Change the plane addition criterias

[Nemisis]

I'm curious, in which way are they overly relaxed? If you can give me a example for a plane that could enter AH based on my proposals, but has no place in AH whatsoever, I may alter my proposal to to fix possible loopholes. 

SEPTEMBER 2ND? it would have seen less than a month of combat.......  If it showed up in swarms of 10's of thousands then maybe.....

[morfiend]

"served at a squadron level".... seems to me the terms have been confused!

 I dont recall squadron strength being mentioned before this threat,I could be wrong,often I am.

 I know HTC is busy but maybe the criteria rules could be officially stated by those who make the decisions.

   

[Boozeman]

SEPTEMBER 2ND? it would have seen less than a month of combat.......  If it showed up in swarms of 10's of thousands then maybe.....

What are you talking about?! 

Anyway, Gentlemen, may I ask you to get back to topic please. While all this stuff about the Ta152 is very intresting, it should be discussed in a separate thread. I think there is little doubt that the Ta152 meets the criterions (?) of combat (it scored kills) and thus must have been in service in an organzied manner (squadrons). The planes I suggested, or Baumer for that matter, met either neither or just one, or it is unclear if they met them.

But shall that be a reason for exclusion, when on the other hand
- there is enough documentation available to model it to meet AH standards, and
- came into existence within the 6 years of WWII in at least a small production run?

 
 

[RTHolmes]

I think the criteria are fine. there are aircraft which were produced in the 1,000s and which served for practically the entire war that arent in the game yet (you know what im talking about ). perhaps when these have been added, as well as less produced models which fulfill the current criteria and flesh out the planesets have all been added (ie. never) it might be worth discussing.

in the meantime im pretty sure you can get a copy of SWATL on ebay

[Boozeman]

in the meantime im pretty sure you can get a copy of SWATL on ebay

If I remember correctly SWOTL has nothing over AH plane wise except the Go229...and that would be a plane I rather would not like to see in AH, and would also be ruled out per my proposed ruleset. 


 

[Skulls22]

How about HTC adds the planes that are sorely missing before we worry about the rare birds?  Like the He-111, G4M, Ki-45, Ki-43, J2M-3, Yak-1 and 1B, LaGG-3, Yak-9D, etc.

Don't forget the Beaufighter, we need that.

[Nemisis]

What are you talking about?! 

oh wait, bout a month and a half. For some reason I thought Japan surendered on Sep 15 instead of august. Still not even a month and a half of comat. And really thats not enough time to see all the shortcomings and fix them, so what you would have is (maybe) a plane that is fast, handles great at all speeds, can out turn a Ju87, and is armed with 8 40mm's....and a stall speed of 200 and it bleeds E like a son of a squeak.....

[Boozeman]

oh wait, bout a month and a half. For some reason I thought Japan surendered on Sep 15 instead of august. Still not even a month and a half of comat. And really thats not enough time to see all the shortcomings and fix them, so what you would have is (maybe) a plane that is fast, handles great at all speeds, can out turn a Ju87, and is armed with 8 40mm's....and a stall speed of 200 and it bleeds E like a son of a squeak.....

I ask you again: What sort of relevance has this in order to show my ruleset is too relaxed?
- What combat are you talking about?
- What shortcomings need to be fixed?
- what fast, great handling plane do you mean that does the things you mention?

Please clarify.

[Nemisis]

Well, if it saw not even 2 months of combat, then it can't have seen a lot of use. I don't think we should have rides that came out 6 weeks before the closing. 6 months OK, maybe even 4 months.

I'm talking about combat in the pacific theater. If it doesn't even have one kill to it's name (unless its a transport) then it DIDN'T see enough action IMO.

IDK if there are anyshort comings in some of the super late war birds. For all I know, it may have been the second coming if it had came in earlier in the war. But then again, it may have been a death trap, I just don't know.

I was using that plane as an example. That may be what happens if we get a super late war plane, or one that wasn't produced in quantities above 100. Really, not everything has to have a real life example. We have ammo and fuel gauges on planes that had neither. We have bushes that stop bullets, and invisible sheep that flip 50 ton tanks......

[Boozeman]

Ok, now I see where you are coming from.

And yes, that is the core question regarding my proposal:

Shall combat records be a must for a plane to be added?
If yes, why?

[Ghosth]

Yes, combat records should be a must.

This is a WWII combat Flight Simulator.
This is not secret weapons of the luftwaffe, and its not Chuck Yeager test pilot.

So yes, to remain true to its stated purpose, planes must have seen combat.
Otherwise you could what if in a Bearcat, or a super Corsair. And what would be the point?

HTC's rules have proven the point for the last 9 years, I see no reason to petition them to change them. Other than the fact they exclude planes you want.

If you want those planes in a non combat situation, well thats what FSX is for, no?

[Boxboy]

LOL the only "rule" I have seen is if HTC wants it then it is in and if they don't it's not

[Boozeman]

LOL the only "rule" I have seen is if HTC wants it then it is in and if they don't it's not

I wish it were that simple. Just look at the replies the recent Do335 thread - every (im)possible candidate is ridiculed based one these "rules" that may not even exist... a reasonable discussion on the pros and cons is, well, impossible. Just a lot of spamming and trolling. I have yet to hear a valid reason why not to add a F8F for example. Did not see combat does not sound very convincing when it was already otw to the battle zone as the war ended. At least it is very different to those that were still on the drawing board at that time.

   

[RTHolmes]

I have yet to hear a valid reason why not to add a F8F for example. Did not see combat does not sound very convincing when it was already otw to the battle zone as the war ended.

"did not see combat" is convincing here because ... it did not see combat. that is your valid reason to exclude it, based on the current criteria.

[Boozeman]

Yes, combat records should be a must.

This is a WWII combat Flight Simulator.
This is not secret weapons of the luftwaffe, and its not Chuck Yeager test pilot.

So yes, to remain true to its stated purpose, planes must have seen combat.
Otherwise you could what if in a Bearcat, or a super Corsair. And what would be the point?

HTC's rules have proven the point for the last 9 years, I see no reason to petition them to change them. Other than the fact they exclude planes you want.

If you want those planes in a non combat situation, well thats what FSX is for, no?

What the point is? How about making AH more diverse and interesting? Do you really think the addition of any of the planes I mentioned, among others, would make AH in any way worse? And the last time I checked, those planes were built for combat and during WW2. I see a perfect fit for a WW2 combat simulator.