Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[Furio]

Thank you, Caspar and Frankyboy for your reply. And you’re right: this is now off topic. My mistake. Next post will be in the proper thread (funny: it was started by me six months ago...). Since I have more curiosity on the flyable-AI matter, I’ll go on there.

A p.s. for moderators: perhaps these last posts may be moved in the other thread...

[Ernst]

May 10, will you need more " Olegian two weeks" for release? No problem, our friends here are patient. Are not, folks? Hehehe...

[JG53Frankyboy]

well, Oleg and team got money for their work, TD not...........................................

[Romanator21]

There must be some way to bypass this rule. Maybe alter the code to accept just one specific "unofficial" add-on? Can we have Grumman Avengers if they are not called by that name, but rather something similar like "Gorman Attackers"? If I'm not mistaken, the Brits called it "Tarpon" and were modified by the Blackburn company, which may be an adequate change. (ie "Blackburn Tarpon"). What about examples produced by GM (General Motors)? They are currently used as fire-fighting aircraft in Canada, which may provide some loophole? Is a written petition asking for permission to add pits still out of the question?

I'm just throwing some ideas up here, don't take it the wrong way

As the Avenger will never be flyable , the Japanese B5N&B6N also should stay AI - unfortunately

That's a terrible idea! The aircraft are totally different anyway! The Japanese currently don't have anything comparable to the Beaufighter for instance. I'm glad that didn't have to stay AI.

[AndyJWest]

There must be some way to bypass this rule.

As I understand it, there is no 'rule'. It seems quite likely that if it ever came to court, Grumman would lose. That isn't the problem though. Grumman threatened to sue, and Ubi/1C:Maddox couldn't afford to take the risk, so they apparently came to an agreement with Grumman. Since this agreement presumably still stands, trying to find a way around it risks ending up back in the original situation, and it makes no business sense at all to take the risk now if it wasn't worth taking to start with.

Without knowing exactly what was agreed, speculating about ways around it is fairly pointless. Both 1C:Maddox and TD have made their positions clear though - no new Grumman products in the sim.

[bf-110]

Hum,perharps,a naval update (what if Graf Zeppelin and Bf-109T would be added?),a night fighters update (planes with radar,P-61,british medium and heavy bombers,like Wellinton,Lancaster) and an early war update (France and Poland),and maybe a ground objets update (ships,tanks,arty,maps).

[ElAurens]

No P61 is possible, it's part of Northrop Grumman you know.