DD today?

[Trooper117]

I can't wait for the DD to tell us about the 'Cactus Air Force'... (I know, it will be some time in the future).

Just think... Wildcats, P-400's, SBD's, TBF's facing the G4M Betty, A6M2 and A6M3 Zero fighters, and D3A1 Vals.

Really something to look forward to...

[Ohka]

1 minute ago, Trooper117 said:

I can't wait for the DD to tell us about the 'Cactus Air Force'... (I know, it will be some time in the future).

Just think... Wildcats, P-400's, SBD's, TBF's facing the G4M Betty, A6M2 and A6M3 Zero fighters, and D3A1 Vals.

Really something to look forward to...

I swear all other games would be completely redundant to me if I could fly all of those. Can't wait!

[Enceladus]

16 hours ago, Feldgrün said:

I think PTO is a prime target for paying customers. If all goes well, they could expand to ETO, MTO.

I'd rather see the PTO fleshed out significantly with carrier and land-based battles before venturing off into other theaters. I mean, we already got people covering the MTO.

[Feldgrün]

3 hours ago, Enceladus said:

I'd rather see the PTO fleshed out significantly with carrier and land-based battles before venturing off into other theaters. I mean, we already got people covering the MTO.

I agree that PTO should be their main focus, but my argument with IL-2 GB was that they could/should have expanded & alternated between ETO, MTO & PTO theaters, which would have given us more options and things to look forward to:

Stalingrad, Moscow, Kuban, Bodenplatte, Normandy, Guadalcanal, Berlin, Sicily, Midway, Leningrad, El Alamein, Okinawa, etc.

[Trooper117]

Not for me... this should be primarily PTO and not get distracted from that goal until it has covered many of the main events.

This is something people have waited for for many years, and there are other flight sims out there that cover those other theatres.

I'd hate to see it diluted before the PTO has been thoroughly explored... and remember, it's not just US carrier ops... there is Malaya/Singapore, Burma, the Flying Tigers etc that can be added, as well as the Royal Navy and Commonwealth contribution as Jason has alluded to... let's not spoil this great thing that has arrived for us.

[HerrMurf]

1 hour ago, Feldgrün said:

I agree that PTO should be their main focus, but my argument with IL-2 GB was that they could/should have expanded & alternated between ETO, MTO & PTO theaters, which would have given us more options and things to look forward to:

Stalingrad, Moscow, Kuban, Bodenplatte, Normandy, Guadalcanal, Berlin, Sicily, Midway, Leningrad, El Alamein, Okinawa, etc.

There are way too many scenarios and timeframes to explore in the PTO before we have to worry about moving around too much. Of the things listed, I wouldn't mind exploring the CBI, Med, and North Africa but that would be WAY down the road. Revisiting all of that which was previously covered by GB runs up against user burnout and non-profitability in the short term anyway. Happy to stick to the big pond for a few years.

[Ribbon]

Gamers love variety, so after Midway, Coral sea, Solomons, Guadacanal id like to se MTO (Seafires), BoB or Normandy again if this sim becomes good product.

[Feldgrün]

12 hours ago, HerrMurf said:

There are way too many scenarios and timeframes to explore in the PTO before we have to worry about moving around too much. Of the things listed, I wouldn't mind exploring the CBI, Med, and North Africa but that would be WAY down the road. Revisiting all of that which was previously covered by GB runs up against user burnout and non-profitability in the short term anyway. Happy to stick to the big pond for a few years.

Right. My reference was to what I think IL-2 GB should have done. However, since they didn’t branch out to PTO, interest in this (future) game is high. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Frankly, I hope it's a very long time before we leave the "Pacific" theater.

There is so much to cover in the war against Imperial Japan beyond just the naval aspects.  So many areas that have never been covered in depth.  New Guinea, CBI, Netherlands East Indies,  all areas that can offer new and challenging game play.  Let's leave the FWs, and 109s go for a long while, OK?

[ZachariasX]

I wonder how the fact that common missions are a 1'000 km to 1'500 km trips will play out. Fighter sorties can be 3 h to 4 h, bomber sorties up to 8 hours. There better be some sort of time compression. (And drop  tanks...) I don't think "jump to waypoint" will be possible unless you add specific logic to place units (planes) to place them there. I wonder how such a sortie will work out in MP, where someone using "sim rate" will be... interesting for the other players.

[Trooper117]

I doubt it will be an exact 1 to 1 scale in distance as most players will not be prepared to sit in their computer chairs that long. lol!

Most will want to actually take off from their bases or carriers and travel a 'reasonable' distance to the objective, plus return again and land if still alive.

There could also be an 'air start' alternative of course, nearer the target.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

I doubt it will be an exact 1 to 1 scale in distance as most players will not be prepared to sit in their computer chairs that long. lol!

That will open a fantastic can of worms, worms like we have never seen. I mean, capital ships can fire at the range encompassing the average WoL mission...

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

I wonder how the fact that common missions are a 1'000 km to 1'500 km trips will play out. Fighter sorties can be 3 h to 4 h, bomber sorties up to 8 hours. There better be some sort of time compression. (And drop  tanks...) I don't think "jump to waypoint" will be possible unless you add specific logic to place units (planes) to place them there. I wonder how such a sortie will work out in MP, where someone using "sim rate" will be... interesting for the other players.

thats why carriers  ar great starting point, in MP you just move them 100-150km from island, for SP 8x time skip (real one not fake one we have in box ) is must.

i just hope they ditch 5v5 or one side have to have same number of airplanes like other one...

[CountZero]

1 minute ago, ZachariasX said:

That will open a fantastic can of worms, worms like we have never seen. I mean, capital ships can fire at the range encompassing the average WoL mission...

then like in il-2 46, you need to give mission makers options to set ranges of fire of guns and rate of fire... they can easy make mess if they dont learn from il-2 46 pto

[ZachariasX]

14 minutes ago, CountZero said:

thats why carriers  ar great starting point, in MP you just move them 100-150km from island, for SP 8x time skip (real one not fake one we have in box ) is must.

Basically making a setup that has little in common with reality back then.

I think only "convenient" spawn points can solve the issue in MP. As for SP, a working sim rate that can deliver more than 1.4x time accelleration (or 0.8x in case of lots of action) can be of use. Navigating will be the prime difficulty, weather being the main enemy for all things PTO. Midway and other specific carrier battles are a special case, but moving ships too close again just mitigates the main difficulty.

For fast food MP, you'd have to have a red and a blue base on Guadaclacal. Or two carries cruising basically at arms length alongside (with gn restrictions as you say) to get some happy fragging. Nothing like it ever was. But why not?

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Is it not possible to satisfy both the absolutist role players, and the shorter distance multiplayers?  I think it is.  More options are better than forcing a single play style on everyone.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Basically making a setup that has little in common with reality back then.

I think only "convenient" spawn points can solve the issue in MP. As for SP, a working sim rate that can deliver more than 1.4x time accelleration (or 0.8x in case of lots of action) can be of use. Navigating will be the prime difficulty, weather being the main enemy for all things PTO. Midway and other specific carrier battles are a special case, but moving ships too close again just mitigates the main difficulty.

For fast food MP, you'd have to have a red and a blue base on Guadaclacal. Or two carries cruising basically at arms length alongside (with gn restrictions as you say) to get some happy fragging. Nothing like it ever was. But why not?

 

yes thats what MP setups are, little in common with reality, just check popular full real servers on GB, bases are close, action is fast... small % of players are flying long times... this is same players that will play with no icons no hud , they do not care if they take of from base that is not used, as long as its close to action. Full real stops at realistic distances/flight times and realistic formations or falowing comands, and so on...

[ZachariasX]

38 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Is it not possible to satisfy both the absolutist role players, and the shorter distance multiplayers?  I think it is.  More options are better than forcing a single play style on everyone.

I agree. I still enjoy my long distance flights in MSFS (as you all are aware) and like the challenges it poses. Bougaineville - Henderson is some 450 miles one way. How fast would a Zero's cruising speed be? I suppose some 200 mph, that would make it a 5 hour roundtrip in minimum, given time required to takeoff and landing. As for navigation, it would be plain dead reckoning and VFR if sight is lost to the escorted bombers. Also, such a flight is not possible without drop tanks...

What I really, really would like is that in bombers, all seats are accessible for their respective function. Naval aircraft are for good reason multi crew aircraft, as navigation and flying are too much overhead for one person. Unless you have ground/carrier control, single seat aircraft are a challenging affair if finding your carrier again after 4 hours of flight is your thing ("Yes baby, this is my bag!").

We would need sort of a Jester as navigator giving good advice as well as a gunner. If one likes to navigate and switch seats, the Jester pilot has to fly the plane and in direction where you want it to go after you figured out your whereabouts. Your means to navicate should replicate what was available to the navigator back then, not the moving map (which should always be available in the cheat menu). This would also make it easy to (in SP) to tell the sim to jump ahead a given time (specifying distance is a cheat!) to be near where you want to be. Having the option of manning all positions in an aircraft would give those long haul flights a very unique challenge. There must be radio stations and comms that are useful for navigation. The single seat fighter has a hard life otherwise without in game cheats. A carrier needs a functional ATC. Else... well, no need going into this.

Imagine, you are in a B-25 en route from Lae to Rabaul, you could use a "Jester-pilot" as an autopilot when switching to navigator and lead your plane (and maybe flight) to where you are going. Without a GPS map in weather this can be quiet a feat. Especially if flying low is a requirement that, if not followed and you be detected early, would augment your welcome team at the destination. The requirement of using gunner stations is self evident. having to option to create your flightplan and plotting your course en route is a challenge in itself if you want to survive. People may think of that as boring, but this is probably what killed most airmen.

I would say having this functionality far outweights anything related to rivet counting. Especially for japanese planes, I would see good reason for some artistic liberties to make something plausible withing schedule than perfection... in two weeks™.

It is evident that air combat in PTO on the whole has little in common with the low altitude fragging that we have over the steppe in the eastern front. Hence, there should not be much focus in replicating that game, but focus on the challenges this kind of flying brings instead of giving us just Berloga with Zeros and Wildcats. (We want that too once we have those planes and we do have it, but only when we have the real thing primarily.)

 

This means @Jason_Williams has to provide a true flight simulator, not a limited, static and flat playpen.

[Feldgrün]

As this is all new to us, how often can we expect DDs? Weekly, Monthly, only when there is news? 

Please, treat us to more information rather than less. I understand that this will take time, but please feed the hungry birds (who have yet to fly, in this game).

 

[Trooper117]

Did you read the interview with Jason?

 

Will there be regular Developer Diaries posted for Combat Pilot?

Absolutely! Oh how I miss doing DDs! They were my favorite part of my old job. We will post them on our forum as often as we can, but they will be slow at first while we get our sea legs and build up. Please don’t hold me to every week in the beginning!

[HerrMurf]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I agree. I still enjoy my long distance flights in MSFS (as you all are aware) and like the challenges it poses. Bougaineville - Henderson is some 450 miles one way. How fast would a Zero's cruising speed be? I suppose some 200 mph, that would make it a 5 hour roundtrip in minimum, given time required to takeoff and landing. As for navigation, it would be plain dead reckoning and VFR if sight is lost to the escorted bombers. Also, such a flight is not possible without drop tanks...

What I really, really would like is that in bombers, all seats are accessible for their respective function. Naval aircraft are for good reason multi crew aircraft, as navigation and flying are too much overhead for one person. Unless you have ground/carrier control, single seat aircraft are a challenging affair if finding your carrier again after 4 hours of flight is your thing ("Yes baby, this is my bag!").

We would need sort of a Jester as navigator giving good advice as well as a gunner. If one likes to navigate and switch seats, the Jester pilot has to fly the plane and in direction where you want it to go after you figured out your whereabouts. Your means to navicate should replicate what was available to the navigator back then, not the moving map (which should always be available in the cheat menu). This would also make it easy to (in SP) to tell the sim to jump ahead a given time (specifying distance is a cheat!) to be near where you want to be. Having the option of manning all positions in an aircraft would give those long haul flights a very unique challenge. There must be radio stations and comms that are useful for navigation. The single seat fighter has a hard life otherwise without in game cheats. A carrier needs a functional ATC. Else... well, no need going into this.

Imagine, you are in a B-25 en route from Lae to Rabaul, you could use a "Jester-pilot" as an autopilot when switching to navigator and lead your plane (and maybe flight) to where you are going. Without a GPS map in weather this can be quiet a feat. Especially if flying low is a requirement that, if not followed and you be detected early, would augment your welcome team at the destination. The requirement of using gunner stations is self evident. having to option to create your flightplan and plotting your course en route is a challenge in itself if you want to survive. People may think of that as boring, but this is probably what killed most airmen.

I would say having this functionality far outweights anything related to rivet counting. Especially for japanese planes, I would see good reason for some artistic liberties to make something plausible withing schedule than perfection... in two weeks™.

It is evident that air combat in PTO on the whole has little in common with the low altitude fragging that we have over the steppe in the eastern front. Hence, there should not be much focus in replicating that game, but focus on the challenges this kind of flying brings instead of giving us just Berloga with Zeros and Wildcats. (We want that too once we have those planes and we do have it, but only when we have the real thing primarily.)

 

This means @Jason_Williams has to provide a true flight simulator, not a limited, static and flat playpen.

I think this belongs in MSFS but is not a realistic expectation of the typical CFS participant. This level of navigation is very niche and would likely commit development resources, at least in the initial run up, which could drive away more sim pilots than it might attract.

[Gambit21]

I love that this thread already exists lol...good stuff.

In response to some posts above...there is no reason to move away from the PTO...ever. There's no reason to even bring it up.

 

We'll all be dead before there's time to cover all of the PTO...so no point in talking about ETO or 'gag' 109's 'gag'

Too many Zekes, Corsairs, P-40's and Grumman hardware to cover, not to mention Jap and Allied float planes.

Solomons... "R Area Air Force" 

Did I ever mention that I like float planes?

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

[Gambit21]

That's my girl.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I love that this exists already 😄