![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
I still don't think they have paid any money to license the aircraft. It's just a matter of there have been resistance and precedent set in a few instances now so the lawyers are out looking for money elsewhere these days.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why dont forget those damned NG planes? There are tons of far more interesting aircrafts in WW2 that would also deserve to be included as flyable: Do-217, Me-410, Spitfire XIV, Typhoon, Tu-2, Su-2, B6N, D4Y to name a few...
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Because the US and the Fleet Air Arm operated the TBF/TBM, and the US has no viable torpedo bomber that is player flyable. These aircraft were widely deployed in the Pacific, and the Atlantic, and really are necessary for any kind of campaign that involves carrier operations.
Having the TBF/TBM and the Curtiss Helldiver BTW, would flesh out the compliment for the USN. And true, we need more Japanese attack aircraft as flyable as well.
__________________
![]() Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
All "fair" battles were fought on 1942. After Midway, Japaneese were just overwhelmed. The amount of carriers the US deployed on the Pacific after that, almost required to put traffic lights on mid ocean!
|
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
At this point having the SB2C and the B6N or D3Y flyable would probably round out the carrier aircraft fairly well. The TBF/TBM is super important and the key aircraft in the carrier strike wing but it will have to be what it is.
Honestly as time passes IL-2 1946 is slowly fading out. In a few years I hope that the new IL-2 series will catch up to the Pacific and start to have the kinds of features the we enjoy in IL-2 1946... and we can leave this legal stuff in the past. But we'll see. There's a lot of ground to cover between now and then so I suppose the Pacific portion in particular will be key for some time to come.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sadly I think in a few years the new sim will be history.
I don't think they understand the market, or the needs of the player base. On an up note, my new computer build has finally allowed me to play the Finnish Hawk Campaign in this sim. Just got back into it, but enjoying it, even though I'm stuck in Fokkers and Hurries for the moment. As you know I'm not much of an off line guy, but a well crafted off line experience is well worth the time spent.
__________________
![]() Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
El is right, I fear.
Even if not, there is a huge difference in development cost for each new plane type between the “New Game” and “Good Old Il2”. Ten to one? Twenty to one? Perhaps more, and I can’t even guess the ratio if we talk about carriers. In short, I think the chances to have in the New Game a plane set comparable to Good Old Il2 are really slim. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shame there's no P-61 either
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Glad to hear you're enjoying the Hawk campaign. Yeah I didn't make the player stick it out too long in the Fokker but its a really great way to break into the experience and you get such a rush when you finally get into the Hawk and flying something fairly competitive. I have to say its not as exciting as some of my other campaigns but on the other side of the coin it follows pretty darn closely to those early days of the Continuation War (Thanks to awesome public records for the Finnish Air Force) and the types of missions and opponents they faced.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com |
![]() |
|
|