4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[wheelsup_cavu]

Always liked the Japanese planes.


Wheels

[_RAAF_Firestorm]

Thanks for the response TD.

[Tempest123]

love those Japanese planes, I know its not included but the float version N1K1 is such a unique plane, there's a photo around of one with a contra rotating prop, looks massive with the giant conical spinner.

[JollySam]

I have a suggestion, if I may. I hope this is in the right place.

As you know, the American side in this game doesn't have their own battleship model, but rather a reskinned British 'King George V' class battleship with a Stars and Stripes at its mast. This works rather well, I think.

Why not do the same for the American destroyers and submarines? You could copy them, paste a Royal Navy Ensign over the Stars and Stripes, and release them as 'HMS Destroyer Generic 1', 'HMS Destroyer Generic 2', and 'HMS Submarine Generic'.

It just seems strange that though the British have aircraft carriers and battleships in this game, they have no smaller ships to escort them.

Just a simple, visual-only addon, but I think RAF and Royal Navy mission makers would appreciate them.

Thanks alot, keep up the good work! I can't wait for 4.13 to arrive.

[Asheshouse]

Originally Posted by JollySam

As you know, the American side in this game doesn't have their own battleship model, but rather a reskinned British 'King George V' class battleship with a Stars and Stripes at its mast. This works rather well, I think.

Well, apart from the fact that it looks nothing like any US battleship which ever existed.

[daidalos.team]

Indeed! It was a faulty solution back then, made for PF on the bondaries of the NG issues... we don't want to repeat something like this.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by daidalos.team

Indeed! It was a faulty solution back then, made for PF on the bondaries of the NG issues... we don't want to repeat something like this.

Subsequent to the consent decree, the Abiding Evil that is NG sold Ingalls Shipyards (and basically, all its surface warfare assets) to another company. Perhaps that modifies the consent decree and makes U.S. ships possible.

If TD doesn't want to mess with that, consider modeling U.S. ship types built entirely by U.S. Navy facilities which were never owned by NG.

For example, Mare Island Navy Yard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_Island_Navy_Yard

A useful early WW2 type built here would be the Wickes-class "four stack" destroyer.

Or, if you want the USS Oklahoma, the USS Colorado or the USS California:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...ng_Corporation

Bankrupt about 45 years ago and never owned by NG.

Or, for the USS New Mexico, USS Tennessee, USS Iowa or USS Missouri:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Navy_Yard

Again, bankrupt about 45 years ago and never owned by NG (although the USS Arizona was built here yet somehow the legal eagles at NG claim copyright protection on her).

Or, perhaps look at ships built in shipyards once, or currently, owned by General Dynamics, which seems to be much saner regarding copyright issues:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore_Ri...ilding_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Iron_Works

That would give you a very impressive roster of U.S. BB and CA types.

[Asheshouse]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

A useful early WW2 type built here would be the Wickes-class "four stack" destroyer.
-----------------

Again, bankrupt about 45 years ago and never owned by NG (although the USS Arizona was built here yet somehow the legal eagles at NG claim copyright protection on her).

We already have the Wickes Class in the game, USS Ward and USS Dent.

I believe that NG's USS Arizona copyright is limited to drawings they prepared of the wreck site. This would be an entirely reasonable claim, subject to the terms of their appointment to carry out the survey.

IMO a later class, such as the USS Washington (North Carolina Class), built at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, would be more useful for mission builders.

[Jami]

First of all thanks for the hard work you are doing to keep this sim alive. The new planes and effects are great and the details as taxi to take off offer new possibilities for us mission builders etc.

But there is one thing annoys me and my squadron: the skill levels of AI fighters are too close to each other. So would it be possible to make rookies really rookie (like they really were) and aces may stand where they are. The random skill variation inside the main category makes AI pilots act almost like humans and that’s really a nice feature, but to my mind you’ll face more good skilled AI pilots than bad within the category. I don’t believe that in real life any rookie has been able to take full advantage of his plane’s all features and performance. In addition rookie’s shooting skills are amazing.
My squad has been flying IL-2 about 1500 h together since 2007 and we have seen this sim becoming better year by year. But now the problem is how to give our human rookies possibility to get in this world of air combat without feeling frustrated and hopeless when meeting AI rookies. I don’t want to lose them to War Thunder or similar unrealistic games. Even our most experienced members who have been flying several sims for 15 years think that AI rookies are unrealistic.

So I really hope to see that you’d expand the skill categories so that the rookies are real rookies with small variation and the ace AI pilots stand where they are at the moment - average and veteran somewhere between those. After that it makes sense to build and fly missions with all skill category AI pilots. My squad likes to fly historical or semi missions and we have built over 300 missions based on the memoirs of WWII pilots. And as you very well know there were many more really poor rookies than skilled aces in the skies those days.

[JollySam]

Originally Posted by daidalos.team

Indeed! It was a faulty solution back then, made for PF on the bondaries of the NG issues... we don't want to repeat something like this.

This is a WW2-era game that involves the 'Third World War', Russians flying Superfortresses, and flying machines that never existed off a drawing board. I don't think 'a British flag on an American ship' is such an offensive idea in comparison. Plus, I'm pretty sure that at least one of those two destroyer types was used by the Royal Navy anyway.

A 'faulty solution'? Not really, I was trying to make a suggestion that would save you a load of work.