BlitzPig_EL

Just another case of the "harder is more real" nonsense that permeates the combat sim genre.

The 76mm Shermans were not used on D-Day, they were left in England because of perceived logistics issues due to the fact that they used different ammo than the 75mm Shermans. A tragic mistake.

I have scattered rain in a couple DF missions I made for BoX.

The Firefly is one of my favorite naval aircraft.

The KNIL also operated Hawk 75 A7s, with Wright Cyclones instead of Pratt & Whitney Wasps.

I tried Capt. Brown's settings back in the day. If you used them you were dead meat, against humans or AI. The only way to make those setting work would be to force them on all players, which is impossible owing to the many different controllers being used. Simulating reality is a very thorny proposition. The ground looping behavior in the other sim is a prime example.

Can you imagine running off he matting? Instant tire puncture. So many exotic locales that I hope we get to experience.

Please, no ETO for a long time. There is so much to cover and explore in the Pacific war that I wouldn't care if I ever saw a Yak, or Bf 109 ever again. I know we all have our favorite theaters, and many of our European and British friends see the Pacific as an American thing at best, or a sideshow compared to the ETO at worst, and I do understand why, but the war against Imperial Japan has so much to offer in terms of interesting new machines, areas of operation, and well, everything. Let's give it a chance.

Preservation of relics of the Imperial period is a touchy subject in Japan, to put it mildly. But I do agree with you Freycinet, this is a very historical piece and it deservers better care.

That Emily made the last flight of an Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft with a Japanese crew, when if flew from it's base to a port to be put on a ship and sent to the US for evaluation. On that flight it had to fly a zig zag course, because the escorting PBY could not keep up with it.

That was one of the two prototype H8Ks that had taken part in Operation K, the second attempted bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Japan's lack of qualified mechanics exacerbated the problems they already had with mass production of complex modern aero engines. Being in New Guinea made things even worse, as they had no depot level maintenance facilities in theater. The Kawasaki engines had to be sent back to the Philippines for major work. The Ki43 had far higher in service rates than the higher performance Ki61. Still the biggest issue for both sides was pilot health. There were always more aircraft in flyable condition then there were pilots to fly them.

And the introduction of the Ki61 by the IJAAC, which had General Kenny sending urgent messages to Washington to get P38s sent to New Guinea ASAP. The Allied P40s then in theater were simply no match for the "Tony", when it was running properly.

The Japanese Army's air service was gutted in New Guinea. Half of their high hour experienced pilots were lost there.

The throttle is what sets "boost" or "manifold pressure", they are the same thing. The Brits measured it in PSI and the US in inches of mercury.

I just keep getting a vibe that there are people that want to force their play style on everyone. Hope I'm wrong.

I want both. 100% historical accuracy in any mission is maybe only possible in single play, if you lie to yourself, and let your side lose if that's how it's "supposed" to be. But really, who does that? So lets say someone builds a really 100% accurate Midway scenario, with both fleets all in historic locations, etc... Are you not going to try to win, even though you know where and when things are "supposed" to happen? I don't believe in a "no win" scenario. If you do that's fine, go for it, but I don't want gameplay that is so rigidly scripted that I can't build the kinds of missions that allow for outcomes to be variable depending on how each side chooses their tactics, and prosecutes their missions. I hope that Combat Pilot has room for all play styles, so we all can enjoy the sim in a way that we like.

Well, one way this was handled in multiplayer in PF was to have two carriers, one only for takeoff, and one for landing. Obviously in single player this won't be an issue.

So? They have gazillion dollar budgets and can do things that have no direct bearing on "flying". I'd rather see the developer time and money go for other things, like more realistic maps, more aircraft, better physics, FM/DM, etc. I'm not a LARPER. I know this isn't real and no amount of "walking" around will make this real, nor will it enhance my "flying" experience.

It's a flight sim, not a first person shooter. I'd much rather be flying than strolling around on deck, assuming an aggressive offshore posture, and drinking coffee. I just think that limited dev time should be allocated to more important things.

I recently picked up an NXT EVO. Great stick.

I meant the campaign in general was fun. Can't remember an Easter Egg though.

P40s of the Flying Tigers, and Brewsters of the RAF defending Rangoon against IJAAC Ki27s, Ki43s, and Nells. Bring it!!

I helped Chris with a little bit of testing on it. It was a fun thing to fly.

T B24 at NMUSAF. Sorta pink.