F8F-1 Standard Characteristics... A genuine monster

[Arlo]

You don't think there is a difference between adding a propeller-driven fighter that actually flew over the peace signing and the stealth fighter you mentioned? That's not very reasonable.

What I'm saying is there's a logical line already drawn ... not a 'well this is close enough, lets add it' which will invariably be followed by 'well they added that, they may as well add THIS because it will be cooler!' ad infinitum. You finding that unreasonable or even irrational doesn't change what it clearly is ... which is a whole new game from:



F8f didn't fight in the war. Get over it. You can. 

[BnZs]

If the "saw combat in WWII" rule is absolute that is one thing. But the P-51H was on a plane poll once...*shrug*.

A second thing to think about regarding the "saw combat in WWII" is that we have one jet, one rocket plane, and that rule would allow for at least one more jet fighter, the Meteor. Yet some advanced prop planes would be too much?

[BnZs]

Heh, it could be added as an "evil con" plane.

[Arlo]

If the "saw combat in WWII" rule is absolute that is one thing. But the P-51H was on a plane poll once...*shrug*.

A second thing to think about regarding the "saw combat in WWII" is that we have one jet, one rocket plane, and that rule would allow for at least one more jet fighter, the Meteor. Yet some advanced prop planes would be too much?

Gimme a choice that saw combat in WWII. I may get on board (after the Sparviero). 

[BnZs]

Gimme a choice that saw combat in WWII. I may get on board (after the Sparviero). 

The Me-262 is already in game. The Meteor was used to oppose buzz bombs in WWII, and thus could conceivably be added under the operational usage rule. The Me-163, a rocket-plane whose performance makes the F8F look pale by comparison, is actually in the game. But some very high-performing prop planes would be too much? Is your objection based on pure historical integrity? In that case, well and good. Otherwise it doesn't hold water.

[Arlo]

Is your objection based on pure historical integrity? In that case, well and good.

It only took me a dozen posts to get that across, if I have. 

[BnZs]

It only took me a dozen posts to get that across, if I have. 

It's always prudent to verify. So, how do you feel about Mustangs fighting Spitfires, Fireflies shooting T-34s, and the always problematic combo of an La7 and a Zero winging together?

[Arlo]

It's always prudent to verify. So, how do you feel about Mustangs fighting Spitfires, Fireflies shooting T-34s, and the always problematic combo of an La7 and a Zero winging together?

It is an established part of the game. I prefer historical scenarios. But I also like flying the F4U. It is a persona/fan thing ever since I first read about the Jolly Rogers of WWII and I've stayed a loyal JR since AW (which also had that arena format). The MA becomes an 'evil necessity' in that case. My squad is coming back to the MA because of our desire to fly the F4U more oft. That being the case, we will be shooting down enemy captured Ponies, B-17s, Spitfires, etc over an alien landscape for the honor of whatever chess piece country 'pays' us best for our service (be it comradeship, us recognizing a numbers shift and all of us being able to switch, or just being there to finish a specific fight). This is Aces High and all that is part of it.

 

[Widewing]

What I'm saying is there's a logical line already drawn ... not a 'well this is close enough, lets add it' which will invariably be followed by 'well they added that, they may as well add THIS because it will be cooler!' ad infinitum. You finding that unreasonable or even irrational doesn't change what it clearly is ... which is a whole new game from:

(Image removed from quote.)

F8f didn't fight in the war. Get over it. You can. 

Arlo, that arbitrary distinction lacks any truly valid reasoning. It favors those nations who were totally defensive at the end of the war. By any standard I have ever heard of, the Ta 152H was not operational. Not even close. It saw combat because the combat came to it... Any flyable fighter, including prototypes and very limited production types saw combat out of desperation, not because they were combat ready.

Hundreds of F8F-1s were in squadron service before the war ended. It is NOT a post war fighter. The accident of Japanese surrender doesn't make it a post war fighter. They were in the combat zone, just days from flight ops.

Arbitrary rules as to what qualifies for inclusion is one of the factors that makes me wonder if I want to continue my subscription (which, to support HTC, I pay every month, whether or not I actually play).

The market has evolved (and will continues to do so), and competition seems to be growing. The new graphics engine is a big step, but it offers nothing the other guys already offer in terms of eye candy. Will this increase market share? Likely not. What may be needed is a fundamental change in game play, and abandoning of arbitrary, and maybe narrow-minded, thinking.

Same for the F7F-1 and F7F-2N, although in lesser numbers.

[Arlo]

Nothing arbitrary about it. A WWII fighter plane is a fighter plane that fought in WWII.

F8F is cool. It's a monster. But you said it yourself - " ... just days from flight ops." Like some planes were just weeks. Some just months. But ... it either fought in WWII or it didn't. Almost doesn't count. A flyover when the papers were signed doesn't count. Being the second plane flown by the Blue Angels doesn't count (even if I think it was the coolest).

If not getting the F8F seems like grounds for cancelling your sub, i got nothing to say about that since it seems more arbitrary than anything discussed in this thread to date.

Wait, I do have something to say. I like you. I'd miss you being in the game even though neither of us fly a whole helluva lot, lately. I relate to you even out of game. I don't understand why you'd use that as an excuse to quit.

P.S. Blame the A bomb. I'm pretty sure the Japanese didn't surrender just to keep the F8F out of AH, though. (J/K) 

[Oldman731]

Wait, I do have something to say. I like you. I'd miss you being in the game even though neither of us fly a whole helluva lot, lately. I relate to you even out of game. I don't understand why you'd use that as an excuse to quit.

Likewise.

Any cut-off is going to be arbitrary.  The Ta-152 has been an outlier forever; it should not have been added at the beginning of the game, simply because it crosses the line to "what if." 

That doesn't make it sensible to compound the initial error.

HTC could have made a hard cut-off of January 1, 1945.  We would have had one - one - plane less.  And we wouldn't have to be arguing about what's operational, what's seen combat, whatever.

But you can't leave, WW.  So it is written.

- oldman

[Arlo]

I once came up with an AVA setup that was based on the A Bomb not being developed in time to end WWII. I believe we didn't have the B-29 so something went wrong with its development, as well. The islands were surrounded. It was going to be a tough nut to crack. The Japanese had their entire AH plane set plus we did up skins for the 262 (as the Kikka) and the 163 as the "Shusui-kai." I did it for selfish reasons. Pac setups with F4Us were literally shunned by pro-axis players. The Corsair was just considered too overwhelming. Back then, VF-17 would often take to flying IJ planes to enjoy any PAC setup with Corsairs just to have a Japanese opponent. But, iirc, the "Second Wind" AvA setup enjoyed a fair amount of participation and nobody felt 'overwhelmed.'

This was a makeshift event. I never thought it would lead to the development of a Japanese jet or rocket plane for AH (and rightly, it didn't). 'Second Wind' was never set up again.

Why do I mention this? Because it was fun thinking outside the box.

Is it worth HTC spending time modeling planes that didn't see combat in WWII? My opinion is no. Would I fly in a '1946' arena if they did? Probably. I'd fly in a Korean War arena.

But I don't see limiting the planes being modeled to ones that saw combat in WWII (or earlier) as 'arbitrary' at all. It sounds like a very clear and thought out decision. Going outside of that parameter sounds like a Pandora's Box to me.

Just thought I'd add that.  

[Saxman]

Arbitrary rules as to what qualifies for inclusion is one of the factors that makes me wonder if I want to continue my subscription (which, to support HTC, I pay every month, whether or not I actually play).

I'm sorry, WW, as much as I respect your knowledge of WWII aviation and enjoy the information you post, if you're willing to quit the game over something as minor as where HTC draws the line at aircraft inclusion, I HAVE to say, "So long."

I don't fly much myself lately. It's not because of what aircraft are or are not present. It's because in many ways things feel stale with the mechanics. There's SO MUCH MORE I'd rather see them work on than modeling aircraft that didn't fire a single round in anger:

A modernized and more detailed damage model. Seriously, it's 2014. We're LONG past the time that the all-or-nothing major components only damage model is sufficient. Introduce gradual degradation of flight and control surfaces. Put in oil and fuel lines, control wires, hydraulics, electrical systems, and other components that can be shredded by enemy fire. Fuselage fires, engine fires. Set it up so that damage to the wing spar may reduce the G forces it takes to rip it off.

Improve the flight physics and flight system modelling. I, for one, would love to see more accounting for the pilot and control layout of each aircraft, which those of us with HOTAS setups take for granted. People complain about F4U hoverflaps? Then do something to represent that the pilot physically can't drop the flaps while simultaneously managing throttle and trim (but compensate by giving the Corsair and Hellcat their spring-deployed flaps so players can opt to "set and forget" the first two notches), and that will certainly alter how the Corsair is flown. Take away the nerf on torque effects. Add some more complexity to engine management (not to Il-2's artificial engine overheat level, but the simplified management we have takes away one of the big advantages German iron had over Allied rides). Remove trim from control surfaces on aircraft that didn't have them (or, like in the Tony docs you posted, have some that can only be set when the aircraft is on the ground and stopped).

People complain about how ridiculously easy gunnery is? Add slipstreams, prop wash, thermals, turbulence, and other environmental factors that would impact gunnery through their effects on flight characteristics.

Increase the options for ordinance and ground attack. Add parafrags for the B-25s and Tiny Tims, get the perked ordinance system for heavier-than-standard loads up and running. Update the physics to allow skip-bombing.

Do something to update the ground and surface campaign, improve the strat system and base/territory mechanics, expand naval and ground combat in a way that makes it much more significant for the "Win the War" crowd.

THESE are the sorts of things that most need attention. As has already been said throughout this thread, there's not much more in the way of aircraft that have enough "wow" factor to lure in new players or lure back transients for that to be any sort of solution.

[BnZs]

I do agree about the damage modeling.

Remove trim from control surfaces on aircraft that didn't have them (or, like in the Tony docs you posted, have some that can only be set when the aircraft is on the ground and stopped).

The reason the trim system is as it is in AH is because being out of trim is a much bigger headache and cause of bouncy-bouncy in a sim flown with a plastic joystick than in a real plane. Especially if a player doesn't have a good set of rudders.

People complain about how ridiculously easy gunnery is? Add slipstreams, prop wash, thermals, turbulence, and other environmental factors that would impact gunnery through their effects on flight characteristics.

I do not complain about how "easy" gunnery is, because it isn't. Some people in this game simply have vastly more practice at gunnery under combat conditions than any pilot could ever have gotten in real life. I do not think the complexity of adding the effects you mention would be worthwhile, indeed I think those factors would tend to compound the age-old problem in flight sims I mention above, namely the greater difficulty of flying in a stable manner using a small joystick with small throws and springs versus an actual stick with real control forces one can feel.

[-ammo-]

By the "standards" for entry as we know it, it seems to me the Beafighter or P-61 stands a better chance of being modeled than either the F8F or F7F.