Question for HTC: New Fighter Poll

[Greebo]

nm

[Vinkman]

Of course we are going to get all those eventually, but its highly unlikely they are doing anything more than collecting data on them at the moment. The past poll winners didn't appear in the skinner's forum until weeks after the poll was run. The only time a runner up was skinned as well was the P-39 which almost dead heated the winner. A great number of man-hours of work are needed to create a new plane, the 3D shapes inside and out, the skins, the flight and damage models. They are not going to undertake that lightly.

hey Greebo, just curious...Assuming they have the data they need, how many man hours do you think it take to develop a new plane? 300? 600? 1200?  and is there a big difference between a single engine fighter and a large bomber? Or does the actual shape make more of a difference for example would a Moonbat with all those crazy contoured compound curves take longer to produce than a B-29?

Where I work when they want to make a 3D model of a something they buy one and run it through an X-ray scanner and then software digitizes the x-ray slices and then they are imported into Catia, IDEAS and other such 3D design programs. The scanners can scan most materials. But coverting "blue" prints to 3D is still done the old fashion way as well. But I always thought it would cool to see if a good scale model of a warbird could be scanned and converted. I wonder if it would save time. Then I wondered if outside firms do for-hire scanning and conversion. then I wondered if it would cost less than 1200 of Superfly's hours. Then he could use those 1200 hours ot group sections into subsections, and do the damage models etc...and for those hours we'd get more planes per hour. [Not trying to put SuperFly out of job]

Just a daydream brought on by folks aguing over which plane should be next. An argument that would disapear if planes took weeks, instead of months to develop.

[ink]

hey Greebo, just curious...Assuming they have the data they need, how many man hours do you think it take to develop a new plane? 300? 600? 1200?  and is there a big difference between a single engine fighter and a large bomber? Or does the actual shape make more of a difference for example would a Moonbat with all those crazy contoured compound curves take longer to produce than a B-29?

Where I work when they want to make a 3D model of a something they buy one and run it through an X-ray scanner and then software digitizes the x-ray slices and then they are imported into Catia, IDEAS and other such 3D design programs. The scanners can scan most materials. But coverting "blue" prints to 3D is still done the old fashion way as well. But I always thought it would cool to see if a good scale model of a warbird could be scanned and converted. I wonder if it would save time. Then I wondered if outside firms do for-hire scanning and conversion. then I wondered if it would cost less than 1200 of Superfly's hours. Then he could use those 1200 hours ot group sections into subsections, and do the damage models etc...and for those hours we'd get more planes per hour. [Not trying to put SuperFly out of job]

Just a daydream brought on by folks aguing over which plane should be next. An argument that would disapear if planes took weeks, instead of months to develop.

I am not greebo, but I have a clue as to how long it takes to model a plane........LOTS of time...I have easy 60 hrs in this and I am very far from done, still in the very early stages of it.   I highly doubt it takes 1200 man hrs though
maybe 200 hrs to complete the 3D modeling and UV mapping.
 I did a dragon, had it to the point of animating it,(when the comp crashed and I lost everything)  I had easy 200 hrs in that, big difference though between that and a plane. the plane being much easier to model.

[moot]

you can't say that the 410 and the Beau are made to shoot down fighters, or bombers by daytime.

They are.  Failed as they did historically. 

[Babalonian]

The last thing we need is more jets. 

That said, the yak3 will be very similar to the 9u - it should climb a little better and accelerate a little better - but it will still have the sucktastic ShivaK 20mm with 120 rounds (its ok at 200, but really anything is ok at 200) - it should not win any new yak fans but I know when I first came into AH, I was eager to fly the yak3 and worked on the 9U as practice (before I became a die hard luftwaffle).

The 410 actually adds something new, but I felt that since this was a fighter vote - it would be nice to get a LW fighter.  Which the 410 is not.

People who want the Oscar or the Beau make no sense to me. . . they will see use in EW/MW/AvA/historical and that is it. . . I can't see anyone taking one machine gun on a paper and wood candle stick Japanese fighter into the LWA and expect to have a good time (except as entertainment for all of us who love lighting them on fire) - at least the zero has 2 cannons.

Anwway, I am happy with the pace new aircraft are added and appreciate the poll a lot.

I like your post, and second that I'm happy with HTC's pace of new aircraft and I too also really appreciate that there is a poll out too - although as someone else pointed out, if these were more frequent happenings then the debate over them wouldn't be so heated.

Why pick 2 losers like Kobe and Lebron lol.

You need a better comparison.


Your post made no sense to me. Evidently your sayinf once a plane has been in a vote that it should no longer be a choice? That would scratch moff the list most all contenders.

I do see your point that excluding all previous candidates makes no sense, but you seem to be missing mine.  I'm referring specifically to the obvious favorites: those being the 410 - which came in a very close 2nd place to the B-29, which we now have in-game - and the Beau, which has had a longstanding and ongoing following in mass within the the forum community.  And, surprise, of all the candidates on that *cough* new *cough* forum poll, the clear winners were.....

[Karnak]

The Me410 lost in a landslide to the B-29, about 40% to 60%.  Close was the B-25 beating the P-39 by less than 0.5%.

The only reason the final in the last vote was the B-29 vs the Me410 is because the B-29 sucked off so much of the "American, <bleep> yeah!" votes that the A-26 narrowly failed to make the final.  Anybody who thinks the Me410 would have beaten the A-26 had the B-29 not been on the poll is gravely mistaken.


For what it is worth, while I voted for the Me410, I am very glad it was against the B-29 and not the A-26.

[DREDIOCK]

You do understand that the Meteor was not as capable as the 262 in WW2 correct?

Thats not the point.
The point is it was used so little that it can only barely be considered a participant in WWII.
Any of the other planes in the selection would be a more worthy addition

If we're gonna add that. Might as well add the Fl 282 as well for artillery spotting

[Karnak]

Thats not the point.
The point is it was used so little that it can only barely be considered a participant in WWII.
Any of the other planes in the selection would be a more worthy addition

If we're gonna add that. Might as well add the Fl 282 as well for artillery spotting

While I agree that it is not the best choice on the poll we have now, it did play a larger part in WWII than at least one aircraft already in AH.

[PFactorDave]

While I agree that it is not the best choice on the poll we have now, it did play a larger part in WWII than at least one aircraft already in AH.

That doesn't strike me as a good argument.  Two wrongs don't make a right, as they say.

[DREDIOCK]

The Meteor Mk III would not change the rules of what can be added at all.

1) It was in series production.
2) It was in service in squadron strength. If the Ta152C and Fw190D-9 didn't fail on step 1, they fail here.

the only information numbers of the Meteor I've found seeing service over enemy territory total 14. which were assigned to the 616 squadron the very vast majority didnt enter service until after WWII ended

The first volume production version of the Meteor was the Mk III (G.41C) with a total of 210 aircraft built..
By comparison the D9, over 700 were built and actually saw combat service. which near as I have been able to find. were far more numorous in numbers then all variants of the Meteor that were built during the war combined.

[IronDog]

The Beaufighter or the 410 would fill a slot that is needed. Why the Ki43,when we already have several flying Ronson variants?A Ki 100 or a Jack would fit better.This is my own opinion,and I agree with Greebo,jets suck and blow!!We already have the rocket ship 163 dancing around for way longer than it could stay in the sky,and the 262 is only flown by the elite or guys that play this game night and day.The Yak 3 would be nice,but then we should have the P-63,as it had about the same amount of flight hours.I know the maker of the game says making the other guy angry is what this sim is all about!That's why I can only handle a month at a time,and quit for awhile!I prefer Panzer Corps or Chess most of the time,and Birds of Prey is a refreshing sim if played at the highest difficulty.
The Dawg

[Karnak]

the only information numbers of the Meteor I've found seeing service over enemy territory total 14. which were assigned to the 616 squadron the very vast majority didnt enter service until after WWII ended

The first volume production version of the Meteor was the Mk III (G.41C) with a total of 210 aircraft built..
By comparison the D9, over 700 were built and actually saw combat service. which near as I have been able to find. were far more numorous in numbers then all variants of the Meteor that were built during the war combined.

I meant to say Fw190D-11 or D-13.

Fw190D-9 is, of course, a core late war German fighter and entirely appropriate to a WWII sim.


IronDog,

You need to read up on the Yak-3.  It had VASTLY more combat time than the P-63.

Hint:  Germans issued combat directives about Yak-3s.  Kinda silent about P-63s though.  Why?  because they were fighting Yak-3s and not P-63s.

[Brooke]

Regarding P-63 WWII use, more than 2500 of them were delivered to the Soviets.  That's a lot of planes -- it would be surprising if almost none of them made it into combat, but there is the statement in Wikipedia on the P-63 purporting that there was an agreement that the P-63's were only to be used against Japanese forces.  There is no reference given, though, so who knows if that's true.

[Rino]

Wow  Amazing the amount of moaning of what should or should not be in.

Look at it this way what ever gets in if it was not your choice. The chances of what you preferred is one step closer.

After all at some point we will run out of aircraft to choose from.

     Same thing happened after the last poll.  Everyone has their opinions and some people just don't appreciate
majority rules.  Perfect case in point are those who moan about any American iron in a poll.  Of course the
great unwashed will automagically pick those "because they don't know any better" 

[Karnak]

    Same thing happened after the last poll.  Everyone has their opinions and some people just don't appreciate
majority rules.  Perfect case in point are those who moan about any American iron in a poll.  Of course the
great unwashed will automagically pick those "because they don't know any better"  

They don't.  Most people playing this game aren't grognards.  Look at the comments that crop up occasionally on the board.  I recall a recent one by a prolific poster saying he didn't know the Japanese had any fighter other than the Zero until he started playing Aces High.  How can somebody like that make an informed choice when a list with a bunch of number letter combinations appear asking him to choose one?  What he'll likely do is pick something he has a clue as to what it is so he can get on with his evening in Aces High.  If it is a "P-xx", "A-xx" or "B-xx" he, most likely being American, is 1) more likely to actually know what it is and 2) failing that to have an idea of what it probably is simply based on the number.  E.g. a B-29 will likely be a later, more advanced bomber than the B-24 he plays with in the game whereas what the heck is a G.55, Ki-43, Me410 or Beaufighter?  Sure, they might be surprised at what they get if they voted the P-61 in, but they had a fair guess that it was a later, more potent fighter than a P-51.

This is not to insult those guys, not everybody is a hobbiest like some of us.  Nor is it to say that the stuff they would vote for are the wrong things.  It is to say that sometimes it is good to mix it up even if the powers that be have to rig the polls to do so.