduals " we're told ED(or 3rd party) needs access to all documentation, and a working aircraft.(Not always said by ED themselves but users on the forum who I assume are repeating ED standards)

Since there are no working Sabre engine aircraft, those planes are not an option. (someone is trying to restore a Typhoon, but that does not mean they would give access to ED/3rd party developer)

We have ways to model aircraft without flying examples in some cases. It really depends on the other information available. So I am not sure your comment was accurate as you worded it. We have no plans on those aircraft right now, but I have never seen anything stating we would not do them at some point if it made sense. Just be careful how you word things. 

[Slippa]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

We have ways to model aircraft without flying examples in some cases.

We have no plans on those aircraft right now, but I

... Will endeavour to enchant the dev elves and remind them how popular and marvellous they would be, if only they'd consider making plans for all our wishes to be granted.

Typhoons, imagine? Bombers, etc. etc... (everyone's wish list).

I'm kidding, I wouldn't know where to start to please everyone.

 

 

 

ok, I'll get me coat.

[Mogster]

On 9/26/2023 at 6:09 PM, Gunfreak said:

Since there are no working Sabre engine aircraft, those planes are not an option. (someone is trying to restore a Typhoon, but that does not mean they would give access to ED/3rd party developer)

I’m not certain there are any running Sabre engines unfortunately. RR and the big US radials have support infrastructure and a decent knowledge base, it seems flying with almost anything else is problematic due to reliability concerns. There have been several crashes of Bristol big radial engined aircraft in the UK over the last few years. The Bristol engines just don’t have knowledge base that RR engines have, have complex maintenance and lubrication needs and the operators are pretty much learning as they go, sometimes with tragic results.

I don’t want to be the goblin of doom but I’d be very surprised to see any Sabre engined aircraft receive an air worthiness certificate in the UK. Flying the thing would be a total leap into the unknown in 2023. However even a ground runner Typhoon would be something special.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Mogster