New planes requests (from other threads/please pin it)

[iMattheush]

Plane / requests (more than 5 requests - bolded;* - IL2 1946 - era)

Piston:

Arado Ar 196 1
Boeing B-17 flyable 1
Boeing B-29 flyable 1
*Boeing XB-44 a.k.a. B-29D a.k.a. B-50A 1
Boulton Paul Defiant 2
Bristol Beaufighter (Mk.IC, Mk.VIC, Mk.X) 4
Bristol Blenheim (Mk.I, Mk.IV flyable) 2
*Convair XB-36 Peacemaker (8 August 1946) 1
Curtiss SB2C Helldiver 8
Curtiss SOC Seagull 1
De Havilland Mosquito F Mk.II 1
Dornier Do 18 1
Dornier Do 24 1
Dornier Do 217K/M 1
Douglas A-20 series (A-20C lend lease, A-20G-20-DO, A-20H, Boston IIIa) 13
Douglas A-26 Invader 1
Douglas C-54 1
*Douglas XBT2D-1 Skyraider (18 March 1945) 1
Focke-Wulf Fw 189 flyable 2
Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor flyable 1
Fokker G.I 1
*Grumman F8F Bearcat 1
Hawker Typhoon Ib 10
Heinkel He 59C-2 1
Heinkel He 111 4
Heinkel He 115 1
Junkers Ju 88(A-14, C-1, C-6 9
Junkers Ju 188 2
Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov LaGG-3 ski variant 1
Lockheed P-38 (D, E, H) 3
Martin B-26 Marauder 7
Messerschmitt Bf 110 (B-1, B-2, B-3) 4
Messerschmitt Bf 110 (C-1, C-3, C-7) 6
Messerschmitt Bf 110 (D-2, E-1, G-4) 3
Messerschmitt Me 210 6
Messerschmitt Me 410 4
Mitsubishi F1M 2
Mitsubishi Ki-46 (46-II, 46-III, 46-IIIb) 3
Mitsubishi Ki-46-III-Kai flyable 1
North American B-25D 1
North American B-25 (C, G, H, J field mode flyable) 10
Petlyakov Pe-3 M105PF 1
PZL.37B "Łoś" 1
Shavrov Sh-2 1
Supermarine Walrus 1
Westland Whirlwind 1

JET:

Gloster Meteor 2
*McDonnell XFD-1 Phantom (26 January 1945) 1
*North American XFJ-1 Fury (11 September 1946) 1
*Republic XP-84 Thunderjet (28 February 1946) 1

-Added 4 most popular planes from (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=40297), compressed list)
Thanks, @dimlee
Send me an PM if you want to add more planes.

[Sita]

ouch .... long list ....

[majorfailure]

Northrop P-61
Vought O2SU Kingfisher 1

Ain't ever gonna happen. Noorthrap-Graumann Issue.
And He-111 which variant?

And you may want to include results from this thread:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=40297

[Sita]

add FW200 and B17 in list ...

but ...

just imagine ...

i work with all of that since 2010 .... and from that time i made pits for ... some about ...
5 or 6 planes ... and i spend on it almost all my free time ...

simple task ... how many people need to make quarter of that list?)))

[Spudkopf]

add FW200 and B17 in list ...

but ...

just imagine ...

i work with all of that since 2010 .... and from that time i made pits for ... some about ...
5 or 6 planes ... and i spend on it almost all my free time ...

simple task ... how many people need to make quarter of that list?)))

..... and just so you know, I for one appreciate all your dedication and efforts for the past 5+ years very much.

[Spudkopf]

....and shoot me down here if you want, yet I'll bring up this old chestnut again, new planes are always great and very welcome no matter what type or force and please never ever stop , however I'm of the opinion that getting all the existing flyable's (both their externals and especially their cockpits) up to the same visual standards as the newer editions in the officially patched default game would only serve to keep this sims longevity ongoing.

I'll admit that I spend most of my time flying Axis types, so from that viewpoint there are stand out types (and especially cockpit wise) that need a just a little TLC. king of these are the Bf109's but the Ju87's, He111 and even the Ju88's could also benefit from a little love, and I'd even settle for just a refresh of the internal textures.

I know there are also several Soviet and Allied types that are equally crying out for that same level of love.

[Janosch]

I'd settle for bringing certain planes to a practical standard (missing fuel gauges)

[Tuco22]

Agree with the above two posts, 109's, 47's, Spits, etc could really use a cockpit retexture. With that said ill never get tired of more flyables though. Any updates a good update.

[Derda508]

Absolutely agree. While new flyables are always welcome (Me 210/410) I don´t think they are the most important missing parts.
Thanks to TD, we already have an almost unbelievable number of planes. A number that, from what I can see, no other Sim will ever reach. The same is true for maps and theaters. On the other hand, Il-2 1946 will never be able to reach the standards of graphics of more recent sims. So why try? Ok, bringing it closer might help to get some more pilots in their seats.
Thus, where Il-2 1946 shines most is offline, because of the number of planes and theaters, the huge community created content and because of the quality of AI. This is in many ways still far better than in the newer sims.
Still, we have some threads in this forum with very interesting ideas and suggestions of how to improve this even more. This would be number one of my personal wish-list.

But whatever you guys from TD do, be sure it is appreciatted.
Thank you very much indeed!

[RPS69]

We have lots of flyables without adequate missions for them.
I accept doing them for love, but what's the point on flying a rescue ship, where there are no rescue missions to implement fot it.

Pilot's rescue missions were most daring. They were flown everywhere, from the north sea, to the black sea, in europe, and the whole of the pacific scenery.

Those boats played the mine laying role also, and the long range scouts too.
But whats the point on flying them on il2, as bombers? fighters?

They were used on those roles where there was none other availale.

Be sure, I love them, more than many fighters, but I believe that we lack the mission functionality here to employ them as they should.

There are also some funny missions to be done, like flying Bismarcks Arado, trying to shot down the Swordfishs that will eventually bring it to his doom.

This sim, needs to evolve to a combat scenery, a low graphics one, but a whole combat scenery, just to bring more sense on campaign generation.

[Pursuivant]

how many people need to make quarter of that list?

Most of the planes on the list exist as mods. It might be possible to get some new planes in the game by reaching out to modders, at least for content that meet's TD's standards.

[Pursuivant]

We have lots of flyables without adequate missions for them.

This will be more of a problem once we get cargo and patrol aircraft into the game.

Not only will IL2 have to add new types of missions, but also new objects appropriate to the new missions.

Pilot's rescue missions were most daring. They were flown everywhere, from the north sea, to the black sea, in europe, and the whole of the pacific scenery.

Actually, it was very rare for seaplanes/flying boats to land to rescue men at sea. Waves were usually too high for planes to land or take off safely. Instead, patrol aircraft just directed rescue boats to survivors, and sometimes dropped supplies.

It would also be quite difficult for IL2 to handle actual rescue missions. How would the game determine how many survivors a plane can hold? How does it figure added mass from survivors, and the time needed for them to board the plane? Once aboard, can survivors be injured or killed by enemy fire? If the plane crashes, how do survivors bail out?

Also, the game would have to make a lot of changes to water animations in order to simulate high seas, wave direction, and interactions between waves and floating objects.


Those boats played the mine laying role also, and the long range scouts too.

Mine-laying missions would be easy. Basically, like bombing missions but with "bombs" with triggers that get delayed until a ship touches the mine (for contact mines) or comes within a certain distance of it (for magnetic or acoustic mines). Like torpedoes, mines can only be successfully laid if the player flies low and slow enough. Players would get points just for dropping mines in the assigned target area. Aerial mine objects would be simple to make and texture, and to add as new loadouts.

Scout missions already exist within the game.

Anti-Submarine Warfare and Artillery Spotting Missions would require some new objects and game programming.

[CzechTexan]

I was just browsing an old website that I haven't visited in a few years and came across photos of LaGG-3 aircraft with skis. I'm assuming they were used in a ground attack role because most of them were equipped with rockets. There are photos showing later series 29 aircraft in 1942-43. I think it would be a good addition. Personally, I like attacking ground targets so I would enjoy having a LaGG with skis on the list.

Since we already have the LaGGs then it might be an easy fix to add skis to one of them (series 29?).

Link: http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/lagg3/ski/ski.htm
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y182/CzechTexan/miscellaneous/lineskir.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/CzechTexan/media/miscellaneous/lineskir.jpg.html)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y182/CzechTexan/miscellaneous/ski2fr.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/CzechTexan/media/miscellaneous/ski2fr.jpg.html)

[RPS69]

Actually, it was very rare for seaplanes/flying boats to land to rescue men at sea. Waves were usually too high for planes to land or take off safely. Instead, patrol aircraft just directed rescue boats to survivors, and sometimes dropped supplies.


Check the german boats activity over the black sea. Or even the He115 over barents sea. You will be surprised.

American PYB also see a lot of this kind of action.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Check the german boats activity over the black sea. Or even the He115 over barents sea. You will be surprised.

American PYB also see a lot of this kind of action.

+1

Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica ASR activity was remarkable in the MTO too.

[Pursuivant]

Check the german boats activity over the black sea. Or even the He115 over barents sea. You will be surprised.

I'm not familiar with seaplane/flying boat ops in those areas. But, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there were far more direct rescues in the Black and Mediterranean Seas. Waves don't get as big in smaller bodies of water, and due to nature of the coastlines there probably were more rescues in harbors and other sheltered areas.

I'll take your word that there were direct rescues in the Barents Sea. It seems a bit odd since there's ice for much of the year, and the cold water temperatures usually mean that water survival time is measured in minutes. No use risking an airplane and the lives of its crew just to pick corpses out of the water. But, I'm sure that some rescue planes crews took the risk and saved lives by doing so.

On the Western Front, the waves in the North Sea, Bay of Biscay, and English Channel were often too high for rescue planes to land. But there were still many rescues - especially in the English Channel, with the He-115, Supermarine Walrus, and PBY Catalina doing most of the work.

If IL2 ever decides to get into seaplane ops in the Mediterranean, an important aircraft to add to the wishlist is the CANT Z.501 Gabbiano. It was a real workhorse which suffered a lot of casualties.

[Spudkopf]

Sea sate...... Just do a quick YouTube search on the Do24 and you be quite impressed with sea state it was able to operate in due to the blended outrigger hull design, the Do18 was also quite capable, but being that it's diesels where so under powered, getting back off was an issue, then again it was designed to operate with a support ship, where it was whinche on board for a catapult launch negating that issue.

[dimlee]

Regarding waves as obstacles for a seaplane landing: it depends on local weather condition more than on particular area. Both Black Sea and West Med can be pretty rough. Waves are shorter than in the ocean and in "open" seas but high enough to cause a damage. Beaufort 9-10 winds and waves up to 6-9 m are not rare in those areas in winter period.
East Med is much calmer through most of year, especially in Levant - real safe haven. English Channel can be bad at Western approaches, but waves are much smaller in Dover Strait. Barentz probably was very tricky for seaplanes in winter. Ice helps to reduce waves, but... it's still ice. I wonder were they able to land in pancake ice conditions, for example.
Besides the waves, wind speed should be taken into account, of course. And in autumn/winter period - icing effect which is real menace for small ships stability and can develop extremely fast under certain conditions (wind speed/temperature/humidity).

[Spudkopf]

Regarding waves as obstacles for a seaplane landing: it depends on local weather condition more than on particular area. Both Black Sea and West Med can be pretty rough. Waves are shorter than in the ocean and in "open" seas but high enough to cause a damage. Beaufort 9-10 winds and waves up to 6-9 m are not rare in those areas in winter period.
East Med is much calmer through most of year, especially in Levant - real safe haven. English Channel can be bad at Western approaches, but waves are much smaller in Dover Strait. Barentz probably was very tricky for seaplanes in winter. Ice helps to reduce waves, but... it's still ice. I wonder were they able to land in pancake ice conditions, for example.
Besides the waves, wind speed should be taken into account, of course. And in autumn/winter period - icing effect which is real menace for small ships stability and can develop extremely fast under certain conditions (wind speed/temperature/humidity).

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the some He115's had been fitted with steel reinforcing strips on keel of the floats to make it possible to land and takeoff directly from ice for winter operations in the north. I can't remember however if this had only been trials or was actually operational used.

[Pursuivant]

Add the He-59C-2 to the list of important ASR types. It was specifically designed as an ASR plane and was used from 1939-44 on all fronts.

It also occurs to me that rather than having a wish list which will eventually extend to every plane designed from 1930-1950, that it would be more useful to group planes and other units by year, map, and role to create "modules." For example, the "must have" list of planes for a Battle of France map is very different from the "must have" list for a 1942 Bay of Biscay map, a 1943 Yunnan China map, or a 1945 Berlin map.

It might also be helpful to plane builders to designate which plane models shared identical cockpits or crew stations, or identical external models. That allows developers to focus work on planes which just need different cockpits or crew stations, or - even better - those which just require tweaks to FM and DM models.

[RPS69]

Add the He-59C-2 to the list of important ASR types. It was specifically designed as an ASR plane and was used from 1939-44 on all fronts.

It also occurs to me that rather than having a wish list which will eventually extend to every plane designed from 1930-1950, that it would be more useful to group planes and other units by year, map, and role to create "modules." For example, the "must have" list of planes for a Battle of France map is very different from the "must have" list for a 1942 Bay of Biscay map, a 1943 Yunnan China map, or a 1945 Berlin map.

It might also be helpful to plane builders to designate which plane models shared identical cockpits or crew stations, or identical external models. That allows developers to focus work on planes which just need different cockpits or crew stations, or - even better - those which just require tweaks to FM and DM models.

You are actually reaching the same conclusions Oleg made public on his last year with cliffs of Dover. He was right, be sure.

Problem was that his baby growed too big, and too fast. And they were all eager to get into a brush in between types. After achieving maturity, you look at your baby, and you realize that it should have developed differently.

[Pursuivant]

Problem was that his baby growed too big, and too fast. And they were all eager to get into a brush in between types. After achieving maturity, you look at your baby, and you realize that it should have developed differently.

Choices that developers make when producing a new sim often limit its future growth. IL2 has been pushed in directions that it was never intended to go, so it's showing some strain.

It's a testament to just how good the game is that it's still going strong after more than a decade.

[shelby]

Vought OS2U Kingfisher

[majorfailure]

Vought OS2U Kingfisher

read the third post in this thread.

[Marabekm]

Make following flyable:
TBD-1
Swordfish
Add an arrestor hook to Hurricane to make Sea Hurricane.

Just a dream I know. Wished I knew something about modeling and could help, but I haven't the slightest of clues how to do any of that stuff.

[sniperton]

+1 for the Sea Hurricane

[Janosch]

Spitfairy Mk.I, machine guns only
It would be ok, since gun sounds can be customized.

[Asheshouse]

read the third post in this thread.

Vought is not owned by Northrop Grumman, as far as I know.

It operates as Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc - so comment in third post is not relevant.

[Pursuivant]

Vought is not owned by Northrop Grumman, as far as I know.

At one point Vought was associated with Northrop, before the merger with Grumman.

Depending on the wording of the consent decree, 1c/TD might be prevented from (further) modeling of ANY vehicle ever produced/modified/owned/whatever by any precursor companies of the evil that is Northrop-Grumman. We'll never know, since the exact terms of the decree are secret.

So, technically you might be right, but it might not make any difference with respect to IL2. Only the TD folks can tell us what the actual situation is.

I'd love to be wrong about Vought, since in addition to the OS2U, it would be very easy to modify existing Corsair variants to round out the Corsair family (Corsair Mk.I > F4U-1, modify F4U-1A to get F4U-4 and F4U-4C).

The Mk.I to F4U-1 conversion might not be necessary if the two planes were identical, otherwise all that's needed is different gauges in the cockpit.

The F4U-1A to F4U-4 conversion would require some external modeling work, some skinning changes, a new instrument panel, and FM and DM changes. Halfway to being a new airplane.

If you want to be absolutely completist about very WW2-era Vought plane ever built which saw combat service, add the SB2U Vindicator and O2U Corsair to the mix. The former served as hapless targets during the Battle of France and at Midway. The latter served as hapless targets in China.

[Marabekm]

If you want to be absolutely completist about very WW2-era Vought plane ever built which saw combat service, add the SB2U Vindicator and O2U Corsair to the mix. The former served as hapless targets during the Battle of France and at Midway. The latter served as hapless targets in China.

I wouldn't say VMSB-241 Vindicators were helpless at Midway. They couldn't keep up with the SBDs and hit the Japanese carriers, but were able to assist in the sinking of Japanese cruiser, despite being in shall we less than ideal flying condition.

I realize it will probably never be in the game, but nice to dream about, to complete my midway mission.

[shelby]

Kawasaki Ki-10 and Consolidated PBY Catalina

[Pursuivant]

I wouldn't say VMSB-241 Vindicators were helpless at Midway.

I was being sarcastic. Any pre-1939 light bomber design was an easy target if it didn't have decent fighter escort, or if it faced heavy concentrations of flak. The Midway Vindicators got lucky, the French V-156s not so much. Had VMSB-241 run into an entire Air Wing of Zeroes, like VT-8 did with their TBDs, the Vindicator would have been notorious rather than obscure.

But, since I love obscure, crappy early war planes, I'd be happy if the Vindicator/V-156 was added to the game. Most folks would probably prefer to see the F4U-4 or FG-1, though.

[Pursuivant]

Kawasaki Ki-10 and Consolidated PBY Catalina

Ki-10 is a requirement for Sino-Japanese war scenarios, otherwise not so much.

+1 for the PBY, although I'm not sure if IL2 allows amphibious ops.

[shelby]

Ki-10 is a requirement for Sino-Japanese war scenarios, otherwise not so much.look here :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#Japanese_aircraft_losses.5 B17.5D

[Pursuivant]

look here :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#Japanese_aircraft_losses.5 B17.5D

Of course, that too. But I think of the Russo-Japanese conflicts of the late 30s as being "spillover" from the Japanese attempts to conquer China.

I've been studying the Sino-Japanese air war from 1932-39 and its a huge, untapped area for flight sims. The war zone was even bigger than the Eastern front, and although mechanized and aerial ops were far less intense, total casualties were higher.

I fear it would be almost impossible for Il2 to model, though, due to the very large, densely populated maps needed to do the area justice . Also, you'd need dozens of new ground objects and vehicles, an almost entirely new plane set, and perhaps a better method of modeling boggy or muddy ground.

[daidalos.team]

Kawasaki Ki-10 and Consolidated PBY Catalina
Both models we have in archive in current stage at lod0. (25% done)
Unfortunately we don't have free hands for finish this planes.
Btw Ki-15 external model is close to finish ..

If somebody know IL2 modeling in 3dsmax/ Photoshop can continue in DT 3rd party on this models.

[Sita]

that one if i remember correctly ...

[shelby]

that one if i remember correctly ...i can't found which model is this :(

[71st Mastiff]

looks like a franken plane from IL-2 Sturmovik wings and the body of a kate?

[Sita]

no it's original external model of ki-15 just old ... from MG time ...

[shelby]

Kawanishi H6K

[Nil]

The ki15 is a very instersting plane in my opinion: fast and used in both army and navy, and made a world record flight!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Ki-15-2.jpg

[Marabekm]

So to make a plane list by map:
Not saying I want any or all of these planes in the game, as most are utility aircraft, and some can be easily substituted with an in game plane. And some are not possible(Thanks Grumman) Just an idea of what is missing.

Map:Hawaii
Major Battle: Japanese attack on Pearl harbor.

Order of Battle: http://navweaps.com/index_oob/OOB_WWII_Pacific/OOB_WWII_Pearl_Harbor.htm

Japanese planes that participated:
D3A1, B5N2, A6M2-21, E13A (AI Only). We have all of these planes.

American planes
Planes available in game: P-40B, P-40C, P-36A(AI only), F4F-3, B-17D (AI only) A-20A (exist only as a skin option for A-20C), F2A-3

Planes Missing:

Trainers: BT-2BI (Douglas O-2), SNJ-3, AT-6 (Both alternate names of T-6 Texan), AT-12 (P-35 Advanced trainer).

Amphibians: OA-9, JRF (Alternate names Grumman Goose), J2F Duck, JRS-1(alternate name of Sikorsky S-43, O2SU, PBY-1/3/5

Transports: R2D-1, C-33 (alternate names Douglas DC-2), R3D-2(alternate name Douglas DC-5) JRB(alternate name Beechcraft Model 18 ), JO-2 (alternate name Lockheed Model 12 Junior Electra)

Bombers: B-12, SB2U-3, B-18, SBD-2, BT-1(The precursor to the SBD-1)

Fighters: P-26A/B

Ok so none of the missing planes here are necessary, but would be cool to have some more amphibians. (I like amphibs)

Map: Wake Island
Major Battle: Japanese Invasion

IJN planes we have: A6M2-21, D3A1, B5N2
IJN planes missing: G3M2 Nell

USMC planes we have: F4F-3 Wildcat.
USMC planes missing: None

Map: Midway
Major Battle: Battle of Midway

IJN Planes that we have: D3A1, B5N2, A6M2-21
IJN Planes missing: B4Y1, D4Y1

USN/USMC/USAAF planes we have: F4F-3, F4F-4, B-17D/E, SBD-3, TBF-1 (AI ONLY), TBD-1(AI Only)
USN/USMC/USAAF planes missing: SB2U-3, SBD-2, F2A-3, B-26/B-26B

Map: Singapore
Major Battle: Several Battles here, but constant plane set here.

RAF/RNZAF/RAAF planes we have: Buffalo Mk 1, Hurricane, Blenheim (AI only)
planes missing: Vickers Vildebeest, Lockheed Hudson, Fairey Albacore, CAC Wirraway, Blackburn Shark, Tiger Moth, Singapore III

KNIL planes we have: Buffalo ( Ok so both Dutch and RAF used B-339s, but Dutch didn't add all the upgrades the RAF did)
KNIL planes missing: B-10
(I need to do some more research on KNIL)

IJN/IJA planes have: Ki-27, Ki-43, Ki-21 A6M2 Model 21, G4M1-11
planes missing: (Ok this list is a big) Ki-30, Ki-44, Ki-51, K-57, Ki-48, Ki-15/C5M, G3M2

Map: Coral Sea
Major Battle: Battle of Coral Sea (Yorktown was NOT sunk)

USN planes we have: F4F-3, SBD-3, TBD-1(AI Only)
planes missing: SBD-2
IJN planes we have: D3A1, B5N2, A6M2-21, A5M4 (AI Only)
missing: None.


More at a later date

[Pursuivant]

Face it, IL2 kind of sucks for early Pacific War scenarios, not just in plane selection, but also map choices and ground objects.

This isn't just due to the NG Consent Decree limiting the selection of US ships and aircraft, but rather due to the 1c design staff trying to cover too much territory (sometimes literally) without much understanding of, or love for, the theater.

In a way, a Russian design team attempting to do a sim of the Pacific War falls about as flat as a US or Japanese design team attempting to do a sim of the Eastern Front!

Hawaii Map: This was a stupid choice for a map, since it was the scene of exactly one very unevenly matched historical scenario (although there were two very large waves of attackers). You get your choice of 1st wave Japanese dive bomber, torpedo bomber or fighter, 2nd wave ditto, or hapless Americans flying a P-40 in a "target rich environment." Maybe add a hypothetical Japanese "third wave" dive bomber/fighter attack vs. the oil tank farm at Pearl, possibly with a few more US defenders in the air.

You're terribly limited in the number of US ships you can put into the game, but there were a number of US ship types that NG never got its grubby hands on (via Ingalls Shipyards and its predecessors) that could be included.

Honolulu looks barren and strange to my Yankee eyes. For that matter, any built-up area just seems wrong, whether it's Stalingrad, Berlin or Singapore.

The map could be made more interesting, as well as more "target rich," by adding some distinctive "American" or "Hawaiian" ground objects to the game - like US-style water towers, naval facilities, civilian buildings, etc.

Adding a "golf course improvised airfield" object would be quite handy for early Pacific War scenarios, since the allies often resorted to landing (or launching) planes from golf course fairways. At Pearl Harbor, one B-17 made a forced landing on a golf course, so it's appropriate for that map.

As for planes, basically any American plane that wasn't a P-40B, P-40C or a P-36A was a target (any B-17 in the air were unarmed and filled with passengers), and most planes never got off the ground. All the second-line or obsolete US aircraft could be adequately modeled as static objects.

Currently, there is a flyable Hawk 75. It's quite possible that we could get a flyable P-36A by "reskinning" the cockpit, replacing the Finnish placards and gauges with American equipment.

Wake Island: For early war scenarios, this is another puzzler. The Japanese severely damaged aerial opposition in their first attack, but the defenders were able to do some damage to the invasion fleet before an IJN carrier group crushed them 10 days later. Basically, there are 5 historical early war scenarios there given the current plane set.

After that, the US put in a submarine blockade and starved the defenders. Periodically, the USAAF would bomb the place using unopposed high altitude level bombing raids. Sometimes they were literally advanced training missions for bomber aircrews transiting from Hawaii to the SW Pacific!

So, really boring and one-sided stuff unless you just want a nice, simple B-24 bombing scenario.

There are some critical missing ground objects, like the Pan Am Clipper terminal and barracks buildings.

Almost none of the actual Japanese ships which took part in the battle are available.

For planes, the really big omission is the G3M variants, which would be an incredibly handy plane to have for 1939-42 Asian scenarios.

[Pursuivant]

Singapore: Of all the crummy maps in Pacific Fighters, this one sucked worst.

First of all, most of the "interesting" aerial action took place up near the Thai border, which isn't even shown on the map.

The initial IJN and IJA raids vs. Singapore were virtually unopposed night raids, made easier by complete surprise by the Japanese and the fact that the city wasn't blacked out at all. Later raids were virtually unopposed because the IJN had achieved air superiority.

For IJN raids, you've got the G4M-1 which was used in limited numbers, but of course the G3M, the main workhorse of IJN bomber fleet in 1941, is missing.

Forget a historical mission where you sink the Prince of Wales and Repulse, because not only is there no G3M, but the area where those ships were sunk isn't on the map!

Early RAAF and RAF bombing raids (using Blenheims and Hudsons) could have possibly slowed the Japanese advance, but of course the Blenheim isn't flyable and the Hudson isn't in the game. And, the battles where they were used aren't on the map.

Mercifully, the last point where the ABDA Force AF made any serious attempt to use tactical air support was at Yong Peng, which is on the Singapore map. There are no scenarios for this action, but they could be made.

Again, the major Japanese ships which supported the invasion are mostly not modeled in the game. There are also no small British/Australian ships or boats although they were very heavily targeted by the Japanese as the Europeans tried to evacuate Singapore.

So, very little joy for Japanese anti-shipping missions, made worse by the fact that there is almost no sea area around the southern portions of the map.

Singapore looks like a sleepy little village although it was (and is) a thriving, highly advanced, heavily populated seaport. There are no distinctive "Singapore" or "Malaysian" objects to make the map more interesting.

There are almost no British Army ground objects, despite the fact that the Japanese advance was heavily supported by tactical air strikes. So, in addition to the lack of Japanese ground attack aircraft, like the C5M/Ki-15, or Ki-51 in the game, they have very little to attack!

The "Buffalo Mk. I" seems to mostly be a F2A2 with the serial numbers filed off. The Brits made a number of modifications to the basic B-339 design which made an already obsolete fighter into an utter disaster. Not least, they specified an oil tank which was too small to cool the engine, guaranteeing engine overheat at full power when used in tropical conditions!

In a hopeless attempt to stave off disaster, British and Australian ground crews heavily field-modded the Buffalo, reducing fuel tankage, removing unnecessary systems, reducing armament, etc. in an attempt to make it a more effective fighter. This means that there should be a Field-mod Buffalo I with reduced armor, fuel, fewer guns, etc. which behaves a bit more like the B-239, but with the inevitable trade-offs.

FWIW, there were also a few early mark Beaufighter night fighters committed early in the battle. But, rather than being used to defend Singapore as night fighters, some idiot decided to use them as ground attack aircraft in the early phases of the campaign up near the Thai border.

Another British addition to the battle was a civilian paramilitary scouting force equipped with light aircraft like De Havilland Tiger Moths and Puss Moths. They were very brave, but they were easy meat for planes like the Ki-27 and A6M2.

The Vickers Wildebeest and Blackburn Shark were only used in limited numbers and to no great effect, and only saw battle during WW2 during the Malaysian campaign. For those reasons, there's no real reason to add them to the game.

The Fairey Albacore served in a similar role in Singapore as the Wildebeest and Shark and was much more widely used, so it would make a good addition.

Finally, the ML-KNIL (Dutch East Indies AF) put in an appearance, so possibly the export version of the B-10 (139WH-3) could be added. Since this type saw service in Java, and possibly the defense of Northern Australia, it might be a decent addition, especially since it gives the Dutch a bomber of their own.

After Singapore fell, it was bombed twice by the Allies in 1945 using high altitude B-29 attacks against docks and shipping. Enemy resistance was very light. With proper objects added, this would be a good map for hypothetical flyable B-29 mission.

[Pursuivant]

Coral Sea - This map is just a big square of virtual ocean. There are no actual islands. Presumably the map portrays the area where the Yorktown was sunk. The area where the Shoho was sunk near the Deboyne Islands aren't modeled. Perhaps this is just as well because they were a backwater area for most of the war. A generic ocean map is more useful.

For once, the IJN has a reasonable selection of ships which were actually present during the battle, although there could be more Cruiser, Destroyer and Auxiliary types.

The US ship selection is also "not bad" although thanks to Northrop Grumman there are no US Battleships and some other ship types are missing. Again, there are plenty of smaller ships which aren't in the game.

My biases with regard to ship types are probably showing, though. It's fun to bomb big targets like BB or CVs, but most anti-shipping strikes (and sub ops) were attacks against smaller, more numerous ship types like DD, FF, minesweepers, gunboats, MTB/PT boats, and merchant ships.

With recent patches, there are (finally!) no important planes missing from the order of battle, and all but the TBD are flyable.

A flyable TBD would finally give the Americans a flyable torpedo bomber type, since the NG agreement makes a flyable TBF impossible. It would also open up a variety of other early war US torpedo bombing missions, not just suicide missions at Midway.

"Nice to have" planes which were unimportant during the Battle of the Coral Sea but widely used elsewhere would be the E7K "Alf," the G3M "Nell" (notice the trend here - if I could choose just one early Pacific War plane to add to the game, it would be the G3M), the H6K "Mavis", one USN Seaplane type (choose the Curtiss SOC Seagull, the Vought O2SU Kingfisher, or the Grumman J2F Duck), a flyable B-17E, and a flyable PBY.

Midway - This map actually does a decent job of depicting the area where there was intensive aerial action. While there were just one strike on Midway, it was critically important to the overall Midway campaign.

Midway island is missing a few period ground objects - like barracks, and the Pan Am Clipper dock and hotel (could also be used for Wake Island). By the time of the battle the island was a fortress, but placing guns, etc. is up to mission builders.

Most of the comments about the Coral Sea map apply to the Midway map.

A "nice to have" plane which was only peripherally involved in the Midway campaign, but which were extensively used elsewhere is the Martin B-26A Marauder. The obsolete Japanese types like the B4Y would only be useful additions if the game were to move into modeling the 2nd Sino-Japanese War.

[Marabekm]

I stared with those maps because of exactly that reason, only one or two major battles in a small time frame. Also this is only aircraft list, not other objects. But yes there are some ships/artillery types/vehicles/tanks that are missing as well.

Lets go to Stalingrad:
Major Battle: Battle of Stalingrad

VVS from what I can find (any help here would be appreciated)
Planes we have: Yak-1, Yak-7B, Lagg-3, I-16, I-153, La-5, P-40, Hurricane, Mig-3(This one there seems to be a lot of disagreement on), Il-2, Pe-2, SB, Su-2, R-5, U-2
missing: It is my understanding that the DB-3 (A-20) used by VVS had a different turret?

Luftwaffe planes we have: Ju-87B/D3, Hs-123(AI only), BF-109E/F/G, Ju-88A-4, He-111H6, Hs-129(AI Only), FW-189(AI Only)
planes missing: Ju-87R, BF-110(early types)

Regia Aeronautica: Planes available: MC 200, MC 202
missing: Ca311, Ca312, Ca164, Br-20
Romanian Royal Aeronautics Planes we have: BF-109E7, IAR 80, IAR 81a Blenheim Mk I
Planes missing: JRS-79, BF-109E3, He-111H3, Do17, Potez 633A/B, IAR-37


I need to do some more research on the subject. If I missed anything let me know. Hopefully will be getting some books on this soon.

[Pursuivant]

I stared with those maps because of exactly that reason, only one or two major battles in a small time frame. Also this is only aircraft list, not other objects. But yes there are some ships/artillery types/vehicles/tanks that are missing as well.

Yeah, sorry about the digression/rant.


Stalingrad:

VVS from what I can find (any help here would be appreciated)
Planes we have: Yak-1, Yak-7B, Lagg-3, I-16, I-153, La-5, P-40, Hurricane, Mig-3(This one there seems to be a lot of disagreement on), Il-2, Pe-2, SB, Su-2, R-5, U-2
missing: It is my understanding that the DB-3 (A-20) used by VVS had a different turret?

Plane set for the VVS is fairly complete, with only minor/second-line types missing: Yer-2, UT-2. Flyable SU-2 would be sort of interesting. A-20 with Soviet turret would be a nice addition.

Luftwaffe planes we have: Ju-87B/D3, Hs-123(AI only), BF-109E/F/G, Ju-88A-4, He-111H6, Hs-129(AI Only), FW-189(AI Only)
planes missing: Ju-87R, BF-110(early types)

Add Fi-156 to the list of availables. Hs-129 is flyable.

Would be helpful to have flyable Ju-52, Bf-110C, Hs-123. Perhaps flyable FW-189 and Fi-156. Perhaps add German second-line types (at least as static objects) like the Bf-108 and FW-58.

Stalingrad map could use any distinctive ground objects - notably the grain elevators and the tractor factory complex.


Regia Aeronautica: Planes available: MC 200, MC 202
missing: Ca311, Ca312, Ca164, Br-20

Regia was a minor factor at Stalingrad, but huge for the new Med maps that we'll be getting.

Ca-311 would be a handy addition. BR-20 would be very handy for both RA and for Chinese scenarios (Japanese used it briefly in the 30s).

While not relevant to Stalingrad, many of the late war Italian fighters aren't flyable. Grrr.


Romanian Royal Aeronautics Planes we have: BF-109E7, IAR 80, IAR 81a Blenheim Mk I
Planes missing: JRS-79, BF-109E3, He-111H3, Do17, Potez 633A/B, IAR-37

Bf-109E3, He-111H3 and Do-17Z would be good adds for early war scenarios.
Flyable Blenheim would be incredibly useful.

If we are very good and say our prayers every night, we might be getting the He-112 as a flyable.

[gaunt1]

For the pacific, there is a plane that is direly missing! The D3A2!

http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/1027/pics/65_22.jpg

[stugumby]

What happened to the Boomerang?

[dimlee]

"There are no distinctive "Singapore" or "Malaysian" objects to make the map more interesting."

True. By the way, there are not many distinctive local objects on most of East Front maps as well. Leningrad and Slovakia are the only exceptions, probably. And some existing "distinctive" objects are plain wrong and/or were installed with time machine technology, for example, breakwaters in Sevastopol Bay (constructed in 1970s in real life).
And wrong toponymy...wrong hills...rivers...missing bays and lakes...etc. I better stop now ! :smile:

[dimlee]

I stared with those maps because of exactly that reason, only one or two major battles in a small time frame. Also this is only aircraft list, not other objects. But yes there are some ships/artillery types/vehicles/tanks that are missing as well.

Lets go to Stalingrad:
Major Battle: Battle of Stalingrad

VVS from what I can find (any help here would be appreciated)
Planes we have: Yak-1, Yak-7B, Lagg-3, I-16, I-153, La-5, P-40, Hurricane, Mig-3(This one there seems to be a lot of disagreement on), Il-2, Pe-2, SB, Su-2, R-5, U-2
missing: It is my understanding that the DB-3 (A-20) used by VVS had a different turret?

Luftwaffe planes we have: Ju-87B/D3, Hs-123(AI only), BF-109E/F/G, Ju-88A-4, He-111H6, Hs-129(AI Only), FW-189(AI Only)
planes missing: Ju-87R, BF-110(early types)

Regia Aeronautica: Planes available: MC 200, MC 202
missing: Ca311, Ca312, Ca164, Br-20
Romanian Royal Aeronautics Planes we have: BF-109E7, IAR 80, IAR 81a Blenheim Mk I
Planes missing: JRS-79, BF-109E3, He-111H3, Do17, Potez 633A/B, IAR-37


I need to do some more research on the subject. If I missed anything let me know. Hopefully will be getting some books on this soon.

Stalingrad / other missing:
Ar-2, Pe-2 (or Pe-3) with Gneiss radar.

Ju-86, FW-200, FW-58, He-177, Ju-90, Ju-290 (OK, there was only one probably), Go-145, He-46, Do-215, Hs-126.

Probably: Cant 1007, Ca 133

IAR 38/39, RWD-13.

There were Hungarians as well, but info is scarce.

Seaplanes are mentioned there:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=114464
I wonder where they were based. :confused:

[sniperton]

There were Hungarians as well, but info is scarce.


So far as I know, the Hungarian Air Force has not played any considerable role in, and in the close vicinity of, the battle of Stalingrad. The Hungarian 2nd Army was holding the Northwest flank and had only Re-2000 fighters, He-46 recces, and Ca-135bis medium bombers in numbers (>10). And their majority was withdrawn due to attrition and retraining before the Stalingrad battle started.

[iMattheush]

Why don't put HVARs on P-51 and P-47? Will be an amazing (and pretty simple) update in 4.13.1... :)

[Marabekm]

Why don't put HVARs on P-51 and P-47? Will be an amazing (and pretty simple) update in 4.13.1... :)

P-47s have rockets available as a load out option. I Thought the P-51 (at least the C version) did as well but I am not 100% sure.

[Marabekm]

Seaplanes are mentioned there:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=114464
I wonder where they were based. :confused:

http://www.ww2.dk/air/seefl/sagr125.htm

Well it looks like Constanza and Varna/Sevastapol. Not sure how they came into play in Stalingrad.

As far as the Regia Aeronautica, I looked here:
http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/940IXAL.pdf

61st Gruppo appears to have operated Ca-311.
21st Gruppo had MC200/MC202
71st Gruppo with BR-20M, Ca-311, Ca-312, Ca-164.

Can't find any mention of a Cant Z in Russia.

[iMattheush]

P-47s have rockets available as a load out option. I Thought the P-51 (at least the C version) did as well but I am not 100% sure.

P-47? Yup, but not HVARs, just kinda bangalore rockets, named M8 :)

[dimlee]

http://www.ww2.dk/air/seefl/sagr125.htm

Well it looks like Constanza and Varna/Sevastapol. Not sure how they came into play in Stalingrad.

As far as the Regia Aeronautica, I looked here:
http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/940IXAL.pdf

61st Gruppo appears to have operated Ca-311.
21st Gruppo had MC200/MC202
71st Gruppo with BR-20M, Ca-311, Ca-312, Ca-164.

Can't find any mention of a Cant Z in Russia.

I'm puzzled with those seaplanes as well. Need to check in Bergstrom's book.

Cant Z was mentioned in some "second hand" sources without reference to documents. (I've done quick search, but didn't bookmark or copy). So might be a mistake and can be ignored.

[stugumby]

Rockets for p47 are triple launcher m8 not zero length hvar. Rockets need updating for fm 2, p47,p51, 60lb rockets and mixed bomb loads needed for beaufighter and mosquito as well. Since the triple launcher exists it needs to be added to a20g and p40m as well. Beaufighter with straight tail is also needed.

[Pursuivant]

For the pacific, there is a plane that is direly missing! The D3A2!

Agreed, it saw a fair bit of use during the middle years of the Pacific War and probably doesn't need anything other than an FM change.

Likewise, the SBD-6 would be an easy "upgrade" to an existing plane that requires just an FM change.

B5N1 would be sort of useful for Sino-Japanese War scenarios, but that would require actual changes to aircraft exterior model.

[Pursuivant]

What happened to the Boomerang?

Short story:

2011 Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake. It wrecked the designer's computer and apparently messed up his HD, too.

[Pursuivant]

True. By the way, there are not many distinctive local objects on most of East Front maps as well. Leningrad and Slovakia are the only exceptions, probably.

Agreed, those are the most distinctive maps in the game. You can really tell that the Slovakia map was a labor of love, made by people who knew the territory.

And some existing "distinctive" objects are plain wrong and/or were installed with time machine technology, for example, breakwaters in Sevastopol Bay (constructed in 1970s in real life).

In some cases, coastlines and river courses are wrong compared to historical photos, and there are lakes that actually represent post-WW2 reservoirs.

Even ignoring the technical skills required, it takes access to historical resources and some knowledge of the area to make a good, historical map.

[Pursuivant]

Normandy Map: This is our only map of coastal France, so it has to do double duty as both the site of the D-Day Invasion and for RAF and early USAAF "Circus," "Ramrod", "Rhubarb", "Roadstead" and "Rodeo," missions.

The same criticisms apply about lack of distinctive ground objects as apply to most other maps. There's nothing about the buildings or trees that makes you think you're flying over France, much less Normandy. (Apple orchards?, poplar trees?, Gray fieldstone houses?, walled farms?, hedgerows?, cows?)

The US and UK plane sets could use some work. Obviously the complete list is huge, so here are the highlights.

US Planes 1942-43: B-26A, P-38F & H, P-47C-10, Flyable B-17E & F.
US Planes 1944: As above, but B-26B, P-38 "Droop Snoot", Piper L-5 "Cub"/"Grasshopper"

UK Planes 1942-43: Mustang Mk. I, Hawker Typhoon MkIB, Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIV, more Beaufighter variants (NF and anti-shipping), Mosquito intruder and NF variants, possibly Westland Lysander (for SOE agent drop missions).

UK Planes 1944: As above but add Auster AOP and possibly the Albemarle bomber/transport.

German Planes: Complete AFAIK.

For the D-Day invasion, many ships and ground objects are missing. There should be many more varieties of beach obstacles, bunkers, landing craft, ground vehicles, etc.

[gaunt1]

German Planes: Complete AFAIK.


Me-410? Ju-88C6? Or maybe Bf-110F?

BTW, the easiest to add from that list would be the P-47C I think. Would be easy to backdate the P-47D-10 model we already have. (external model: only modifying some panel lines on the skin?) Maybe only some minor cockpit work that would be needed. (EDIT: Not that easy. C had somewhat different cowling and smaller landing flaps)

[Pursuivant]

Me-410? Ju-88C6? Or maybe Bf-110F?

Point taken. There were plenty of German aircraft used along the western coasts of Occupied Europe, but the lack of a map of England limits the scope for German bombing and maritime ops on the Normandy map. So, I was thinking of the Normandy maps as maps where the Allies are on the offensive.

With the addition of the Tobruk and Italian maps, there's much more scope for German offensive scenarios. Taking off my blinders, here's a list of mid- to late-War German bomber or fighter bomber aircraft which were commonly used on the Western Front/Mediterranean:

Bomber/Intruder: Flyable Do-217K-1 & Do-217M-1. Do-217E-1, Do-217E-3, Do-217E-5, Do-217J-1, He-111H-16, He-111H-20, Ju-88C-2, Ju-88C-4, Ju-88S-1, Ju-188E-1, Me-410A-1.

Cargo: Flyable Ju-52/3mg3e.

Heavy Fighter/Strike Fighter: Flyable Bf-110C-4/B. Bf-110C-7, Bf-110D-1, Bf-110D-3, Bf-110E-1, Bf-110F-2, Ju-88C-6c, Me-410A-1/U2, Me-410A-1/U4, Me-410B-1.

Night Fighter: Bf-110F-4, Bf-110G-4, Ju-88C-6b NJ

Patrol Bomber: Flyable Do-217K-2. BV-138B-1, FW-200C-4, He-115B-1, He-115C-1, Ju-88H-2, Ju-290A-5, Ju-290A-7.

Training/Liaison: Bf-108B, FW-57B-1, FW-57B-2, Si-204D-1.

These aircraft would be most appropriate for the Italy, Normandy and Norway maps. Sub-sets would be appropriate to the Ardennes, Berlin and Tobruk maps. They'd also be perfect for the modded Channel maps, as well as any forthcoming maps of Southern Italy or Malta.

[gaunt1]

Honestly, I'd be glad if we would get at least a late He-111 variant, like the H-16, a flyable Bf-110C4 (even without rear gunner), and a flyable Ju-88C6. Sadly we cant expect more from the german side :(

[shelby]

Mitsubishi F1M

[P-38L]

My wish list:

Sukhoi Su-2
TBF Avenger
TBD Devastator
Any Liaison Airplane
Ju-52 Military and Passenger transport

[Marabekm]

For early Mediterranean Maps:
RAF: Flyable Blenheims - both Mk I and MkIV
Flyable Gladiators Mk I and MkII ( Yes J8A and Gladiator MkII same plane,
so not top priority)
AI only - Lysander, Short Sunderland
And flyable- Martin Maryland, Beaufighter Ic

Regia Aeronautica: Add flyable - Fiat Cr-32, Ba-65, G.50 bis
AI only- Ro-37, Ca-310 series

Luftwaffe: Add Ju-87R, Bf-110E (tropical version?)

Pacific:
TBD Devastator
F1M Pete
A6M3 Model 22

Just my wishlist..... But always happy with whatever you guys decide to add. Looking foward to R-5. I like bi-planes.
Perhaps a match up between Hungarian Cr-42s and VVS R-5s, but..... that's another topic.

[Pursuivant]

Sukhoi Su-2

Might be difficult to get cockpit pictures for such a rare bird. Ditto for the Neiman R-10. Agreed that it would be cool to fly these rare birds.

TBF Avenger

Can't happen. Thanks for nothing Northrop-Grumman!


Any Liaison Airplane

You got your liaison plane right here:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/member.php?u=17669

TBD Devastator

Seems to be a common request. With the TBD/TBM being off-limits, a flyable TBD is about the closest we'll ever get to a flyable USN torpedo bomber.

Ju-52 Military and Passenger transport

I'm not sure it's necessary to add the civilian version, since they saw very little action during WW2 (unlike the DC-3 which sometimes strayed into war zones). But, making the Ju-52 3m/4e flyable would be useful they regularly went into harm's way.

[Pursuivant]

Flyable Blenheims - both Mk I and MkIV

Not just useful for early Med maps, but also 1939-42 Western Europe, 1940-43 Finland, and 1942 Singapore.

It's probably the most useful AI plane to make flyable.

Flyable Gladiators Mk I and MkII

I'm surprised that the Gladiators haven't been flyable made yet.

Literally, all you need to do is rework the instrument panel and repaint the rest of the cockpit so that the placards are in English rather than Swedish.

Lysander, Short Sunderland, Martin Maryland, Beaufighter Ic

Yep. Westland Lysander Mk. I & II (the Mk. II was just an engine upgrade), Short Sunderland Mk. I, Martin 167 Maryland Mk. II, Bristol Beaufighter Mk. IC.

Possibly add the Martin 187 Baltimore to the list. Possibly Martin 167 French version and Martin Maryland Mk. I.

But all of these would be a LOT of work. It might be too ambitious to make the Maryland flyable, since I'm not sure that pictures of the interior exist.

Add flyable - Fiat Cr-32, Ba-65, G.50 bis

CR-32 and Ba-65 might not have cockpit references needed to make it flyable.

G.50bis looks like it would be incredibly easy to add to the game - all that changed was the size of the fuel tank, which would just be a simple change to FM and DM.

TD could also take a look at the G.50 series, since apparently Finnish versions were much slower than the Italian versions. There could also be a G.50 Serie I version with closed cockpit. The version in the game is the Serie II.

[sniperton]

Just a question, but does anybody positively know that the Ba-65 actually saw combat?

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Just a question, but does anybody positively know that the Ba-65 actually saw combat?

Yes, from memory it was used mainly in North Africa in 1940-41 as a ground attack aircraft.

[Marabekm]

Just a question, but does anybody positively know that the Ba-65 actually saw combat?


Yes it did, with 50th Stormo. At least through Operation Compass anyways. Problem was it was an older design. And its replacement, the Ba. 88 was shall we say not up to the task, so the Ba. 65 had stay past its time. Seems like they were in North Africa from June 1940 until February 1941.

Have a look at: A History of the Mediterranean Air War 1940 - 1945 Vol. 1


Also, have a look here: http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/museo_storico_eng/collezione_aeromobili/hangarVelo/Pagine/ImamRO-37bis.aspx
that is the Italian Air Force museum. They have an actual Ro. 37 and A Cr-32(well the Spanish Version) on display. So who wants to take cockpit pictures? lol

[majorfailure]

Seems to be a common request. With the TBD/TBM being off-limits, a flyable TBD is about the closest we'll ever get to a flyable USN torpedo bomber.

SB2C
While not a pure torpedo bomber it had the ability to carry torpedoes and it is not a low performance plane like the TBD. Or use the Fairey Barracuda, which is a least Western allied material - and the Avenger's role&performance should be close enough to fill the gap in the planeset.

[Pursuivant]

SB2C
While not a pure torpedo bomber it had the ability to carry torpedoes and it is not a low performance plane like the TBD. Or use the Fairey Barracuda, which is a least Western allied material - and the Avenger's role&performance should be close enough to fill the gap in the planeset.

The Fairey Albacore would also be a good choice for an Allied early/mid war torpedo bomber. It saw plenty of action in the Mediterranean, both in North Africa and operating from Malta. Given the choice between adding the Lysander or the Albacore to the game, I'd have to go with the Albacore.

[Pursuivant]

Yes it did, with 50th Stormo. At least through Operation Compass anyways. Problem was it was an older design. And its replacement, the Ba. 88 was shall we say not up to the task, so the Ba. 65 had stay past its time.

Basically, the Ba.65 was Italy's answer to the Neiman R-10, the Sukhoi Su-2, or the Fairey Battle. It was obsolete, not a great design to begin with, and used in small numbers against terrible odds by very brave/suicidal/foolhardy men.

The most effective Italian ground attack aircraft was the Ju-87 or the SM79. All the Regia Aeronautica's other ground attack aircraft were obsolete and/or outright dangerous to fly.

I'd also add the Ba.88 Lince to the list of Italian types commonly used in North Africa. But, it shouldn't be flyable. Instead, it would just be a static object which could be placed near airfields as a decoy. :)

[Marabekm]

The Ba. 65 performed well in the Spanish Civil war. As did the Cr. 32. This is what helped lull Italy into thinking its planes were good enough, and not much was designed between the Spanish Civil War and WW2.

The Ba. 88 was useless. On paper it was an all star, but in reality, not even close. Fully loaded, the Ba. 88 was not even capable of take-off. Even by reducing the ammunition carried, getting rid of the rear crewman, and reducing bomb loads did very little to help. So the Regia Aeronautica was forced to use the Ba. 65 (not a bad plane, just past its time- like the TBD Devastator) and Cr-32 in the ground attack role. Until Ju-87s arrived.

According to Mr. Sores (A History of the Mediterranean Air War) The Ba. 88s of 7 Gruppo arrived in North Africa on August 1940. Two days later only 1/3 of those that arrived were considered serviceable. Last combat mission of Ba. 88 was October 15th of the same year. But.... If someone wants to add it, go for it.

[Pursuivant]

The Ba. 65 performed well in the Spanish Civil war. As did the Cr. 32. This is what helped lull Italy into thinking its planes were good enough, and not much was designed between the Spanish Civil War and WW2.

Yep. That, plus the inherent conservatism of the leaders of the Regia Aeronautica doomed Italian air power in WW2, although they were leaders in aviation in the 1920s and early 30s. But, to give Italy credit, its economy and industrial base wasn't that strong, so there were limits to what it could do. The Italians had some great planes, but never enough of them, and often far too late in arriving to do any good.


The Ba. 88 was useless. On paper it was an all star, but in reality, not even close.

I think of it as being like the Brewster Buffalo - a good design destroyed by all the added equipment required to turn it into a combat aircraft.

I proposed just including it in the game as a static decoy aircraft because that was its historical role!

Were someone crazy enough to add a flyable Ba.88 to the game, I'd be more interested in the unarmed and unarmored prototype version. Potentially, it could have been used as a successful liaison or recon plane, or even as a high-speed target tug (all traditional roles for failed light bomber designs - see Bristol Buckingham). Another "what if" version is the Ba.88M with longer wings and up-rated engines. That might have potentially been a decent airplane.

[majorfailure]

I think of it as being like the Brewster Buffalo - a good design destroyed by all the added equipment required to turn it into a combat aircraft.

Maybe the Italians should have given all of their Ba88 to the Finnish Airforce, the would have turned into some kind of super ground attack, best pilot destroying more tanks than Rudel.

[Marabekm]

Maybe the Italians should have given all of their Ba88 to the Finnish Airforce, the would have turned into some kind of super ground attack, best pilot destroying more tanks than Rudel.

:rolleyes: lol. Its true. Actually I think it had more to do with the fact that the Finnish Buffalo did not have all the extra armor for the pilots and self sealing tanks. RAF and Americans added all these extra features and performance dropped.

[Marabekm]

Not a new aircraft, but would be nice to be able to add France to the axis side for mission building. Vichy aircraft did fight against the RAF and initially against the American during the allied landings of Operation Torch.

[Pursuivant]

Maybe the Italians should have given all of their Ba88 to the Finnish Airforce, the would have turned into some kind of super ground attack, best pilot destroying more tanks than Rudel.

:)

Perhaps the Ba.88 could have been a useful light bomber, but only if it carried nothing but a light bomb load and a pilot, and had just about all the combat equipment stripped from it.

It's good points were an overbuilt, very heavy structure (stressed to 12 G), 3 12.7 mm guns, and very good range for a ground attack plane (12 self-sealing fuel cells, 1640 km range). The bad points were that it was overweight not just due to combat equipment, but also utter lack of attention to weight reduction during design and production.

At best, if a team of very clever Finnish engineers got their hands on it, they'd turn it into something a bit like the Hs-129, but with less armor, lighter bomb load, and considerably less firepower. The obvious places to save weight would be to get rid of the rear gunner and remove at least half the fuel cells. Perhaps, they'd use captured Soviet engines with more power.

Even then, it would probably have ended up like the G.50 - an inferior plane kept in service long after its useful life, upgraded in small but clever ways, and used to maximum effect by a small but highly professional air force, along a quiet sector of the Eastern Front.

[Pursuivant]

Not a new aircraft, but would be nice to be able to add France to the axis side for mission building. Vichy aircraft did fight against the RAF and initially against the American during the allied landings of Operation Torch.

+1.

The "All Nations" mod is one of the handiest mods out there. Among other things, it gives the options of Vichy France as an Axis nation, and Hungary and Italy as Allied nations.

[HBPencil]

It has already been mentioned but I too would like to see the Blenheim IV made flyable seeing as it saw a lot of service in many theaters around the world during the early and mid war periods.

Likewise it'd be great to see (even if they're 'just' ai) the Lockheed Hudson as well as the B-34, PV-1 and PV-2 family, these types seeing a lot of service with many airforces in a number of theatres.

[Pursuivant]

Likewise it'd be great to see (even if they're 'just' ai) the Lockheed Hudson as well as the B-34, PV-1 and PV-2 family, these types seeing a lot of service with many airforces in a number of theatres.

B-34 wouldn't be needed since it didn't see combat, PV-2 was built in limited numbers during WW2 and didn't see much action. +1 for the other suggestions.

[Orangeman]

Most of the below exist as Mods but they would be relatively simple (I hope) to port across

British
Mosquito BIV
GladiatorI and II with UK cockpit
Spitfire Mk XIVC, XIVE and LXIVE
Typhoon

Japanese
Ki-44 Tojo
Nakajima J1N1 Gekko Irving night fighter
Yokosuka D4Y Val dive bomber

USA
Helldiver dive bomber

[HBPencil]

B-34 wouldn't be needed since it didn't see combat, PV-2 was built in limited numbers during WW2 and didn't see much action. +1 for the other suggestions.

Didn't the B-34 see some (admittedly unsuccessful) action as the Ventura Mk I with the RAF? Fair call on the PV-2 though.

[Pursuivant]

Didn't the B-34 see some (admittedly unsuccessful) action as the Ventura Mk I with the RAF?

The UK originally ordered the Ventura, before the USAAF had any interest in the type. That was the Ventura Mk. I.

It was only after Pearl Harbor that the USAAF impressed some Ventura Mk. IIA ordered by the UK and called them B-34s. They were mostly used for training, but some (~30) were used for ASW patrols along the North American coast. After 1942, the USN took over ASW duties and also took over production of the Ventura under the designation PV-1.

During its time with the Air Force, the B-34 never saw combat and never left the Western Hemisphere. Hypothetically, the Ventura Mk. IIA would be similar enough to the B-34 that it could substitute. So, no reason to model it.

[Orangeman]

Would it be possible to get the following flyables?

RAF
Gladiator I and II (just needs a cockpit revision)
Typhoon (late version with bubble canopy)
Mosquito bomber version (just needs a slight cockpit revision and bomb aimer's position)

IJA/IJN
Ki-44 (a big omission)

USAF/USN
Helldiver

AIs

RAF
Halifax/Lancaster/Stirling

IJA/IJN
Judy
Irving

USAF/USN
P-61
B-26
B-17

Luftwaffe
Me-410

[Sita]

RAF
Gladiator I and II (just needs a cockpit revision)


could you find any good reff about MkI and MkII pits?

[Marabekm]

I don't know if its MkI or MkII but here is one image.
http://www.britmodeller.com/walkarounds/aircraft/gladiator/k7985/7985%2020.jpg

[Sita]

it's MkII .... but not that kind of refference we need ...

at first need scheme of pilots panel ...

[Sita]

in fact i have that scheme ....


https://m1.behance.net/rendition/modules/64367309/hd/33da751f5e5815e595d9332d7c643539.jpg


and i want know from what book is it ..

[Asheshouse]

Its not the same image but details of both Mk1 and MkII cockpit instrument layouts appear in the Polish publication Monografie Lotnicze 24 - Gloster Gladiator

[_1SMV_Gitano]

I found this picture by googling "Gloster Gladiator cockpit:

http://www.maquetland.com/v2/images_articles2/images/20121201-1d.jpg

I can provide the same images with better resolution but, unfortunately, nothing more. Anyway google search returns some interesting pictures!

[Sita]

if for MkII we can findout which gauge was used ... for MkI its a mystery

[Asheshouse]

Original image is here https://www.behance.net/gallery/8575043/Scratchbuild-Log-Gloster-Gladiator-MkI
From scratch built model project.

https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/hd/5779368575043.560bfd4e5cc74.JPG

https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/hd/c355c28575043.560bfe8d0248e.JPG

Hi-Res cockpit photo here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gloster_Gladiator_Cockpit.jpg

[Sita]

yep)i insert link directly from there) ....

[Pursuivant]

Typhoon (late version with bubble canopy)
Mosquito bomber version (just needs a slight cockpit revision and bomb aimer's position)


Typhoon would be an entirely new project.

Mosquito bomber variant would essentially be a new project due to scope of 3d work required.


Ki-44 (a big omission)


There are plenty of omissions in the IJAAF line-up. This is one of them. But, basically a whole new plane. The mod version might be acceptable, however, if the creator wishes to share his work with DT.


Helldiver

This exists as a mod. I think that DT was/is still working on an official version.


Halifax/Lancaster/Stirling

Those are three, big, huge requests.

I believe that an official Lancaster is in the works.


Judy
Irving

Again, new projects, but often requested additions to the IJN order of battle.
The J1N would be particularly useful if night fighters ever get added to the game.


P-61

Very frequently requested but off limits due to NG Consent Decree. Exists as mod.


B-26

Basically 2 different aircraft depending on whether you want the B-26/B-26A or B-26B late block production. Would be another big, complex project, but also represents the one big hole in the US bomber line-up.


B-17

?? Most of the major B-17 variants are already in the game.


Me-410

Quite possibly the most requested Luftwaffe plane not yet modeled. Exists as a mod, which could be added as an official model since the quality is quite good.

[Orangeman]

Thank you Poursuivant for a very complete answer.

I guess a Hellcat and Lancaster are possibles then.

If it is not a taboo question, does DT have contact with Japancat who produced the modded Ki-44?

Another goodlooking mod is Ranwer's updated P11 cockpit which looks good. I don't know if DT has contact with him either.

With the B17 I meant A17 (Nomad) but I guess there aren't so many sources.

[mcmmielli]

Some planes in games flayable:
- Fiat G-55
- MS406/410
- HS-123
- Ki-21
- B-17F/G
- Mosquito B IV
- Su-2
- S-328
- Swordfish

[Pursuivant]

I guess a Hellcat and Lancaster are possibles then.

Since it's a Grumman product any further development on Hellcat variants is off limits.


If it is not a taboo question, does DT have contact with Japancat who produced the modded Ki-44?

Not a taboo question, but I don't know. Some modders don't like DT. Other modders appear to have lost interest in the game and have moved on.


With the B17 I meant A17 (Nomad) but I guess there aren't so many sources.

That's a rare bird! Variants were used in combat by Netherlands and Iraq with minimal success. Other variants were ordered by Sweden, Argentina, Peru and other nations but never used in combat. Another variant was ordered by France but arrived too late, so the French order was taken over by the RAF and then the RCAF, which used it as a trainer.

I guess it could be used as a hack for similar hapless, single-engined attack bomber types, such as the CW-22 and A-27.

Since there are surviving A-17s, theoretically there is sufficient data to add the plane to the game. But, consider that if you're asking for someone to spend several hundred of hours building a 3d model, wouldn't you want the same effort to go into a more common plane, or at least one which more development potential or played a more critical role in the war?

[iMattheush]

Any chances to add at least one plane marked with "*"? It's important, because we're talking about IL-2 1946 :)

[Orangeman]

I think the Spitfire XIV and the Ki-44 would be top priority for me. The former as the RAF has no 1944-46 state of the art fighters and the Ki-44 as it is the biggest gap in the Japanese line-up.

I'll see if I can get in touch with Japancat




Since it's a Grumman product any further development on Hellcat variants is off limits.



Not a taboo question, but I don't know. Some modders don't like DT. Other modders appear to have lost interest in the game and have moved on.



That's a rare bird! Variants were used in combat by Netherlands and Iraq with minimal success. Other variants were ordered by Sweden, Argentina, Peru and other nations but never used in combat. Another variant was ordered by France but arrived too late, so the French order was taken over by the RAF and then the RCAF, which used it as a trainer.

I guess it could be used as a hack for similar hapless, single-engined attack bomber types, such as the CW-22 and A-27.

Since there are surviving A-17s, theoretically there is sufficient data to add the plane to the game. But, consider that if you're asking for someone to spend several hundred of hours building a 3d model, wouldn't you want the same effort to go into a more common plane, or at least one which more development potential or played a more critical role in the war?

[Marabekm]

I have a request.
Get rid of the dates on the plane names. That way individuals will stop the misguided thinking that a plane that saw service in say 1943, was immediately obsolete and not used any more in 1944 or 45.

Lets take for instance the Hurricane Mk1. Labeled as 1938 in the game. This plane was the main British fighter in north Africa until slowly being replaced by the Tomahawks and then Kittyhawks in 1941-42. Quite capable of holding its own against Italian fighters such as Cr-42 (1939), Mc-200(1940-41), etc. Though a bit harder to fight against the 109E/Fs.

[gaunt1]

I think the Spitfire XIV and the Ki-44 would be top priority for me.

+100!!!

For German side, I'd add flyable Ju-88C6a (day fighter) variant.

[Pursuivant]

I have a request.
Get rid of the dates on the plane names. That way individuals will stop the misguided thinking that a plane that saw service in say 1943, was immediately obsolete and not used any more in 1944 or 45.

This is a very, very easy fix that you might even be able to do yourself. All that is required is editing the appropriate ".ini" file.

While the year of introduction is useful info for mission builders and people using dogfight servers, it could be moved to the "view objects" screen.

Other than that, just assume that an aircraft might have remained in service long after it was introduced despite being progressively obsolete, like Brewster B-239 and Hurricane Mk. I in Finnish service.

But, if we're talking about upgrading the the "view object information" feature of the game there's lots that could be done.

* Reduce or remove the historical section. It's irrelevant for a particular plane model.

* Add a screenshot of the cockpit for aircraft, along with a numbered list of positions for relevant gauges.

* Add useful information that you'd want to know when fighting or flying a particular airplane - like best cornering speed, maximum manifold pressure, take-off manifold pressure, take-off and landing distances, amount of ammunition, location of vulnerable points, armor location, etc.

* Add useful information for mission builders, like month and year of introduction, month and year of withdrawal from active service, units which used the type, and total units produced.

[sniperton]

This is a very, very easy fix that you might even be able to do yourself. All that is required is editing the appropriate ".ini" file.


The appropriate '.ini' files are not accessible in the stock game, I'm afraid. What you mean is probably the plane.properties BTW. ;)

As to the rest, TD would only need to create a form and a protocol how external data could be imported, and the rest could be done by the community. But honestly, the object viewer is far not as handy as good old AircraftViewer used to be.

[RPS69]

I used to research each scenery, I used to build missions with apropriate aircraft, and always complained about the lack of some models in particular.
To the point of avoiding entering in some of them for the few actors available.

For example the Su-2. On 1941 it was used widely, much more than the famous il-2 on the eastern front.
The Do17, the He-112 for a romanian campaign.
The Pzl 24 for the balkans map. The Bf110c, the french bombers, and the D520.
Now for the frecnh campaign we got the Hawk-75, it was actually the major type on the french air force.

Easch scenery got someone missing, but it is becoming better and better.

[Pursuivant]

The appropriate '.ini' files are not accessible in the stock game, I'm afraid. What you mean is probably the plane.properties BTW. ;)

Yes. plane.properties.

But honestly, the object viewer is far not as handy as good old AircraftViewer used to be.

Not as available, but easier to update.

[Pursuivant]

I used to research each scenery, I used to build missions with apropriate aircraft, and always complained about the lack of some models in particular.

Agreed. There are certain maps and campaigns which just can't be done correctly without adding a number of "obscure" units to the game. That is, units which were used during a few campaigns and no place else.

Mostly, they concern early war scenarios. Off the top of my head "obscure" aircraft which would be needed for a particular theater are:

China 1939-41: Ki-10 "Perry", Ki-30 "Ann," Ki-32 "Mary", Ki-51 "Sonia," A4N, B4Y "Jean", B5N1 "Kate," G3M1 "Nell". Curtiss A-12 Shrike, Curtiss Hawk III, Curtiss Hawk 75M, Dewoitine D.510, Martin B-10 (139WC).

Poland 1939: PZL P.7, PZL.23 Karas, PZL.37 Los. BF-109D-1, Bf-109D-3, Do.17Z, He-111P, Hs.126.

France 1939-40: Br. 693 series, Curtiss Hawk H75A-1, D.520 series, DB-7B-3, F.220, Late' 298 series, LN.401 series, LeO.45 series, Glen Martin 167F, MB.150 series, MB.200 series, MS.406 series, Potez 630 series. Battle Mk. I, Lysander Mk. I. Bf-109E-1, DFS 230 glider, Do.17Z, Hs.126.

Battle of Britain 1940: Bf-109E-1, Do.17Z, He.115 series. Anson series, Defiant Mk. I, Hampden Mk.I, Hudson Mk. I, Oxford Mk.I, Sea Otter Mk.II, Spitfire Mk. I, Sunderland Mk.I.

North Africa/Mediterranean 1940-43: Bf-110D & E series, He-115 series. Ba.64, Br.20, CANT Z.501, Cr.32 (and probably other Italian types). Albacore series, Barracuda series, Baltimore series, Bombay Mk. I, Boston Mk. I, II, III, & IIIA, Havoc Mk. III, Liberator Mk. II/LB-30, Hurricane Mk. IID & IV, Kittyhawk Mk. II, IIA, & III, Lysander Mk. I, Maryland series, Mitchell Mk. I, Sea Gladiator series, Sea Hurricane series, Sea Otter Mk. II. B-25B Mitchell, P-38E, F, G & H models, P-40 F, G, K, L, & N models.

Battle for Greece 1941: PZL P.24F & G, Breguet 19. Ba.64, Br.20, CANT Z.501, Cr.32 series (and probably others).

Southwest Pacific (i.e., Malaysia, Philippines, Dutch East Indies, Australia) 1941-42: Ki-30 "Ann," Ki-32 "Mary", Ki-51 "Sonia," D3A1 Model 22 & D3A2 "Val," G3M2 "Nell", H6K "Mavis". Buffalo Mk. I Field Mod., Mohawk series, Wirraway series, Hudson series. Curtiss H75A-7, Martin B-10B and 139WH, Dornier Do.24. Beech 18, Consolidated LB-30, Consolidated PBY series, P-26A, P-35A, P-38E, F & G models.

CBI 1942-45: Ki-32 "Mary", Ki-51 "Sonia," Ki-44 "Tojo" series. Hurricane Mk. IID & IV, Vengeance series. B-25B, C-46 Commando, P-43A, P-40 F, G, K, L & N models.

SW Pacific 1943-45: As for 1941-42, but also Commonwealth Boomerang, Vultee Vengeance, B-26A, P-47C-10, P-38 G & H series.

Romania: He-112, JRS-79, PZL P.24E & F.

Hungary: Ca.309, MAGAV Heja (Re.2000 variant), Me-210, WM-21 Sólyom

[sniperton]

Hungary had one of the weakest and smallest air forces among minor nations. Early-war planeset:

CR-32quater (76), CR-42 (60), Re.2000 (70);
Ju 86K-2 (66), Ca.135bis (36);
He-46E-2 (36), He-70K (18 ), WM-21 (altogether 128 until 1942);

Apart from these types used 'in numbers', there were some other obscure types in service, but typically with less than 6 planes each: Fw-58, Ca.101/3m, SM-75, FIAT G.12, He-111P, Do-215B-4, Ar-96.

Later in the war (after 1942) most of them were replaced with second-hand German equipment. (The licence-built Re.2000 version (200 built after 1942) was mainly used in second-line home defence.) The only flavour of the later-war Hungarian planeset was the home-manufactured Me-210Ca-1, which proved to be quite effective. But I think it was the same as with the Finnish: when you learnt surviving in a crap plane, you feel like a god in a mediocre one... :)

[dimlee]

Yer-2 for Eastern Front.... Ar-2 as well...
Ah, wait, are we going in another circle again and again? ;)

[Marabekm]

North Africa/Mediterranean 1940-43: Bf-110D & E series, He-115 series. Ba.64, Br.20, CANT Z.501, Cr.32 (and probably other Italian types). Albacore series, Barracuda series, Baltimore series, Bombay Mk. I, Boston Mk. I, II, III, & IIIA, Havoc Mk. III, Liberator Mk. II/LB-30, Hurricane Mk. IID & IV, Kittyhawk Mk. II, IIA, & III, Lysander Mk. I, Maryland series, Mitchell Mk. I, Sea Gladiator series, Sea Hurricane series, Sea Otter Mk. II. B-25B Mitchell, P-38E, F, G & H models, P-40 F, G, K, L, & N models.

P-40M is same as Kittyhawk Mk III
A-20C is same as Boston (not sure which Mk though)

[Pursuivant]

P-40M is same as Kittyhawk Mk III
A-20C is same as Boston (not sure which Mk though)

I'm a bit confused about exactly what the RAF considered to be a Kittyhawk Mk. III. The RAF appeared to call both late production P-40L and early production P-40M variants by the name of Kittyhawk Mk. III.

I'm also not sure what, if any, British equipment was fitted on Lend-Lease aircraft. In game terms, if the Kittyhawk III has any differences to its cockpit, DM or FM from the P-40M or L, it has to be treated as a new plane. Otherwise, the ability to carry Soviet or British ordinance can just be treated as loadout variants to the basic US plane type.

The A-20C is a different bird from the early Boston series. There was extensive production of the precursor to the A-20, the DB-7, for both France and the UK prior to the Lend-Lease act in 1941. The aircraft in this series were built to French and later British standards. There was lots of French/British equipment fitted as at the factory, even though the planes were built in the US.

The Boston Mk. I is the British conversion of the French DB-7. The Boston Mk. II is either the British conversion of the French DB-7A, or a Boston Mk. I with improved engines. But, most Boston Mk.II were quickly turned into Havoc I night fighters.

The Boston Mk. III is either a converted French DB-73, or a DB-7B ordered directly by the RAF.

The original USAAF A-20 sort of corresponds to the DB-7B, but of course the USAAF wanted its own equipment installed, which necessitated the new variant.

The A-20B sort of corresponded to the DB-7A, with lighter armor than the DB-7B. But, it had American equipment rather than British.

The A-20C was the first attempt to create a "universal" version of the A-20 series which could be used by the US and all its allies.

[Pursuivant]

Hungary had one of the weakest and smallest air forces among minor nations.

Rivaled only by Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, which aren't even in the game!

Good write-up of what it would take to get a complete Hungarian order of battle.

Currently, we have the Bf-109, Bf-110, CR-42, FW-189, FW-190, He-111, Me-210, and Re.2000. That's a good selection of aircraft for a minor air force, but there's nothing there that you can't get by flying for the Luftwaffe or Regia Aeronautica. It would be fun and interesting if there was at least one "rare bird" which was unique to the Hungarian Air Force.

While it's utterly ridiculous to include it in the game, I've always had a soft spot for the WM.23 Ezust Nyil. Logically, it would make more sense to add the WM.21 Solyom or the Me-210C.

[Pursuivant]

Yer-2 for Eastern Front.... Ar-2 as well...
Ah, wait, are we going in another circle again and again? ;)

The Soviet "rare birds" which aren't in the game, but which were produced in decent numbers, and which saw some degree of combat action are: Antonov A-7, Be-4, Shavrov Sh-2, Scherbabov Shche-2, Yak-2, Yak-4, Yak-6, UT-1

[Sita]

Antonov A-7, Be-4, Shavrov Sh-2, Scherbabov Shche-2, Yak-2, Yak-4, Yak-6, UT-1



we don't have good reffs for more famous plane like Su2 and others ...

[sniperton]

Good write-up of what it would take to get a complete Hungarian order of battle.

For me it doesn't seem reasonable to have such a complete OOB. One obsolate plane is not much different than the other, and only those are worth the effort which were used in quantities by other nations as well (e.g. Cr-32, also used by Italy in the ground attack role). Having a WM-21 doesn't make much sense for me, all the more so as Hungarian aircrew preferred the He-46 to it. Obsolate bombers are more reasonable to have (as AI-only planes), for they remained in service for long as transports.

[iMattheush]

What do you think about jets like Gloster Meteor or even Republic XP-84 prototype? Is it possible to add some 1946-era planes? Meteor is even from '44 (f.3) or '45 (f.4)... Meteor can be used in intercepting v-1/ar-234 missions

[gaunt1]

No way, especially prototypes. Maybe after planes like Typhoon, Spit XIV, Tu-2, Ju-88C6, Me-410, or Ki-44 are added. These are far more important.

[Marabekm]

Rivaled only by Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, which aren't even in the game!

Yugoslavia is kind of in game. Not as a selectable country, but we do have some of the aircraft.
You have to substitute the BF-109E4 for the 109E3, (And download Yugoslav skins somewhere for it.
Also the IK-3 was added in 4.12 something. (It has the Yugoslav skin already)
And the Sm-79 also saw service with the Yugoslav air force( but this could have been the 2 engine version like Romania used, I am not sure.)

[Pursuivant]

we don't have good reffs for more famous plane like Su2 and others ...

Isn't there a surviving Su-2 at the Museum of the Great Patriotic War, or, is it a replica?

If it's real, that would make it easier to get pictures of the cockpit and turret interior.

Your point about not having good reference materials is extremely important, and something most players forget.

It's not enough to just have a simple 3-view drawing, an artist's profile of the camouflage scheme, general data on dimensions, armament, and flight performance, and a few anecdotal pilot's reports.

Ideally, you want factory blueprints, pilot and mechanics manuals, plenty of flight testing reports with performance graphs, and access to a surviving example of the aircraft in factory-fresh condition.

It's even better if the flight test reports cover testing of the first production machines and tests of captured aircraft (likely to be in poorer shape and more typical of production aircraft in the field), not just tests of the prototype.

For rare aircraft - particularly early war aircraft - some or all of this data is missing. There are no surviving aircraft because they all got destroyed or were recycled to make new aircraft. Manuals and test reports got lost or were destroyed during the war or soon after.

The manufacturer of the aircraft has probably been out of business for 70 years, so nobody remembers how the plane was made, and production records and blueprints were lost long ago.

Aircrew who flew the obscure type were never very common to begin with, and many died during the war. In any case, they're all going to be dead now, and because they flew an obscure aircraft type, it's very likely that nobody thought to interview them about that plane while they were alive.

All that means that someone trying to model an obscure plane has to fill in the gaps himself and make some guesses about actual flight performance. It helps if you have an advanced degree in aeronautical engineering. :)

[Pursuivant]

No way, especially prototypes. Maybe after planes like Typhoon, Spit XIV, Tu-2, Ju-88C6, Me-410, or Ki-44 are added. These are far more important.

I think that "Luftwaffe 1946" is lowest priority, but the Gloster Meteor Mk. I was operational during WW2 and did useful work shooting down V-1s.

I'd still put it further back in the queue compared to many other planes, however.

[Pursuivant]

Yugoslavia is kind of in game. Not as a selectable country, but we do have some of the aircraft.

The IK-3 is one of my favorite "rare birds" in the game.

Bf-109E-3 could easily be added to the game along with the E-1.

I can understand the decision to not include some of the "minor nations" in IL2, though. Mostly its because we don't have suitable maps and voice packs.
To some extent, it's because there doesn't appear to be that much of a fan base for IL2 in certain countries.

[RPS69]

I think that "Luftwaffe 1946" is lowest priority, but the Gloster Meteor Mk. I was operational during WW2 and did useful work shooting down V-1s.

I'd still put it further back in the queue compared to many other planes, however.

Argentinian's may like to have it as a 1946, because it saw a little action overe there on some political turmoils.

[iMattheush]

Meteor Mk.3 was used more extensively (v-1s AND combat flies over Germany in the last months of war) than Mk.1 (V-1), and look at the numbers. Since 8 may of 1945, there was only 20 Mk.1s and over 100 Mk.3s

[shelby]

d3a2 a6m2-22 ki43iii ki61tei and some g4m2 variants

[gaunt1]

d3a2 a6m2-22 ki43iii ki61tei and some g4m2 variants

Ki-46 Tei would be really useful I think. Most produced variant of this beautiful plane. It wouldnt be too hard to make, just the fuselage needs to be extended a little bit. This extension was already present on the Hei, so the model ingame is wrong.

[shelby]

Here is some useful info about the ww2 aircrafts :)
http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/full/tour-std.html

[Pursuivant]

Meteor Mk.3 was used more extensively (v-1s AND combat flies over Germany in the last months of war) than Mk.1 (V-1), and look at the numbers. Since 8 may of 1945, there was only 20 Mk.1s and over 100 Mk.3s

You're right. I had forgotten that a later mark made it into action before the war ended.

Sadly, the Meteor never encountered the Me-262 in combat. That's a dogfight mission I'd love to fly, although my money would be on the Me-262.

[Igo kyu]

Sadly, the Meteor never encountered the Me-262 in combat. That's a dogfight mission I'd love to fly, although my money would be on the Me-262.

Why would you think that?

[dimlee]

Why would you think that?

I'd bet on Me-262 as well under equal terms. Rate of climb is main advantage, IMHO. There were many discussions around this topic in past...

[Nil]

d3a2
Yes! that would be nice! as the d3a1 becomes quickly obselete
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/1027/pics/65_75.jpg

[mcmmielli]

These Fighter deserves be flyable, the best italian Fighter.
And maybe Flayable MS 506/508, some French planes.

[Pursuivant]

Why would you think that?

The Me-262's swept wing design made it the superior aircraft at higher speeds. Top speed for the Me-262 is nearly 70 mph (~115 kph) faster than the Gloster Meteor Mk. III at at altitude and probably at sea level as well. That gives the Me-262 the advantage since it can choose to fight or run away. Huge advantage: Me-262.

At a glance, it also appears that the Me-262's "weight of fire" is vastly superior - 4 x 30 mm cannons vs. 4 x 20 mm cannons for the Meteor. But, both planes pack enough of a punch that victory will (usually) go to the pilot who draws first blood. Slight advantage: Me-262.

Range/Loiter Time is about 30% better for the Messerschmitt. That means more time to patrol and less chance of running short of fuel in a dogfight. Advantage: Me-262

But, looking more carefully at the numbers the Meteor has some significant advantages as well.

Wing-loading (i.e., manueverability) is 38.2 lb/sq ft for the Meteor, but a whopping 61 lb/sq ft for the Me-262. There are bombers with better performance. Unquestionably, the Meteor will be the more agile aircraft. Big advantage: Meteor.

Rate of Climb is slightly better in the Gloster Meteor, but only marginally so. Slight advantage: Meteor.

Maximum altitude is far higher for the Gloster Meteor: 46,000 ft vs. ~37,600 ft for the Me-262. That's a decisive advantage since the Meteor can choose when and where to engage by flying at altitudes well above the Me-262's service ceiling. It's also likely that the Meteor's comparative performance will be much better at high altitude. Big advantage: Meteor.

Hypothetically, Meteor pilots should fly their planes against the Me-262 like Zero pilots did against early war US aircraft - use altitude advantage set the terms of the engagement, then use maneuver fighting to get the kill. If they get into trouble, turn hard to break contact, try to extend range while the Me-262 is turning back into the fight, then use the slight climb advantage and superior service ceiling to get out of danger.

At low to medium altitudes where the Me-262 has the edge in speed, Meteor pilots will need to use team tactics to neutralize their opponent's advantage.

On the other side, Me-262 pilots should use their considerable speed advantage to refuse unequal fights. When the odds are on their side, they should use energy fighting tactics and team tactics at low to medium altitudes to get the kill. If they get into trouble, open the throttle and/or dive away.

So, both planes have some big advantages which allow the one to easily beat the other when fighting on their own terms. In that case, all things being equal, it comes down to pilot skill - in particular the ability to set up a fight on your terms and not get sucked into a fight where you're at a disadvantage.

[shelby]

this one :)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNYuq67uf4E

[Pursuivant]

this one :)

Given the year, the location, and the squadrons involved, that will probably be a P-40N-1-CU or P-40N-5-CU AKA Kittyhawk IV.

Not exactly pertinent to this topic, but please note the wing damage to two planes in the video. In the IL2 game, wing damage that severe would be fatal, yet the plane with the rear third of its port wing blown away was able to fly 200 miles and make a successful landing!

[Verdun1916]

It would be really nice to have the MS.406 and 410 (Mörkö-version aswell maybe) upgraded to flyable status. A flyable French fighter is needed I think. And if not the MS, maybe the Dewoitine D.520 could be introduced.

A flyable Blenheim-version and Swordfish would also be very nice, aswell as/or the Wellington.

The Ar-196A-3 would be nice to see upgraded to flyable status, just as the B6N2.

Another Dream woul be to have the Short Sunderland introduced aswell, prefarely as a flyable.

Ah well...on can always dream!

Thanks for a great job so far TD! And thank you in advance for all future efforts you embark on aswell! :)

[Pursuivant]

It would be really nice to have the MS.406 and 410 (Mörkö-version aswell maybe) upgraded to flyable status. A flyable French fighter is needed I think. And if not the MS, maybe the Dewoitine D.520 could be introduced.

Given your user name, it's no surprise you have a fondness for the French!

I agree about the MS.406 and 410, since this was arguably the best Finnish early war fighter. There should be both Finnish and French cockpits. The Mörkö was only built as a prototype series, so isn't that important to have it flyable.

There was a D.520 in the works by a 3rd party modder, but I think that project failed. Despite that, the D.520 would be a nice addition to the game since in addition to being France's best fighter in 1940, it was used in combat by several Axis countries in the Middle East and on the Eastern Front.

+1 for your other suggestions. A flyable Blenheim would aid both the Finns and the early War British line-up, while a flyable Swordfish would be very useful for North African and Malta maps.


Another Dream would be to have the Short Sunderland introduced aswell, prefarely as a flyable.

There is a gorgeous-looking Sunderland Mk I which has recently been released as a mod. Polygon count is probably way to high to ever allow it to be "official" and there might be other problems, but it sure looks great!

[sniperton]

There was a D.520 in the works by a 3rd party modder, but I think that project failed.

There are two modded D.520 versions (C1 and S) available in WAW#20. The one has no working cockpit instruments, but the other seemed to me fine when I briefly picked it up for a test flight. And the D.520 is a beautiful plane...

[Pursuivant]

There are two modded D.520 versions (C1 and S) available in WAW#20. The one has no working cockpit instruments, but the other seemed to me fine when I briefly picked it up for a test flight. And the D.520 is a beautiful plane...

I think that the developer of the D.520 didn't want to play by TD's rules regarding polygon count and released at least one variant of the plane as a mod.

Sad, because it would be wonderful to have the D.520 as an "official" plane.

[Treetop64]

+1 for the retexturing/rebuilding of existing cockpits over bringing in yet moar planes. The new pits for the Polikarpovs are great. The 109s and MiG-3s in particular are long overdue for an interior makeover and, for latter, exterior makeover as well.

An unbelievable amount of planes is in the game already, many of which I still haven't flown despite more than a decade of playing the game. Would rather see what is already there be further refined than to cram in more stuff.

If anything is going to be added, what the game could really benefit from is more ship types, especially the conspicuously absent Pacific types.

[iMattheush]

What do you think about these 2 airplanes? b-29d flew in may 1945 and was known as b-50, and c-54 was in use from 1942

[Pursuivant]

What do you think about these 2 airplanes? b-29d flew in may 1945 and was known as b-50, and c-54 was in use from 1942

Four questions we should ask ourselves when requesting a particular plane:

1) Was a particular plane built in significant numbers during the WW2 era?

2) Did a particular plane see combat to any great degree during the WW2 era?

3) Was a particular plane critical to a particular country's war effort?

4) Could a particular plane's role be more or less filled in a given scenario by another plane currently in the IL2 line-up? (i.e., how "unique" is it?)

For the B-29D/B-50, the answers are No, No, No, and Yes, the B-29A.

For the C-54, the answers are Yes, No, No, and Yes, the C-47.

So, in both cases, while these aircraft are interesting and important in their own ways, they aren't good candidates to include - at least for a WW2 sim. OTOH, for a Korean War/Early Cold War sim, both of these planes would be very important.

Like it or not, there's a whole lot of very cool US hardware which should never be in IL-2, because it was never deployed in significant numbers outside the Continental US during WW2, and because by the time certain planes were introduced, the Western Allies had complete air superiority over the Axis powers.

[sniperton]

Well, your test questions (which are very well chosen) point (with no shaking hand) to British heavies in ETO/MTO and to NG planes in PTO... ;)

[iMattheush]

B-29A is in game? I thought it was standard B-29, because it can easy lose it's wing during intercepting like B-29, B-29A had strenghtened and redesigned wing which are a lot stronger and endure. In the other hand, in-game model has four .50 HMGs in top-front turret, like B-29A. So, which plane is in game?

[Pursuivant]

B-29A is in game? I thought it was standard B-29, because it can easy lose it's wing during intercepting like B-29, B-29A had strenghtened and redesigned wing which are a lot stronger and endure.

Technically, the game just calls the B-29 in the game the "B-29", so you're right.

B-29s were extensively modified as soon as they came off the production lines, or were modified in the field, so the 4-gun top turret could represent a later block of B-29 production.

One of the small changes to IL2 which might be easy to implement, would be to give more detailed model information for some of the US planes. For example, what exact model and production block is the P-47 originally released in Forgotten Battles, or the B-29 originally released with Pacific Fighters?

[Pursuivant]

Well, your test questions (which are very well chosen) point (with no shaking hand) to British heavies in ETO/MTO and to NG planes in PTO... ;)

Yes. Unless you want to expand IL2 to whole new theaters/campaigns, in which case you'd almost need entirely new games because of all the new maps and units which would be needed.

[iMattheush]

Technically, the game just calls the B-29 in the game the "B-29", so you're right.

B-29s were extensively modified as soon as they came off the production lines, or were modified in the field, so the 4-gun top turret could represent a later block of B-29 production.

One of the small changes to IL2 which might be easy to implement, would be to give more detailed model information for some of the US planes. For example, what exact model and production block is the P-47 originally released in Forgotten Battles, or the B-29 originally released with Pacific Fighters?

Great idea! :)

[sniperton]

Yes. Unless you want to expand IL2 to whole new theaters/campaigns, in which case you'd almost need entirely new games because of all the new maps and units which would be needed.

My point is that what should be given first preference (in an ideal world) is beyond the scope of Il2 for one reason or another: NG planes because of the NG case, British heavies because they are 1) difficult to make, 2) involve night fighting (which some players enjoy, others don't). Here comes in what we could term the enjoyment factor, and in this respect I would vote for the second rank (seen historically), that is, flyable Blenheims and planes like the D.520.

[RPS69]

Reading a book about the jabo staffel over britain, I was surprised by a picture of a prbsble Mustang P-51B with apparently 2 .50's under the nose.?

[Pursuivant]

My point is that what should be given first preference (in an ideal world) is beyond the scope of Il2 for one reason or another: NG planes because of the NG case, British heavies because they are 1) difficult to make, 2) involve night fighting (which some players enjoy, others don't).

Obviously, any NG planes are dead to IL2. I can't see any way around it other than mods, or 1c/Ubisoft selling the IL2 franchise to another owner and then that new owner paying the "trademark trolls".

FWIW, some of the earliest British heavy bombers (Short Stirling) were used for daylight precision bombing raids, based on the mistaken doctrine that "the bomber will always get through.

Later marks of the Lancaster were also designed for daylight raids over Japan, and, of course, 617 "Dambuster" squadron used their specially modified Lancasters to make daylight raids using "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam" bombs.

So, it's not completely unrealistic to have RAF heavies flying in the daytime.

Here comes in what we could term the enjoyment factor, and in this respect I would vote for the second rank (seen historically), that is, flyable Blenheims and planes like the D.520.

One additional criteria that I didn't mention is "ubiquitousness". That is, how many different countries used a particular plane, and how many different theaters was it used in?

By that criteria, the Blenheim really needs to be flyable - as a Finnish and UK/RAAF plane - because it was used during the war by Australia, Canada, Croatia, Finland, Greece, New Zealand, Romania, Turkey, UK, and Yugoslavia. And, it was used on every front. So, I'd put it at the top of my list of "planes to make flyable."

The D.520 is on my personal "top 5" wish list, although it really wasn't that important after the Battle of France. That said, it was used in limited numbers by Italy and a several minor Axis nations, and saw action on the Eastern Front (Bulgaria), Middle Eastern Front (Syria, Morocco), Italy, and Western Front (France). It was also the best French fighter, and second only to the MS.406/410 series in numbers, so meets the "critically important to the national war effort" and "built in large numbers" criteria.

[Fighterace]

Is the Spitfire Mk XVI or XIV possible for a future update?

[Pursuivant]

Is the Spitfire Mk XVI or XIV possible for a future update?

Possible, yes. There are no legal restrictions on including it, and there's plenty of data on performance, cockpit arrangements, etc. should someone wish to make it.

Likely? Who knows. The Spit Mk XIV exists as a mod, but I don't know how good it is, and whether the modder who made it would be willing to share his work.

[gaunt1]

Is the Spitfire Mk XVI or XIV possible for a future update?

XVI makes no sense, its just a IX with Packard engine. Same performance.
On the other hand, XIV would be sweet! I really miss this beautiful plane.

[HBPencil]

Reading a book about the jabo staffel over britain, I was surprised by a picture of a prbsble Mustang P-51B with apparently 2 .50's under the nose.?

Guns under the nose would make it a Mustang Mk I, so more like the P-51A (with different armament of course) rather than the P-51B as it had the Allison engine rather than the Merlin.

[RPS69]

Guns under the nose would make it a Mustang Mk I, so more like the P-51A (with different armament of course) rather than the P-51B as it had the Allison engine rather than the Merlin.

Tks on the insight.

[Pursuivant]

FWIW, the Allison engine Mustangs which saw combat were:

Mustang Mk I - 2 x 0.50 cal BMG in nose, 4 x 0.30 cal BMG & 2 x .50 cal BMG in wings (mounted with .50 caliber between the .30 calibers in each wing). No bombs or drop tanks. 620 built, most sent to RAF.

Mustang Mk IA/P-51 Mustang - improved engine, 4 x 20 mm Hispano Mk II cannons in wings. 93 built, mostly used by RAF.

A-36 Apache/Invader/Mustang - improved engine, strengthened wing, dive flaps, 6 x .50 cal BMG - 2 in nose, 4 in wings, hard points for 2 x 500 lb. bombs, plumbing for 2 x 75 (later 85 gallon) drop tanks. Used in combat in the MTO (Morocco, Italy), and CBI Theater (Burma, China). 500 built.

[Tinpanzer87]

Henschel Hs 123
Aichi D1A
Cant Z.1007 Alcione
Gloster Meteor
CAC Boomerang
Junkers Ju 388 night fighter
Piaggio P.108
flyable Tupolev Tu-2
:cool:

[Pursuivant]

Henschel Hs 123
Aichi D1A
Cant Z.1007 Alcione
Gloster Meteor
CAC Boomerang
Junkers Ju 388 night fighter
Piaggio P.108
flyable Tupolev Tu-2
:cool:


Hs-123 and Cant Z.1007bis already exist in the game.

Aichi D1A would be useful for Sino-Japanese war scenarios, but didn't see combat during the Pacific war. Since the Sino-Japanese war would basically require a whole new game, perhaps not such a good choice.

CAC Boomerang would be an good choice for SW Pacific scenarios and would help to round out the existing Order of Battle for the New Guinea maps. It was built in large numbers, was probably the best indigenous Australian design of the war, was a major part of the RAAF's campaign to drive the Japanese from New Guinea. It certainly fits into IL2's tactical air combat focus. It's only weakness as a candidate is that it wasn't used outside of the SW Pacific theater.

Ju-388 - As a bomber or night fighter is another interesting choice. But, it was built in small numbers, wasn't that widely used, and wasn't the most important night fighter in the Luftwaffe inventory. Given my choice for just one limited-production, late war, bad-ass, German nightfighter I'd go with the He-219, but the Ju-388 also has the same "cool factor." But, historically, the Ju-88C-6b, -R series, or G-6 would have been more common.

Piaggio P.108 - Another very cool "rare bird," but built in tiny numbers, used with very limited success, and not nearly as important to Italy's bomber force as the SM-79 and similar planes. Even so, it would help to round out Italy's Order of Battle.

Tu-2 - I'm surprised that this bomber hasn't gotten more love from the 1c or DT guys. It was an excellent design, built in large numbers, used for the entire duration of the war on all areas of the Eastern front. It was tough, fast, was well-liked by its crews, and apparently fun to fly. The only reason it stays in the shadows is because the Pe-2 was even more common, and was just as successful. Even so, I think that the Tu-2 would let me survive damage which would kill a Pe-2. Let's hope that this plane is on Sita's short list of projects.

[Sita]

Let's hope that this plane is on Sita's short list of projects.

unfurtunatly in my sight some other plane for now ...

[gaunt1]

My list:

German:
Bf-110C4, flyable
Bf-110F2, flyable
Ju-88C6 day fighter, flyable
Me-410, AI

UK:
Hurricane IA, 1940 version, flyable
Spitfire IA, flyable
Spitfire XIV, flyable
Typhoon IB, preferably flyable,

US:
P-47C, Flyable
P-38 early version, for example G. Flyable
B-26B Marauder, AI

Japan:
Ki-44-II, flyable
Ki-61-I Tei, flyable (+corrected Hei)

Soviet:
Tu-2, flyable

[Orangeman]

Seconded:grin::grin::grin:


My list:

German:
Bf-110C4, flyable
Bf-110F2, flyable
Ju-88C6 day fighter, flyable
Me-410, AI

UK:
Hurricane IA, 1940 version, flyable
Spitfire IA, flyable
Spitfire XIV, flyable
Typhoon IB, preferably flyable,

US:
P-47C, Flyable
P-38 early version, for example G. Flyable
B-26B Marauder, AI

Japan:
Ki-44-II, flyable
Ki-61-I Tei, flyable (+corrected Hei)

Soviet:
Tu-2, flyable

[Pursuivant]

My list:

That would fill in most of the really big holes in the mid- to late-war order of battle, without extending the game into theaters which would take new maps, objects, etc.


German:

Possibly add:
Bf-109E-1, flyable (natural opponent for the Spitfire Mk.I and Hurricane Mk.II)
Ju-88G-6 NF, flyable.

UK:
Definitely add:
Blenheim Mk. I &/or Mk. IV, flyable (Finnish & UK).

Possibly add:
early mark of Boston (A-20), AI (some also used by USSR)
Martin Maryland, AI
Early mark of Beaufighter, flyable - NF and/or strike fighter variant.
Any British heavy bomber, AI
Sea Gladiator
Sea Hurricane
Swordfish, flyable

USSR
possibly add:
A-20G with Soviet turret (like on SB-2).

US:
Definitely add:
One mid-war P-40 variant, for example, P-40M
possibly:
P-51 late variant, for example H, flyable.

Japan:
definitely add:
One late war IJA bomber, for example, Ki-67, preferably flyable.
One "mid war" version of G4M, flyable.
Early to mid-war IJA attack bomber/ground attack type, for example, Ki-51, preferably flyable.

Finland
Blenheim Mk. I & Mk. IV, flyable

France
Definitely add:
Curtiss H.75-A3, flyable
MS.406 & 410, flyable

possibly add:
D.520, ideally flyable (saw combat in MTO, used by Italy)
DB.7, AI (saw combat in MTO)
Martin M.167 (AKA Martin Maryland), AI
Potez 63 series, AI
LeO 451, AI

Italy
possibly add:
Ba.64

Poland
possibly add
PZL P.24 variant (used by Romania, Greece)

[redarrows2006]

GBR:
1.Boulton Paul Defiant, AI
2.Blackburn Skua/Rock, AI
3.Walrus Mk1, Flyable
4.De Havilland DH 82 Tiger Moth, Flyable
5.Handley Page HP.52 Hampden, AI

GER:
1.Blohm Voss 138, AI
2.Henschel He 112, Flyable
3.Dornier Do 24, Flyable
4.Arado Ar 196, Flyable

[Pursuivant]

GBR:
1.Boulton Paul Defiant, AI


Built in limited numbers, unsuccessful as a day fighter, and quickly withdrawn from service. As an AI plane, it would be unchallenging for any player who knows the trick of how to fight it. Fits into the "cool, but unimportant" category, along with planes like the Westland Whirlwind, He-100, or Me-163 (yes, it's in the game, but how often do you fly it?)

BUT, as a night fighter, it was very successful from 1940-41, so would be a useful add-on if IL2 were model the "Night Blitz" attacks by Germany over the UK in late 1940-early 1941.


2.Blackburn Skua/Rock, AI

Actually two planes. Both built in limited numbers early in the war and unsuccessful. Got their butts kicked over Norway and Dunkirk and soon withdrawn from service. Only useful as add-ons if IL2 were to ever expand to cover Invasion of Norway or Invasion of France scenarios.


3.Walrus Mk1, Flyable


+1. The quintessential RAF air-sea rescue plane. Very useful for MTO and Western Front ops, particularly if IL2 were to continue its focus on anti-shipping/maritime ops in the MTO. Also used by the RAAF, although mostly for coastal patrols well away from active war zones. Arguably, the PBN Nomad could substitute, but the "shagbat" was used earlier and in greater numbers by the RAF.


4.De Havilland DH 82 Tiger Moth, Flyable

Fun to have, but unimportant when rounding out the order of battle for existing maps and combatants. This is because it was never intentionally used in a combat role and was seldom a target because the UK quickly reestablished air superiority over its home territory after the Battle of Britain. The R-5 civilian variant fills the bill for a basic trainer aircraft, so not really necessary in that role either. Many other popular Western Allied training and liaison aircraft also fit into the "cool, but never got near the combat zone" category. E.g., T-6/SNJ Texan/Harvard series, Lockheed Electra, Beech Model 18.



5.Handley Page HP.52 Hampden, AI


Possibly. Its role can currently be filled by the Blenheim or the Beaufort. But, were IL2 to branch into Western Front 1941-42 night bombing ops, it would be a natural, agile, opponent for the early Bf-110 night fighters.


1.Blohm Voss 138, AI


+1. Germany needs a long-range flying boat, and the BV-138 was used on all fronts. Alternately, the He-115 could substitute, but it was built in smaller numbers (But, the He-115 was used by Finland, which is a point in that plane's favor.)


2.Henschel He 112, Flyable

The Heinkel He-112 was use in limited numbers by Romania in the first few years of war on the Eastern Front, with moderate success. It's role is sort of filled by the IAR 80/81 series. The He-112 would be "nice to have" to give the Romanians another fighter option, but otherwise isn't that important.


3.Dornier Do 24, Flyable

This would be a good substitute for the BV-138 or He-115. It was built in about the same numbers as the BV-138, but had a longer service life. A point in its favor is that it was used in limited numbers by the KNIL, and later the Australians, making it a useful addition to early to mid-war Southwest Pacific scenarios.



4.Arado Ar 196, Flyable

+1. This plane was commonly used for short-range coastal patrols by Germany and Finland, and was also used for special ops insertion/extraction missions by the Finns. It would be a useful addition if IL2 continues its move into Eastern Front maritime ops.

[Soldier_Fortune]

These are my 4 pennies:

- Avro Lancaster
- Short Stirling
- Handley Page Halifax
- Gloster Meteor

And my 3 cents:

- B-24J
- B-17 F & G
- B-29

All flyable, if it's possible. :cool:
Or for AI, at least...

[Pursuivant]

These are my 4 pennies:

Obviously a fan of bomber ops!

If I had to narrow down the list of British heavies, I'd got with the Short Stirling for an early war heavy type, and the Lancaster B.I for late war ops.


- B-24J
- B-17 F & G
- B-29

All flyable, if it's possible. :cool:
Or for AI, at least...

You're in luck, all of these planes exist as AI in the game, as well as the B-17D, B-17E, and a gorgeous, flyable B-24D! :)

For US heavy bombers, the only omission is the B-17G "late block" production with "Cheyenne" tail turret. It would also be nice if the radio operator's gun could be added to the E and F models.

A minor omission that falls into the "nice to have, but not that important" category would be the Liberator II and LB-30 variants of the B-24. The Liberator II was used by the RAF in the Middle East and Burma in 1941-42.
The LB-30 was used alongside the B-17E during the Invasion of the Philippines and the Invasion of the Dutch East Indies. Thereafter, they played a role in the Defense of Australia, and the early battles around Guadalcanal.

Were IL2 to delve into early war ASW combat, the Liberator Mk. I Coastal Command version would be a good addition, although the Sunderland Mk. I played a similar role and was the more "iconic" and numerous aircraft.

[Pequod]

I´m so impressed with TD B-24D that I have only one humble request:
Make the B24J-100-CF flyable.

[pandacat]

TBD
TBF
TBM

Would be nice. Currently USN in game has no flyable torpedo bombers.

[Fighterace]

More P-40 variants

[Pursuivant]

TBD
TBF
TBM

TBF and TBM are off-limits due to the NG Consent Decree. They will forever remain as AI-only planes. :(

A flyable TBD would give the US at least one flyable torpedo bomber, but it would be "interesting" to fly in combat.

[Pursuivant]

More P-40 variants

The P-40N is the only big omission (P-40N-15-CU would be definitive), although the P-40K-10-CU and P-40L-5-CU fall into the "nice to have" category.

FWIW, all of these aircraft served on the Eastern Front, so would also help to fill in the gaps there. The P-40L mostly served in the MTO. The P-40K mostly served in the SW Pacific, and was extensively used by the RAAF, which would help fill in the the gaps in the Australian TOE.

[majorfailure]

The P-40N is the only big omission (P-40N-15-CU would be definitive), although the P-40K-10-CU and P-40L-5-CU fall into the "nice to have" category.

P-40L would be "very nice to have" for MTO. A "hotrod" P-40, I'd love that.

[Pursuivant]

P-40L would be "very nice to have" for MTO. A "hotrod" P-40, I'd love that.

Were IL2 to be focused on the MTO from 1941-44, the list of "must have" planes would be very different, and would probably include the P-40L and similar field mods.

While the number of planes deployed to the MTO was nowhere near those deployed on the Eastern Front, and the battles in North Africa and Italy were nowhere as big or as important as the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk, the period from 1941-43 was just as important to Western Allied tactical aviation as it was in Russia. During this time, the US and UK gradually gained air superiority over the Axis, and refined the tactical and strategic bombing techniques which gave them utter air superiority by late 1944.

[sniperton]

Agree. Eastern ETO is basically complete, there's little to be done there, except updating some very old models (which would be a huge work BTW).

PTO, on the contrary, and sadly, will never be complete and well-balanced due to the NG issue.

What remains as a prospective field for improvement is MTO (perhaps with BoF and BoB added and proper attention paid to naval warfare). The Med was won by the Allied by gaining naval and aerial superiority almost hand in hand.

[Pursuivant]

Agree. Eastern ETO is basically complete, there's little to be done there, except updating some very old models (which would be a huge work BTW).

There are a few rare birds which could be added to the Eastern Front, and of course, more planes made flyable. Filling in the gaps for the Soviets: Yer-2, Ar-2, Be-4, Yak-6, UT-2, and more Pe-2, and I-16. For the Germans: He-112, He-50, He-46, DFS 230, a variety of medium bomber types, and filling in the gaps for the Hungarian and Romanian AF.


PTO, on the contrary, and sadly, will never be complete and well-balanced due to the NG issue.

It depends. For late war US naval ops, we're screwed by NG. For US Army, Australian, Chinese, Dutch, Indian, New Zealand, and Royal Navy ops in the SW Pacific, CBI, Aleutians, and Japanese home islands, from 1941-45, and Sino-Japanese ops from 1937-41, there are entire theaters of war literally uncharted (as in, no maps for them) and dozens of planes which still aren't in the game.

Historically, the Japanese were dominant during the early war, and the allies dominated in the late war, but the individual planes used were more or less competitive. (e.g., Hurricane Mk. II vs. Ki-43, P-40N vs. Ki-44, P-51H vs. Ki-84)


What remains as a prospective field for improvement is MTO (perhaps with BoF and BoB added and proper attention paid to naval warfare). The Med was won by the Allied by gaining naval and aerial superiority almost hand in hand.

Currently, this seems like the easiest area for IL2 to expand into, since many of the necessary maps already exist, and most of the planes required are already in the game. The only real weakness in the MTO order of battle is the lack of early- to mid-war UK aircraft, although there would be some French, German, Italian, and US aircraft which would be very nice to have.

Another promising area for the game would be Western Front Ops over the North Sea, English Channel, and Bay of Biscay from 1941-44. Many of the necessary maps, ships, and planes already exist. The only gaps are for the UK, and a very few necessary planes for the Germans.

[Verdun1916]

unfurtunatly in my sight some other plane for now ...

Hi Sita!

May I ask, since there are no flyable British manufacured bomber in the stock game, are there any plans from TD to introduce any British bombers? Or make already present AI-ones like the Blenheim or the Wellington flyable?

Cheers and thanks for your and the rest of TD's great work!

[Asheshouse]

What remains as a prospective field for improvement is MTO (perhaps with BoF and BoB added and proper attention paid to naval warfare). The Med was won by the Allied by gaining naval and aerial superiority almost hand in hand.

The introduction of ai for ships would provide a major step forward in air v naval action. Currently all ships have a simple course set in missions from which they never deviate until sunk.

Ship formations should have a lead ship with all others positioning themselves relative to the lead depending on their defined role. (Battleline, screen, scout, etc).

Ships under attack should react (weaving, turning away from torpedoes, etc)

Ships should avoid collisions, such as sinking ships.

Smarter ship objects would make much more challenging targets for aircraft, so improve the game for pilots.

The stock game could do with a wider range of ships specific to the Med, maybe taking oob for operation pedestal as a theme, but that could be addressed later.

[Soldier_Fortune]

The introduction of ai for ships would provide a major step forward in air v naval action. Currently all ships have a simple course set in missions from which they never deviate until sunk.

Ship formations should have a lead ship with all others positioning themselves relative to the lead depending on their defined role. (Battleline, screen, scout, etc).

Ships under attack should react (weaving, turning away from torpedoes, etc)

Ships should avoid collisions, such as sinking ships.

Smarter ship objects would make much more challenging targets for aircraft, so improve the game for pilots.

The stock game could do with a wider range of ships specific to the Med, maybe taking oob for operation pedestal as a theme, but that could be addressed later.

I'm agreed with you.

But for air-naval warfare, IMHO would be more important to fix de insane behaviour of the AI pilots when they attack with torpedoes.

When the previous waypoint to Gattack es reached, they change formation by default to 'Line Astern' and this action can't be reverted by the human flight leader: any order to switch to a different formation will be unheeded.

Actually the AI pilots release their torpedoes from a distance to the target of less than 1200 m, even against vessels with strong AAA, when the torpedoes might be released from a longer a safety distance becuase they have ranges greater than 5000 m.

A flight of big planes, like Bettys, He-111 or Ju-88, arranged in 'line astern' anf flying too low and too slow while they're approaching to their target, are easy prey for the AAA.

Therefore, the AI behaviour should be changed: the human flight leader should be able for to change the flight formation accordingly with his tactics at any moment. I.e.: 'line abreast' or 'echelon left/right' in open formation are better than 'line astern' becuase:

- The AAA must to disperse its fire instead of to concentrate it.

- Releasing all the flight's torpedoes at the same time than the human leaader like a salvo from a safe distance (not less than 3000 m), the probabilty of to hit the target would increase as well as the survival of most or all of the planes.

[Pursuivant]

Hi Sita!

May I ask, since there are no flyable British manufacured bomber in the stock game, are there any plans from TD to introduce any British bombers? Or make already present AI-ones like the Blenheim or the Wellington flyable?

Making the Blenheim flyable would be easier than making the Wellington flyable, since it only had a crew of 3 - pilot, bombardier/navigator, and RTO/gunner.

There is a restored Blenheim Mk. IV at the RAF Museum in London, and a Mk. I at the Duxford Collection, in the UK. In Finland, there is an authentic Mk. IV at the Air Force Museum. Good pictures of the cockpit and crew stations would incredibly useful in helping 3d modelers.

Sadly, the Bristol Type B Mk I turret wouldn't really be that useful for other aircraft, since it was just used on the Blenheim series (as well as the Avro Anson, but that was never intentionally used in air combat).

[Pursuivant]

When the previous waypoint to Gattack es reached, they change formation by default to 'Line Astern' and this action can't be reverted by the human flight leader: any order to switch to a different formation will be unheeded.

That seems like a mistake, since typical torpedo attack doctrine was to attack in line abreast (or similar formation where the planes could release their torpedoes simultaneously), in order to "comb" the formation of ships they were attacking.

I also recall that torpedo bombers might attack by sections from different directions, so that the torpedo spreads would overlap.

That makes me think that there should be yet more "attack modifier" commands for AI:

* Attack on my command - AI only attacks when player does, or when player presses the appropriate key to launch a particular type of weapon).

* Attack at X distance (in meters) - AI only attacks when it gets within X meters of target.

* Begin attack from Y height (in meters) above/below target - AI only begins its attack when it gets to at least Y meters above/below the target. Setting the height to 0 means that the plane makes level attacks against aerial or elevated targets, or makes near ground level attacks vs. ground targets.

* Assume Station at Z o'clock relative to target - AI moves to assume position at Z bearing relative to the target.

[Sita]

Hi Sita!

May I ask, since there are no flyable British manufacured bomber in the stock game, are there any plans from TD to introduce any British bombers? Or make already present AI-ones like the Blenheim or the Wellington flyable?

Cheers and thanks for your and the rest of TD's great work!


good question ...

for now as far i know only one British bomber is in work ... it's Lanc... slowly goes forward .. ... huge project .. like B24 ...

about other bomber ... it's sad... but for now now any GB bombers in plans ( ....

we have only few modellers and in less than half programmers ....

plus it's always very difficult work with plane which foreign to you ..

[Verdun1916]

good question ...

for now as far i know only one British bomber is in work ... it's Lanc... slowly goes forward .. ... huge project .. like B24 ...

about other bomber ... it's sad... but for now now any GB bombers in plans ( ....

we have only few modellers and in less than half programmers ....

plus it's always very difficult work with plane which foreign to you ..

Thank you for the info Sita! All your work is greatly appreciated! :D I support you guys all the way! Unfortunatly I have neither modeller nor programmer skills to help you guys out.

[Sita]

Best way of work is when some gent's take care about planes from their own regions ...

in that case planes made definitely with love and attention for details ... plus read Tech.info on foreign language is really difficult ... like it was with L2D ...

and for now we don't have any person from GB to take care about Blenheim ... but it is really needed plane ...

[Verdun1916]

Best way of work is when some gent's take care about planes from their own regions ...

in that case planes made definitely with love and attention for details ... plus read Tech.info on foreign language is really difficult ... like it was with L2D ...

and for now we don't have any person from GB to take care about Blenheim ... but it is really needed plane ...

I understand your problem very well! :(

The Blenheim would be a great plane to have as a flyable. But also the Beaufort and Wellington would be very nice! But any Aircraft you guys manage to get flyable is a great addition to the game according to me!
Are there any plans to introduce any new map suitable for the Lancaster?

You boys do good work! Really good work!

[dimlee]

Actually the AI pilots release their torpedoes from a distance to the target of less than 1200 m, even against vessels with strong AAA, when the torpedoes might be released from a longer a safety distance becuase they have ranges greater than 5000 m.
...
- Releasing all the flight's torpedoes at the same time than the human leaader like a salvo from a safe distance (not less than 3000 m), the probabilty of to hit the target would increase as well as the survival of most or all of the planes.

3000m is too much, IMHO. I doubt that torpedo bombers achieved any hits at this distance in WWII, unless flying in large numbers. On the other hand, smarter AI behaviour would be nice to have. For example, earlier torpedo releases if target ships have high skill levels and therefore AAA fire is more precise.
Distances of less 1000m are reasonable against single ships, especially light armed.

[Soldier_Fortune]

3000m is too much, IMHO. I doubt that torpedo bombers achieved any hits at this distance in WWII, unless flying in large numbers.



The USN aerial warfare doctrine during the 40's determined, for attacks against armed vessels, that dive bombers should begin the attack, and then torpedo- bombers should finish it launching torpedoes against the damaged and weakened targets.

Of course, the number of involved a/c should be really big for to achieve targets.

But, in the other hand, think about a medium bomber, like He-111 or Ju-88 or a Betty, into the role as torpedo attacker.

Against unescorted convoys they could launch torpedoes from less than 1000 m.
But against heavily escorted convoys with a good and dense screen of destroyers and also light cruisers, those big birds flying at 30-50 m @SL and at 200 km/h would mean the loss of several expensive flights or squadrons in one only mission.

No navy or air force could support such degree of attrition: the standard training for bomber's pilots demanded 55 weeks at least. Plus several weeks for specific misions like this which we're talking about.

3000 m becomes a good and safe distance if a convoy is sailing at steady speed and heading. But when enemy planes were spotted, the fleets started maneouvers for to avoid hits... and the torpedo-bombers should approach and penetrate into the dangerous range of the AAA, for to launch their attack from a shorter distance.

Therefore, the USN doctrine (and probably all the main powers involved in the 2WW had similar doctrines) was right: the torpedo-bombers should attack after the dive bombers, in big number, and from different directions.

[RPS69]

The introduction of ai for ships would provide a major step forward in air v naval action. Currently all ships have a simple course set in missions from which they never deviate until sunk.

Ship formations should have a lead ship with all others positioning themselves relative to the lead depending on their defined role. (Battleline, screen, scout, etc).

Ships under attack should react (weaving, turning away from torpedoes, etc)

Ships should avoid collisions, such as sinking ships.

Smarter ship objects would make much more challenging targets for aircraft, so improve the game for pilots.

The stock game could do with a wider range of ships specific to the Med, maybe taking oob for operation pedestal as a theme, but that could be addressed later.


Asked for this since 2008

[Pursuivant]

Therefore, the USN doctrine (and probably all the main powers involved in the 2WW had similar doctrines) was right: the torpedo-bombers should attack after the dive bombers, in big number, and from different directions.

Good description of tactics.

One possible change to ship movement, which would them maneuver realistically, would be to make ships zig-zag (or, more accurately, S-turn) on a regular basis.

This could either be achieved by changing the default pattern for ship movement, or by allowing mission builders to specify a zig-zag movement pattern along the ship's course in the FMB.

This option could be used for other vehicles as well, so make them deviate from their overall path in a predictable manner. For example, trucks could swerve, and aircraft could "corkscrew".

[Pursuivant]

Best way of work is when some gent's take care about planes from their own regions ...

I think that language fluency is more important than nationality. Any 3d modeler who is a native English-language speaker should be able to do a decent job with British-built aircraft.

Where nationality helps is access to preserved aircraft and high-quality reference materials.

[Verdun1916]

The Beaufort would be a great asset to have as a flyable. It would fill the gap for a Commonwealth torpedo bomber for the early to mid war in the ETO, the MTO and the PTO.

The Swordfish would be a great aircraft aswell when it comes to torpedo bombers as a flyable.

And I really hope one day we will get to see the Wellington as a flyable aswell so there is atleast one British medium bomber. And I have the same hopes for the MS 406/410/Mörkö or the Dewotine 520 aswell.

[RPS69]

Good description of tactics.

One possible change to ship movement, which would them maneuver realistically, would be to make ships zig-zag (or, more accurately, S-turn) on a regular basis.

This could either be achieved by changing the default pattern for ship movement, or by allowing mission builders to specify a zig-zag movement pattern along the ship's course in the FMB.

This option could be used for other vehicles as well, so make them deviate from their overall path in a predictable manner. For example, trucks could swerve, and aircraft could "corkscrew".

Zig Zags were for anti torpedo tactics, anti dive bombers tactics, they turn hard all the time. You could see a confusion of circles while trying to evade bombs on a fleet under dive bomber attacks.

I prefer to be made not for mission builders, but as an automatic behaviour while under air attack.

Still, it is quite complex because it is very difficult to avoid bombing and that ships don't collide with themselves. Also some realistic movements must be added to ships. Nowadays, they just move as told, and as close as the mission builder asks.

[Pursuivant]

Zig Zags were for anti torpedo tactics, anti dive bombers tactics, they turn hard all the time.

My idea for "automatic zig-zag" option for ship movement in the FMB would be simpler than full AI for ships. All it would do is allow the mission builder to set a ship's course from Point A to Point B, and the "zig-zag" option would automatically turn that straight line movement into a series of S-curves by automatically plotting the additional waypoints needed.

You could use a simple sine wave function and plot new way points at maximum and minimum amplitude along a line described by the ship's baseline course. If the programmers wanted to get fancy, they could give options for amplitude and frequency to control width of each "curve" and frequency of course changes.

This would be realistic for "non-combat" movement by ships in a war zone, where zig-zagging was standard submarine defense.

For "emergency" movement against air attack, it would "good enough".

If you wanted to move into "pseudo AI" for ships, there are some simple "swarming" or "flocking" algorithms which could be used for basic station-keeping and collision avoidance, as long as ships are assumed to be in a convoy or some other formation and are programmed to keep a certain distance from other ships. These could be used to make a formation of ships all turn in the same direction when under attack.

Collision avoidance, especially realistic avoidance of shallow waters, and "intelligent" tactics vs. air attack, would require a lot more effort.

Realistic ship movement is way beyond IL2's ability, since it doesn't take factors such as hull draft, turning radius, acceleration, deceleration, heeling angle, waves, wind, etc. into effect when determining ship movement.

[Asheshouse]

You could use a simple sine wave function and plot new way points at maximum and minimum amplitude along a line described by the ship's baseline course.

Zig zag would normally be done as a series of straight lines not curves. Each leg would be for a standard time, 10min I think.

There were different "standard" zig zags. Commodore would use signal flags to order the start, thereafter each ship could work to the clock, knowing what turn was next. On each "leg" they would follow a straight line.

[Pursuivant]

Zig zag would normally be done as a series of straight lines not curves. Each leg would be for a standard time, 10min I think.

You're correct, but since IL2 ships don't turn realistically (they instantly pivot around their Z axis), something resembling a sine wave path is needed to simulate a realistic turn. The long, straight "legs" you describe would be almost indistinguishable from a very relaxed sinusoidal path.

Obviously, not ideal in terms of absolute realism, and a crock when it comes to giving ships actual AI, but a potentially very simple hack (just 1 line of code for the movement pattern) for a programmer, which would make it slightly more challenging for players to hit moving ships.

[dimlee]

The USN aerial warfare doctrine during the 40's determined, for attacks against armed vessels, that dive bombers should begin the attack, and then torpedo- bombers should finish it launching torpedoes against the damaged and weakened targets.

Of course, the number of involved a/c should be really big for to achieve targets.

But, in the other hand, think about a medium bomber, like He-111 or Ju-88 or a Betty, into the role as torpedo attacker.

Against unescorted convoys they could launch torpedoes from less than 1000 m.
But against heavily escorted convoys with a good and dense screen of destroyers and also light cruisers, those big birds flying at 30-50 m @SL and at 200 km/h would mean the loss of several expensive flights or squadrons in one only mission.

No navy or air force could support such degree of attrition: the standard training for bomber's pilots demanded 55 weeks at least. Plus several weeks for specific misions like this which we're talking about.

3000 m becomes a good and safe distance if a convoy is sailing at steady speed and heading. But when enemy planes were spotted, the fleets started maneouvers for to avoid hits... and the torpedo-bombers should approach and penetrate into the dangerous range of the AAA, for to launch their attack from a shorter distance.

Therefore, the USN doctrine (and probably all the main powers involved in the 2WW had similar doctrines) was right: the torpedo-bombers should attack after the dive bombers, in big number, and from different directions.

I don't put the doctrine in question but I doubt that "3000m+" attacks could be successful, unless in rare circumstances as high ratio torpedoes/ships launched in good visibility and calm seas. I just don't understand how a pilot(navigator?) without possibility to measure distance accurately to a target could calculate angle of torpedo launch. Here my submariner's education revolts. :confused: I might be wrong, or I miss something.

[sniperton]

since IL2 ships don't turn realistically (they instantly pivot around their Z axis), something resembling a sine wave path is needed to simulate a realistic turn.

This is exactly how ground units turn, and this has a lot of to do with how routes follow straight lines between two pivotal waypoints, no matter if ground or naval units are concerned. What TD could do (if they can do) is to change the code to support bezier curve calculations for waypoints. This would also enable realistically bent roads on maps, what has been long desired by the community.

[Pursuivant]

This is exactly how ground units turn, and this has a lot of to do with how routes follow straight lines between two pivotal waypoints, no matter if ground or naval units are concerned. What TD could do (if they can do) is to change the code to support bezier curve calculations for waypoints. This would also enable realistically bent roads on maps, what has been long desired by the community.

+1

In the FMB, you could automatically have ground vehicles follow roads by using a variation of the "select similar color" function (AKA "Magic Wand" or "color picker") used by graphic design programs. Since on just about every map roads are lighter in color than the surrounding terrain, the "color picker" selects adjacent pixels of "road color" and plots a line based on that info. (For winter maps, the process is reversed and the color picker selects the darker colors.)

That, plus a bezier curve tool option would allow "realistic enough" turning.

[sniperton]

Since on just about every map roads are lighter in color than the surrounding terrain, the "color picker" selects adjacent pixels of "road color" and plots a line based on that info.

Yes, something like that would be the easiest way as far as ground units are concerned. All the more so, as maps are generated from a set of greyscale images, where the 'tile map' actually uses a brighter shade to specify tiles with roads. So summer and winter maps are all the same in this respect. Nevertheless, the tile map is a low resolution image, so keeping on the road could not be guaranteed that way, unless combined with bezier curve calculations between waypoints.

Now it works like you go from A to B in a straight line, there you turn for C, and go from B to C in a straight line again. All three waypoints are specified in the mis file. But with A, B, and C we also have all the coordinates for a bezier curve between A and C. All you need is to add the info that B is only a virtual coordinate to be used by the plotting algorithm.

[Pursuivant]

Nevertheless, the tile map is a low resolution image, so keeping on the road could not be guaranteed that way, unless combined with bezier curve calculations between waypoints.

Possibly, the "color tracking" method of keeping on roads would still work if the game took a large enough sample of nearby pixels, or if a particular color of pixels was reserved for roads. In the latter case, the "road line" could be a line just 1 pixel wide, invisible to the human eye in most cases. The former solution would require more processing power, the latter would require a lot of reworking for roads and railroads.


Now it works like you go from A to B in a straight line, there you turn for C, and go from B to C in a straight line again. All three waypoints are specified in the mis file. But with A, B, and C we also have all the coordinates for a bezier curve between A and C. All you need is to add the info that B is only a virtual coordinate to be used by the plotting algorithm.

This would work as well, possibly better.

Hopefully, someone from DT is reading this!

[Sita]

for all of these things we need programmers ....

[Verdun1916]

for all of these things we need programmers ....

You guys should launch a recruiting Campaign here and on Mission4today and other similar sites were you are represented. Maybe it would bring in a few new programmers and modellers for you. :)

[Fighterace]

Bf-110F (the best of the 110 series)
Early P-38 versions

[Verdun1916]

I have a small question:

Would it be possible to add the flyable aircrafts that have been added in the last few updates as flyable options in the stock offline campaigns?

For example could the Hawk 75 be added to the offline Finnish fighter Campaign as an flyable option alongside the Bf-109, the J8 or the rest of the fighters thats allready present?

[Marabekm]

I have a small question:

Would it be possible to add the flyable aircrafts that have been added in the last few updates as flyable options in the stock offline campaigns?

For example could the Hawk 75 be added to the offline Finnish fighter Campaign as an flyable option alongside the Bf-109, the J8 or the rest of the fighters thats allready present?

The problem is, I don't think there are any missions made for those aircraft.
So you would have to make the missions first, then add to the campaign.

I do think there is a campaign for the Finnish Hawks though.

[Verdun1916]

The problem is, I don't think there are any missions made for those aircraft.
So you would have to make the missions first, then add to the campaign.

I do think there is a campaign for the Finnish Hawks though.

Thank you for your answer!

Do you know if it's possible to extract one of the stock campaings and open them in the FMB and replace the players aircraft with one of the newly added flyable aircraft?

[Soldier_Fortune]

AFAIK, you can open any stock mission with FMB and to change or to add whatever you want into it: planes, objects, waypoints, etc.

But, if you want to keep the original mission, you should use "save as..." using a different name.

[Verdun1916]

AFAIK, you can open any stock mission with FMB and to change or to add whatever you want into it: planes, objects, waypoints, etc.

But, if you want to keep the original mission, you should use "save as..." using a different name.

The original stock Campaign missions aswell? Interesting! Thank you for your quick reply!

[Soldier_Fortune]

The original stock Campaign missions aswell? Interesting! Thank you for your quick reply!

Yes!

But also you can randomize a campaign adding new missions to a given "stage".

Following this link, you will can learn how to do it:

http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&op=show&kid=686

And, if you want to learn the most important matters about FMB, then you should read the old but amazing Flying Nutcase FMB Tutorial (http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&cat=95) ;)

[Verdun1916]

Yes!

But also you can randomize a campaign adding new missions to a given "stage".

Following this link, you will can learn how to do it:

http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&op=show&kid=686

And, if you want to learn the most important matters about FMB, then you should read the old but amazing Flying Nutcase FMB Tutorial (http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&cat=95) ;)

Thanks, mate! :D

[Sita]

Bf-110F (the best of the 110 series)


Why F is best of the series? and btw have you any info about cockpit and ordnance loadout of Bf 110 F ?

[shelby]

Why F is best of the series? and btw have you any info about cockpit and ordnance loadout of Bf 110 F ?http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111279
http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/1-Germany/01-Fighters/Me-Bf110/Bf110F-4-U1.htm
http://www.maquetland.com/article-1043-bf-110-english-version-
http://germancontrolsticks.blogspot.gr/2016/02/control-stick-of-messerschmitt-bf-110.html
http://plane-crazy.k-hosting.co.uk/Aircraft/WW2-Planes/Me110/Me110.htm
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=147093

[KG26_Alpha]

Why F is best of the series? and btw have you any info about cockpit and ordnance loadout of Bf 110 F ?

http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111279
http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files/2-Airplanes/Axis/1-Germany/01-Fighters/Me-Bf110/Bf110F-4-U1.htm
http://www.maquetland.com/article-1043-bf-110-english-version-
http://germancontrolsticks.blogspot.gr/2016/02/control-stick-of-messerschmitt-bf-110.html
http://plane-crazy.k-hosting.co.uk/Aircraft/WW2-Planes/Me110/Me110.htm
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=147093

That's a no then :)

[RPS69]

F it's almost the same to G.

[Pursuivant]

F it's almost the same to G.

But do you know for sure?

When engines changed the cockpit could have changed as well. There were probably also little external changes.

This site has some good info on the Bf-110D, E and F series, such as minor external changes.

http://forum.valka.cz/category/view/500652?utm_source=valka_cz&utm_medium=forum&utm_campaign=topmenu

As does this site, including a cockpit picture of the "D0" variant.

http://airwar.ru/enc/fww2/bf110f.html


Other than that, the vast majority of resources for the Bf-110 available on the web relate to the various C or G variants. The D, E, and F series are forgotten by comparison.

The good news is that there is a Bf-110F-2 in a museum (Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin), but so far there are no interior shots available on the web.

[Pursuivant]

I struck gold in my search for good documentation on the Bf-110D, E, and F series.

This site has the original German manuals for installing ventral cannon packs, and the various ETC bomb racks.

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Messerscmitt%20AG.htm

Absolutely comprehensive technical report for captured unnamed Bf-110 variant, but very likely the D-2, E-2, or F-2 variant since it included a rescue raft compartment and ETC 500 bomb racks. The only weakness in the report - other than not describing the exact variant - is that all armor appears to have been removed from the plane, so no information exists.

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/a/Alliierte/Analysis%20of%20Messerschmitt%20Me%20110.pdf

Installing ETC bomb racks on BF-110E:

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20110/Bf%20110%20E%20Bo%20Bedienung%20u.%20Wartung.pdf

R-1 ventral cannon installation for F & G:

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20110/Bf%20110%20F%20und%20G%20Wa%20Beiheft%202.pdf

Manual for installation of drop tanks and "dackelbauch" tank for D model:

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20110/BF%20110%20Zusatzanlagen.pdf

Installation of ETC bomb racks on E model:

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20110/Bf%20110%20E%20Bo%20Bedienung%20u.%20Wartung.pdf

Plenty of good pictures here - with Russian captions:

http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft20512.htm

[Pursuivant]

Why F is best of the series? and btw have you any info about cockpit and ordnance loadout of Bf 110 F ?

Apparently, the F series had the best compromise of speed, armor, and maneuverability as compared to the rest of the Bf-110 series. It had vastly improved engines, improved armor for the crew, and considerably improved performance over previous models.

For IL2, the big changes are that the D, E, and F series had a slightly longer fuselage and slightly revised cockpit due to added armor glass. Engine profile is similar to that of the C model, except that some versions had the tropical air filters similar to those mounted on the Bf-109F or G.

Internally, it appears that the cockpit was slightly revised to include gauges, selector switches, and indicator lights for the auxiliary fuel tanks, as well as jettisoning equipment for drop tanks and/or bombs. This might make it identical to the cockpit for the G model.

At least for some aircraft, the single flexible rear gun installation was retained, whereas the G model often had a twin gun mount.

D models were mostly used in Norway, with some use in the Mediterranean. The "dackelbauch" version saw limited use during the Battle of Britain, when planes from Norway attempted to raid Scotland. But, they were no match for British fighters. Thereafter, they were used for patrols and convoy protection.

E models were used on a limited basis in Russia, as well as in Europe and North Africa, but they weren't a success and the crews hated them because they were slow and underpowered.

F models were used with some success in Russia, but were gradually withdrawn from the Eastern Front to provide air defense against Western Allied bombing raids. Many were converted to night fighters, or purpose built as such.

[gaunt1]

Engine profile is similar to that of the C model, except that some versions had the tropical air filters similar to those mounted on the Bf-109F or G.

Not true for "F". That one already has the engine fairing like the "G"

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/bf110f/bf110d-c6.jpg

[cstaunton92]

Hello Sita,
Here's another link (with no sources given):
http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/index.php/flugwerft-hauptraum/jaeger/messerschmitt-bf-110

It gives some armament info, and suggests the E and F have very similar equipment - except for additional armoured glass.

Also, this picture http:///img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/44085/276511715.34/0_13a18c_e8eed409_orig from yt2 seems to have elements of the G cockpit - could that mean it is an F?

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Luftwaffe unit OOBs shows that the F version was widely used, and in general such units had a mix of C/D/E/F variants up to early 1943 when the G arrived in large numbers. I do not have much idea about internal changes, except that the Bf 110F had a DB 601F engine, similar to the DB 601E of the Bf 109 F-4 but with different reduction ratio.

The book "German Aircraft Interiors vol.1" show the very same picture posted above, and the captios says it is a F version. Not sure if it is enough to model it though...

[Pursuivant]

Not true for "F". That one already has the engine fairing like the "G"

You are right. Thanks for the correction.

So, arguably you could use the G model as a base for 3d, since I think that it retained the longer fuselage, and certainly retained the improved armor of the F series. The only difference is that the rudder and vertical stabilizer assembly would be that of the C model, since it was only altered with the F-4 variant.

Cockpit might be similar to G, since that model could also carry drop tanks, bombs, and rockets.

Gunner position might be similar to C model, with single rather than double MG 15 gun.

Loadouts would be slightly restricted since Bf-110F-2 didn't carry rockets.

I'm not sure about other minor details, but they could presumably be handled using a skin rather than 3d.

What we're really looking for is great cockpit documentation to tempt Sita into making this plane his next project (unless he wants to stick to Soviet planes and do cockpits for the Su-2, R-10, or Tu-2). :)

[Pursuivant]

Luftwaffe unit OOBs shows that the F version was widely used, and in general such units had a mix of C/D/E/F variants up to early 1943 when the G arrived in large numbers.

This is useful info. There's a lovely picture of the D variant (mit dackelbauch auxiliary fuel tank) flying over the Mediterranean, and it's quite likely that the captured plane that US engineers examined was taken from North Africa. My ignorant guess is that it was the F variant. So, its clear that the D, E, F variants, as well as the surviving C variants, were used in the Mediterranean.

The surviving F-2 variant aircraft in Berlin was used in early 1943 in Finland, until it was damaged by flak, landed on thin ice, and sank into a lake. That happy fact accounts for its survival.

Other Bf-110F units (probably with surviving D & E models) were used around Stalingrad. They were fairly effective on the Russian Front, and it appears that the only reason they were withdrawn was because of the increasing threat of Western Allied heavy bomber raids into Germany. So, the F variant is a gap in the mid-war Eastern Front German Order of Battle.


I do not have much idea about internal changes, except that the Bf 110F had a DB 601F engine, similar to the DB 601E of the Bf 109 F-4 but with different reduction ratio.

I believe that the D,E,F series used roughly the same engine nacelles as the G series, albeit possibly with minor changes to air intakes and exhaust manifolds. Tropical air filters would have to be added if they're not already present for the C model.

Cockpit would have had to have been different from the C to accommodate bomb and drop tank release controls, and fuel tank selector switches for the auxiliary tanks (dackelbauch, drop tanks, or both).

Gunner's cockpit is hard to figure out. I'm not sure if any of the D, E, F series got the twin MG defensive guns of the G model, but it would have been an easy field mod if they did have them.

If someone could take a look at the cockpit photo of the US technical report and compare it to the C and G versions of the Bf-110 cockpit, that would clear up a lot of confusion.

The US report is wonderfully detailed for most things, but I'm not sure that they actually tested the engines which came with the captured Bf-110. They just say that the engines are DB601, but don't get into any further detail.

If it turns out that the US example was the F-2 variant, it will be a great source of documentation.



The book "German Aircraft Interiors vol.1" show the very same picture posted above, and the captios says it is a F version. Not sure if it is enough to model it though...

What we really need is good pictures of the cockpit of the Berlin museum aircraft. Is there a Berliner with a cell phone and a selfie-stick reading this? :)

[taly001]

i would like to see some of the major planes to be added for the pacific rather than odd balls...in order

1.P-38G essential mid pacific
2.Ki-48 useful JAAF Lbomber and Dbomber 1,900 made served 41-45
3.Ki-51 JAAF version of Val 2,300 made!
4.Ki-44 served 41-45 high speed JAAF fighter! 1,200 made
5.D4Y replaced Val in JNAF unreliable, but a fast Kamikaze!
6.SB2C meant to replace SBD but not that popular

[taly001]

The official plane i miss most is P-38G the version that made its reputation in Pacific but served "everywhere".

A Ki-48-II would be interesting multi-role plane, fast light bomber with dive bombing capability. Used everywhere by JAAF from 42 on, and a kamikaze mod in 44-45.

Ki-44-II fast japanese interceptor that served throughout 1942-45. 2x12.7mm in nose, and wings choice of 2x12.7mm or 2x40mm "mortar cannon".

[Orangeman]

Ki-44 would be awesome



The official plane i miss most is P-38G the version that made its reputation in Pacific but served "everywhere".

A Ki-48-II would be interesting multi-role plane, fast light bomber with dive bombing capability. Used everywhere by JAAF from 42 on, and a kamikaze mod in 44-45.

Ki-44-II fast japanese interceptor that served throughout 1942-45. 2x12.7mm in nose, and wings choice of 2x12.7mm or 2x40mm "mortar cannon".

[Verdun1916]

I would like to see the Blenheims, the Beauforts, the Wellington and
the MS 406 (/410/Mörkö aswell) allready present as AI aircraft made flyable to be used on the up comming Channel map. :)

The Dewotine 520 would also be a nice addition to have. :grin:

Also the Swordfish would be a nice addition to the RN. ;)

[Pursuivant]

I would like to see the Blenheims, the Beauforts, the Wellington and the MS 406 (/410/Mörkö aswell) allready present as AI aircraft made flyable

It's a LOT of work to make all those bombers flyable.

I'd just be happy with a flyable Blenheim since it could double duty with both the Finns and UK/Commonwealth forces. Of all the British medium bombers in the game, it was probably the most ubiquitous.


The Dewotine 520 would also be a nice addition to have.

The D.520 is on my short list of fighters to be added to the game. Given that it was used in limited numbers by the Italians, and was used by the Vichy French in North Africa, it would be a nice addition to a Mediterranean campaign.


Also the Swordfish would be a nice addition to the RN. ;)

You're in luck! There's alrelady an AI Swordfish I in the game.

But, a flyable Swordfish would be another great addition to a Mediterranean campaign. It also saw some service in the English Channel, notably during the "Channel Dash." There's also that little incident with the German battleship . . .

And, if TD wanted to do a quick and easy upgrade, they could add the Mk.II (early) Swordfish to the game. The main difference between the Mk. I and early versions of the Mk. II Swordfish was that the latter had metal reinforcements on the lower wing so it could carry rockets and the inner bomb racks were removed. Later versions of the Mk.II added a more powerful engine with slightly enlarged oil cooler and extended flame-dampening exhausts, as well as greater overall mass.

The Mk.II, as well as later war versions of the Mk. I also were fitted with ASV radar - with antennae fitted below the lower wing or onto the wing bracing wires.

[Verdun1916]

It's a LOT of work to make all those bombers flyable.

I'd just be happy with a flyable Blenheim since it could double duty with both the Finns and UK/Commonwealth forces. Of all the British medium bombers in the game, it was probably the most ubiquitous.

Yes it would be a massive amount of work, but I would be happy with atleast one flyable British bomber. And I agree with you that the Blenheim would be a prefered addition since it was used by the Finns as well! :)
And the Mk.IV is a beautiful aircraft aswell. :D

But since there are flyable German, Soviet, Japanese, Italian and US medium bombers present in the game allready it would be nice to have a British one like the Wellington aswell just for the heck of it. So from that aspect I would actually prefere a flyable Wellington to a Blenheim.
The Beaufort would be a nice addition as it can be flown for both conventional bomber missions and torpedobombing. However it's last on my interest list when it comes to these three.

Yeah I know the Swordfish is already present as AI, so it was a flyable one I was thinking about in my last comment.
I do like your idea about the Mk.II. Would be nice to have for some sub hunting with rockets hehe. And it would be nice to have some other British carrier born aircraft than just the Seafires. A Sea Hurricane would also fit in here.

Oh well, the wish list just goes on and on haha ;) But no matter which aircraft TD will add in the near or a more distant future, they will be appreciated! :grin:
If one is lucky it might just be the ones on that wishlist hehe

[HBPencil]

Of all the a.i. aircraft in the stock game the Blenheim IV is the one I'd like to fly the most because it was so ubiquitous. Basically wherever the RAF flew, regardless of the theater, the Blenheim served at some point during the early and mid war periods... BoF, BoB, Norway, Malaya, Burma, NEI, all over the MTO and also with the Coastal Command and with the Finns of course.

But seeing as Channel maps are being developed I'm inclined to make what must be the eleventy billionth request for a flyable mid 1940 production spec Mk I Spitfire! ;)
I realize the maps won't be available for some time and the BoB era version will be the last one to be implemented but as it stands we have three flyable 1940 LW aircraft but only one British, hence the call for the Mk I Spit... and the Blenheim IV :razz:

[Verdun1916]

Of all the a.i. aircraft in the stock game the Blenheim IV is the one I'd like to fly the most because it was so ubiquitous. Basically wherever the RAF flew, regardless of the theater, the Blenheim served at some point during the early and mid war periods... BoF, BoB, Norway, Malaya, Burma, NEI, all over the MTO and also with the Coastal Command and with the Finns of course.

But seeing as Channel maps are being developed I'm inclined to make what must be the eleventy billionth request for a flyable mid 1940 production spec Mk I Spitfire! ;)
I realize the maps won't be available for some time and the BoB era version will be the last one to be implemented but as it stands we have three flyable 1940 LW aircraft but only one British, hence the call for the Mk I Spit... and the Blenheim IV :razz:

I agree! :grin:

[majorfailure]

Yes it would be a massive amount of work, but I would be happy with atleast one flyable British bomber. And I agree with you that the Blenheim would be a prefered addition since it was used by the Finns as well! :)
And the Mk.IV is a beautiful aircraft aswell. :D

But since there are flyable German, Soviet, Japanese, Italian and US medium bombers present in the game allready it would be nice to have a British one like the Wellington aswell just for the heck of it. So from that aspect I would actually prefere a flyable Wellington to a Blenheim.
The Beaufort would be a nice addition as it can be flown for both conventional bomber missions and torpedobombing. However it's last on my interest list when it comes to these three.

Yeah I know the Swordfish is already present as AI, so it was a flyable one I was thinking about in my last comment.
I do like your idea about the Mk.II. Would be nice to have for some sub hunting with rockets hehe. And it would be nice to have some other British carrier born aircraft than just the Seafires. A Sea Hurricane would also fit in here.

Oh well, the wish list just goes on and on haha ;) But no matter which aircraft TD will add in the near or a more distant future, they will be appreciated! :grin:
If one is lucky it might just be the ones on that wishlist hehe

Given the choice for a real Brit medium bomber, I'd probably go for the Beaufort, just because it looks cool, and is okay in performance.

For the new Channel map, I second the request for an early Spit.
Also while we're in Dreamland, a perfect fit for a Channel map would be the B-26. It looks pretty awesome, was initially hated and then later adored by its crews, was very common over occupied France. Yes of course I know its role can basically filled by either the A-20 or the B-25 for almost any mission, but neither got the same reputation, or the same lines.

[Verdun1916]

Given the choice for a real Brit medium bomber, I'd probably go for the Beaufort, just because it looks cool, and is okay in performance.

For the new Channel map, I second the request for an early Spit.
Also while we're in Dreamland, a perfect fit for a Channel map would be the B-26. It looks pretty awesome, was initially hated and then later adored by its crews, was very common over occupied France. Yes of course I know its role can basically filled by either the A-20 or the B-25 for almost any mission, but neither got the same reputation, or the same lines.

The B-26 would be a nice addition! :) Preferably as a flyable off course but AI would be good to! :)

[Dark-Star]

Not sure if this quite classes as a plane or ship request...

But would it be even remotely possible to add CAM ships? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship) That would be quite a different experience, launching with a rocket's kick in the pants, climbing all the way up to splat a HE-111 or a Condor, then seeing if you had enough fuel left to fly to an Allied airbase, crashland on friendly territory, or have to ditch in the sea for pickup!

[Pursuivant]

The B-26 would be a nice addition! :) Preferably as a flyable off course but AI would be good to! :)

For a 1942-44 English Channel map the B-26 would be a nice addition.

For the UK, the planes which were most associated with that area are the Typhoon and the Griffon-engined Spitfires, and perhaps some of the mid-war variants of the Beaufighter.

[Pursuivant]

But would it be even remotely possible to add CAM ships? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship) That would be quite a different experience, launching with a rocket's kick in the pants, climbing all the way up to splat a HE-111 or a Condor, then seeing if you had enough fuel left to fly to an Allied airbase, crash land on friendly territory, or have to ditch in the sea for pickup!

CAM ships and catapult take-offs exist as mods, so they are feasible - although I don't know if the "under the hood" details of the mods iin question would be acceptable to the stock game.

[majorfailure]

For a 1942-44 English Channel map the B-26 would be a nice addition.

For the UK, the planes which were most associated with that area are the Typhoon and the Griffon-engined Spitfires, and perhaps some of the mid-war variants of the Beaufighter.

While the Tiffy would absolutely be welcomed, my personal opinion is it looks like a Tempest, performs like a Tempest, is armed like a Tempest, so a Tempest is a very good replacement for it. A Griffon engine Spit would be absolutely nice for later war years, especially against the D-9 and K-4. Beaufighter, any British model would be welcome, even early war ones, and they would also make welcome addition to all Med maps.

[RPS69]

While the Tiffy would absolutely be welcomed, my personal opinion is it looks like a Tempest, performs like a Tempest, is armed like a Tempest, so a Tempest is a very good replacement for it. A Griffon engine Spit would be absolutely nice for later war years, especially against the D-9 and K-4. Beaufighter, any British model would be welcome, even early war ones, and they would also make welcome addition to all Med maps.

Not true on the Typhoon.
Typhoon doesn't perform like a Tempest. At least on the diving speed department.

[Asheshouse]

CAM ships and catapult take-offs exist as mods, so they are feasible - although I don't know if the "under the hood" details of the mods iin question would be acceptable to the stock game.

The existing catapult mods dont really work properly for CAM ships.

Aircraft should take off with landing gear folded and supported on an animated launch trolley. If TD were to add these elements then that would be something new, not in current mods.

Of course a properly modelled CAM Ship would also be required, but that is not a big deal.

[Verdun1916]

The existing catapult mods dont really work properly for CAM ships.

Aircraft should take off with landing gear folded and supported on an animated launch trolley. If TD were to add these elements then that would be something new, not in current mods.

Of course a properly modelled CAM Ship would also be required, but that is not a big deal.

That would make it possible to use other ship borne aircraft aswell, like the Arado 196 direktly from the German battleships and battlecruisers for example. That would be cool! A reason to make ship borne planes like that flyable aswell :)

[Pursuivant]

That would make it possible to use other ship borne aircraft aswell, like the Arado 196 direktly from the German battleships and battlecruisers for example. That would be cool! A reason to make ship borne planes like that flyable aswell :)

Once the catapult feature gets worked out it should be possible to add it to all appropriate ships.

I'm not sure it would be possible to add seaplane pickup, however.

[RPS69]

Once the catapult feature gets worked out it should be possible to add it to all appropriate ships.

I'm not sure it would be possible to add seaplane pickup, however.

Actually is already there.
Pick up is well represented by getting near and using the same sistem as chocks or whatever.
Or like the docking function on i16, the oine you activate to get attached to a TB-3

[Asheshouse]

Pickup mod does not work for ai only "piloted" aircraft.
The stock ship models like Essec Class CV, were modelled to allow for animated AI action after landing. The model would allow for taxi to lift and descent inti hanger to despawn, rather than existing despawn on deck. This feature still needs some coding in the stock game to bring it to life. An easy gain for a coder with access to all the code maybe?

With this code added other stock carriers could quickly be modified to benefit from the same feature.

[Ice_Eagle]

however I'm of the opinion that getting all the existing flyable's (both their externals and especially their cockpits) up to the same visual standards as the newer
editions in the officially patched default game would only serve to keep this sims longevity ongoing.

I agree.

Results so far;
~ Squared off the forward carb opening
~ Squared off the 50cal gun fairings
~ Rounded 50cal mgun barrels
~ Lowered the carb scoop
~ Lowered the angle front top cowl right behind the prop
~ redid the rudder (no longer looks like a waffle)
~ added full wheel strut doors (original had 1/3 doors, original mod by ME)

Not-A-Mod :lol: :
https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/14445141_1123040557790908_6932267502080293458_o.jp g

Also added a couple key features to the Hawk81-A cockpit, infamous prestone warnings among many other things:
https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/14114822_1100542183374079_1683520588807083257_o.jp g

[Pursuivant]

Actually is already there.
Pick up is well represented by getting near and using the same sistem as chocks or whatever.

I was thinking of the proper animation sequence for plane to land and be loaded aboard the ship.

To recover the plane, the parent ship had to turn 30-60 degrees to windward (across the wind) to create a relatively calm wind-free zone. Simultaneously, a "sled" was lowered overboard from the ship's stern using a crane.

On a signal, the plane then landed the wind-free zone, then taxiied until it was floating over the "sled". The plane was then hauled up and the crane swung inboard so that the plane could be placed back on its catapult rail.

http://www.pacificwar.org.au/Midway/RalphWilhelm/SOCrecovery.html

This requires not just a bunch of animation for each ship that has catapult-launched aircraft which could be recovered (obviously, not needed for CAM ships, so they'd be easiest), plus some AI programming for ships, which doesn't exist at all!

[Jumpy]

ouch .... long list ....

Since this list is so big, one more aircraft will not seem too much.

If I could choose just one, I would like to see the Fw-189 Uhu made flyable. It is also especially relevant to the Russian Patriotic War.

If this is not possible then please, more Hurricanes!:-D

[Sita]

I would like to see the Fw-189 Uhu

good choice))

[Verdun1916]

the Fw-189 Uhu made flyable.

That would be a cool aircraft to see as a flyable.
There are plenty off already present AI-aircraft that deserve to be upgraded to flyable status if possible. I'd rather see that beeing prioritized than adding other aircraft that are not present at all at the moment.

And of course I do hope to see the Wellington, the Blenheim or the Beuforts upgraded to flyable status to give the British atleast one light or medium bomber of their own and the Fulmar and the Swordfish to give them something more carrier borne than the Seafire. :grin: