4-12 wish list (Merged)

[ECV56_Guevara]

Hey DT mail sent!

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by shelby

Look i just put some documentaries about planes of ww2 so if they are based in reality then the planes in game need some work to be more realistic but i don't know if that can be done and i don't have official documents to argue

"Be more realistic" is about as vague as you can get. The best and only way to make anything more realistic is to delve in to the detailed technical specifications. You can certainly use anecdotal evidence to provide some level of flavour and to get the average person a general idea of "how things really were" but ultimately, in a simulation, you need to rely on numbers. The harder the number (i.e. the more quantifiable) the better.

That's why we try and dig up test pilot reports, scientific testing results, data tables, etc. to get the best possible result. It's extremely difficult to model something that is 60 years old with some details washed away with time but on the whole, WWII is extremely well documented, and it's easy enough to get most of the details right.

Not to offend but a couple of TV documentaries are good fun to watch but of little value in simulation discussions. The detail levels required for simulation are much too high for the average TV documentary... it's the wrong audience. Even for us simulation pilots... "flying the aircraft" is great but there is a whole other level going on underneath in computer code that is well above and beyond the average simulation pilot. Nevermind the average TV watcher.

[SPAD-1949]

Originally Posted by shelby

to fix some mistakes in the upcoming update....

Like when they talk about G-Models the keep showing E- Models or when talking about the 410 showing a Ju 88 or so?
This movies are full of some mistakes...

[Treetop64]

Don't get me started on "Dogfights". My mood turns foul just thinking about it. To think that many naively devour everything that show tosses them, ugh! It's not just the "pirouetting P-51" episode, either. There are egregious offenses over multiple episodes.

A prime example of gaining ratings at the expense of everything else.

[Lagarto]

A smashed-windscreen visual effect would be a nice addition. In real life hits against armor-glass windscreens (from rear gunners, debris or head-on passes) often resulted in smashed windscreens, nearly obliterated forward view but no actual penetration into the cockpit. However, in the game such hits are shown as simple bullet holes. Not very realistic IMHO.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Lagarto

A smashed-windscreen visual effect would be a nice addition.

+1

It could be based on the oil splash effect, and cued whenever the cockpit takes heavy damage.

[nimitstexan]

New ships (IJN & USN BBs, IJN and RN CAs, IJN CL & CLV, and SS).

[Ace1staller]

Originally Posted by nimitstexan

New ships (IJN & USN BBs, IJN and RN CAs, IJN CL & CLV, and SS).

Definitely,We need more German Ships for sure. Also we need more Destroyers like a generic Destroyer for The US navy, Japanese navy, and the British and the German Navy. Also, We lack French Warships in the game. Also can we have Axis transport ships so we don't have to use the Allied transport ships ?

Also I can we fix the icon issue for Japanese planes ? When ever I select a blank skin for a Japanese plane, the Japanese icon doesn't show up. For example, it happen to the Ki-61 , the Ki-84, and A6m Zero.

[Lagarto]

Could we have SAAF (South Africans) added to the list of air forces, please? They played important part in MTO campaigns.
Also, desert/MTO skins for static Hurricanes, Blenheims, and for Matilda tanks.

I guess Martin Maryland would be too much to ask?

[Ace1staller]

Originally Posted by Lagarto

Could we have SAAF (South Africans) added to the list of air forces, please? They played important part in MTO campaigns.
Also, desert/MTO skins for static Hurricanes, Blenheims, and for Matilda tanks.

I guess Martin Maryland would be too much to ask?

SAAF air force ? Definitely 10000000000000000000000000000000 +