Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: ScottyK on October 31, 2009, 08:46:15 PM
-
Just for some variety other than the C47s. I feel i would work well for FSOs... scenarios....AvA and for people who like to post historical based missions. Let the flaming beging because i did not list the aircrafts dimensions...time of use and other info. I just assumed the majority of people who played/play this game have a somewhat good knowledge of military aircraft and its history. (S)
-
me mentioned before i know it, but not its own topic, +! :aok
-
:aok
-
Good idea, you could mount a magnetised ring on it as well and use it for minesweeping.
:aok
-
Good idea, you could mount a magnetised ring on it as well and use it for minesweeping.
:aok
Yeah, if we had mines. Im all for the Ju 52. So +1
-
You're not the only one Scotty:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,270207.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,270207.0.html)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,188440.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,188440.0.html)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,213978.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,213978.0.html)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,211109.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,211109.0.html)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,158579.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,158579.0.html)
Look at the dates...would have been nice to get a Ju-52 instead of an uber P-47 that was barely produced and had little impact on the U.S. war effort.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,270207.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,270207.0.html)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,188440.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,188440.0.html)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,213978.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,213978.0.html)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,211109.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,211109.0.html)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,158579.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,158579.0.html)
DaddyAck brings up a good point in one of thous threads: :old:
1.Would give German squads a plane that can drop troops (a c-47 escourted by 109s looks lame)
-
And it was armed too. But a nice Ju-52 would definately help out the Luftwaffe in the SEA and the AvA. Ju 52/3mg5e variant please. I think it was the most one produced for military purposes. And the ones with the M-15 defensive guns too. :aok
-
DaddyAck brings up a good point in one of thous threads: :old:
And I'll bring up the point I make in the same ones:
Even in special events there's VERY little, if any, place for the Ju-52. At least in FSO all capture objectives I've seen are run with M3s/Jeeps and 251s. The times I've been in AVA I've rarely, if ever, seen base capture active. And how often are base captures used in Scenarios and Snapshots? I'm willing to bet that as with FSO, most captures are run using GVs for troops, not C-47s.
And as for the Mains:
It's armed, but it'll be no more survivable than a Kate. Its performance is actually poorer than the C-47, so there's almost a guarantee she'll be a hangar queen in there.
No mains utility + limited if any Events utility = bottom of the priority scale.
-
And I'll bring up the point I make in the same ones:
Even in special events there's VERY little, if any, place for the Ju-52. At least in FSO all capture objectives I've seen are run with M3s/Jeeps and 251s. The times I've been in AVA I've rarely, if ever, seen base capture active. And how often are base captures used in Scenarios and Snapshots? I'm willing to bet that as with FSO, most captures are run using GVs for troops, not C-47s.
And as for the Mains:
It's armed, but it'll be no more survivable than a Kate. Its performance is actually poorer than the C-47, so there's almost a guarantee she'll be a hangar queen in there.
No mains utility + limited if any Events utility = bottom of the priority scale.
Higher than the P-47M though.
Ever think that the reason for vehicles being used to transport troops in special events for the Germans was because they weren't allocated aerial troop transports? Or perhaps the people who spec'd out the event didn't consider the possibility that aerial troop drops were used instead of ground vehicles? I've seen several event that should have had C-47s for the allies but didn't.
Add it based on the same parameters as everything else that has been added and see what use it gets.
-
Higher than the P-47M though.
Ever think that the reason for vehicles being used to transport troops in special events for the Germans was because they weren't allocated aerial troop transports? Or perhaps the people who spec'd out the event didn't consider the possibility that aerial troop drops were used instead of ground vehicles? I've seen several event that should have had C-47s for the allies but didn't.
Add it based on the same parameters as everything else that has been added and see what use it gets.
They sub in things for missing aircraft when they need to, so if they really needed a Ju52 they'd have done the scenario with C-47s instead. The fact is that the C-47 never gets used in scenarios, and the Ju52 would not either.
In the MA I'd much rather have an extra 50mph than some light guns and even those who think otherwise now would quickly come to the same conclusion. Only dedicated German themed squads would use the Ju52 regularly.
You cannot compare adding the P-47M, which required no graphics work at all and only a new flight model by Pyro, with adding an entirely new, multi-engine, multi-crew position, aircraft. The amount of required work by HTC is completely different.
I wouldn't mind seeing it added eventually and it certainly has a place. It just isn't as useful as it looks at first glance.
-
They sub in things for missing aircraft when they need to, so if they really needed a Ju52 they'd have done the scenario with C-47s instead. The fact is that the C-47 never gets used in scenarios, and the Ju52 would not either.
Then that is a setup problem. Where appropriate aircraft are available, they should be used. A lot of it has to do with the overall objectives...sometimes it's base capture, sometimes it's simple destruction, other times it's sea battles.
Only dedicated German themed squads would use the Ju52 regularly.
Yes and there are more important planes and some ground vehicles missing from the set that have the potential of greatly improving special events. Along you're line of thinking, we could easily have at least 2 more models of Ju-87 with more widely variable (light to heavy) loadouts...which would make for some really great early and midwar events.
You cannot compare adding the P-47M, which required no graphics work at all and only a new flight model by Pyro, with adding an entirely new, multi-engine, multi-crew position, aircraft. The amount of required work by HTC is completely different.
With programming, once a foundation is laid, it's not difficult to add/subtract from it to produce a different outcome. I'm betting the 3d software Pyro uses has the ability to morph objects fairly easily too. Take the Brewster and I-16 for example...2 different planes, 1 base model. All I'm saying is the Ju-52 and several other planes are viable additions that could and should be considered before such things as the P-47M and the proposed WWI setup. I understand the premise behind thier motivation for proceeding as they have but...without much more effort some things could be done for the better without much more effort than has already been put forth.
-
I'm betting the 3d software Pyro uses has the ability to morph objects fairly easily too. Take the Brewster and I-16 for example...2 different planes, 1 base model.
What happened with the P-47M is that it used the exact same airframe as the bubble-topped P-47D. It is NOT the same as taking a "base model" and morphing it into two entirely different airframes, which by the way is NOT how 3D modeling works. If two airframes don't share common components then you wouldn't take the model for one and change it into another (Brewster and I-16 are two ENTIRELY different models, with nothing in common between them). You'd build two separate models entirely.
-
Gimme a Ju52, I want to send that all-time favourite message 'Broadsword calling Danny Boy' just before I prang it into a mountain.
:aok
-
With programming, once a foundation is laid, it's not difficult to add/subtract from it to produce a different outcome. I'm betting the 3d software Pyro uses has the ability to morph objects fairly easily too. Take the Brewster and I-16 for example...2 different planes, 1 base model. All I'm saying is the Ju-52 and several other planes are viable additions that could and should be considered before such things as the P-47M and the proposed WWI setup. I understand the premise behind thier motivation for proceeding as they have but...without much more effort some things could be done for the better without much more effort than has already been put forth.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The Brewster and I-16 share nothing graphically.
-
It is NOT the same as taking a "base model" and morphing it into two entirely different airframes, which by the way is NOT how 3D modeling works.
You haven't seen or done much with 3d mesh frame modelling software have you? With some of the better programs you can take a base 3d frame and "morph" it into a similar shape or by adding/subtracting from the orginal shape turn it into something totally different. Perhaps I'm using the term "morph" in the wrong context on this but essentially I know it's possible to take a base 3d wire frame model and change it's shape.
Simplistic example of what can be done using geometric wireframe shapes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ8U8Km3JlU&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ8U8Km3JlU&feature=player_embedded)
If two airframes don't share common components then you wouldn't take the model for one and change it into another (Brewster and I-16 are two ENTIRELY different models, with nothing in common between them). You'd build two separate models entirely.
As far as the programmed characteristics of the model and the way it works in the environment that is true but when it comes to the base wireframe model, it can be changed. I'm nowhere near the ability that Pyro has in 3d modelling but I do know what is possible.
The Brewster and I-16 aren't that far apart in base model shape:
This is an I-16
(http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/polikarpov_i16_colinhunter.jpg)
This is a Brewster
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/kari.stenman/theme/november_2001_theme01.jpg)
Please tell me you don't see any similarity in the base shape.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The Brewster and I-16 share nothing graphically.
Yup, you're right Karnak...uh huh.
-
You haven't seen or done much with 3d mesh frame modelling software have you?
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Only about 10+ years. Almost all of it stuff for myself and nothing professional, but yeah, I would say I DO. And if I were modelling two different objects, I wouldn't reuse anything but the absolute most BASIC geometric shapes between them (simple cylinders and boxes ONLY).
-
It would generally take more time to figure out the math and dimension changes needed on a complex shape to make it a new shape than it would to create it from scratch...
-
It would generally take more time to figure out the math and dimension changes needed on a complex shape to make it a new shape than it would to create it from scratch...
This.
gyrene has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to the work to add aircraft. You cannot simply dash out a Ju52 with only slightly more effort than it took to do the P-47M.
-
Only about 10+ years. Almost all of it stuff for myself and nothing professional, but yeah, I would say I DO. And if I were modelling two different objects, I wouldn't reuse anything but the absolute most BASIC geometric shapes between them (simple cylinders and boxes ONLY).
There are some differences between wireframe modelling and 3d object modelling. With your experience you should know sometimes just changing a few basic shapes is more than enough to save a lot of time in creating a new model vs building one from scratch (sans overlay and animation programming). And that's basically all I'm talking about doing.
It would generally take more time to figure out the math and dimension changes needed on a complex shape to make it a new shape than it would to create it from scratch...
Depending on the complexity and differences between the 2 models being considered...true.
-
This.
gyrene has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to the work to add aircraft. You cannot simply dash out a Ju52 with only slightly more effort than it took to do the P-47M.
Wow...make up your mind Karnak. First you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because the I-16 and the Brewster aren't similar now you're saying I don't know anything about with 3d modelling. aaaaaaalllllllrrrrighty then.
All hail Karnak the magnificent.
-
First you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because the I-16 and the Brewster aren't similar now you're saying I don't know anything about with 3d modelling.
Sounds to me more like you're grabbing straws for a retort...I mean, I read those as saying the same thing.
-
I highly doubt that this is on HTC's agenda to do right now, but i would fly it. +1
-
Sounds to me more like you're grabbing straws for a retort...I mean, I read those as saying the same thing.
No offense but...did you actually read his posts within the context they were written or is that conjecture on your part?
-
Wow...make up your mind Karnak. First you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because the I-16 and the Brewster aren't similar now you're saying I don't know anything about with 3d modelling. aaaaaaalllllllrrrrighty then.
All hail Karnak the magnificent.
You don't know what you are talking about in this context. I have made no claims at all about your knowledge of 3D modeling in other contexts.
I am basing my claims explicitly on things HTC has posted over the years regarding issues with adding certain aircraft, not hypothetical situations.
EDIT:
Let me expound a bit. I do not think it would be easier to reach HTC's 3D accuracy goal by altering an existing model into an entirely new model, with specific polygon count limits, break points and all, rather than building each model from scratch. This is also affected by the fact that HTC normally has one artist do an aircraft and another do a different aircraft. Pyro is not one of their artists, he is the producer and does flight models and model research. An HTC poster, Pyro if I recall correctly, said that the H8K2 was unlikely to ever be modeled due to the sheer amount of 3D work that would be involved in that aircraft due to its large size and many compartments and gun positions. Doing the H8K2 would take as much work as doing many entirely new single engined fighters.
-
Thank you for clarifying Karnak...I do sincerely appreciate it. :salute
Let me expound a bit. I do not think it would be easier to reach HTC's 3D accuracy goal by altering an existing model into an entirely new model, with specific polygon count limits, break points and all, rather than building each model from scratch.
Agreed. It would be difficult...and to the degree of taking something such as the Ju-88 and turning into an He-111 or B-25 it would be easier to just start from scratch, whereas the transition from a P47N to P47M is just a few tweaks and some programming corrections.
However, let's take the example of the H8K2 and looking at the base design (try to visualize a 3d wireframe model)...aside from some of the really intricate details, a transition from the B24 framework shouldn't be impossible. Take a look the specs between the 2 airframes.
H8K2:
Length: 28.15 m (92 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 38.00 m (124 ft 8 in)
Height: 9.15 m (30 ft)
Wing area: 160 m² (1,721 ft²)
Powerplant: 4× Mitsubishi Kasei 22 radial engines, 1,380 kW (1,850 hp) each
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4lnCR5yIpZA/Rt9T5rEDCfI/AAAAAAAAAIU/nmpo93cqGcQ/s400/Kawanishi_H8K2_(Emily)_flying_boat.jpg)
B-24
Length: 67 ft 8 in (20.6 m)
Wingspan: 110 ft 0 in (33.5 m)
Height: 18 ft 0 in (5.5 m)
Powerplant: 4× Pratt & Whitney R-1830 turbosupercharged radial engines, 1,200 hp (900 kW) each
(http://www.taphilo.com/photo/pictures/B24J.gif)
IMO this would be more difficult to do from scratch:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/PBY_Catalina_landing.jpg)
-
Specifically Pyro mentioned the interior compartments. I have photos of the H8K's interior on my computer that I saved when Mitsu posted them as part of an effort to get the H8K2 added and it is in an entirely separate category in terms of graphics work compared to any aircraft in AH. The B-29 or Short Sunderland might be comparable.
-
Just watched Valkyrie again and saw the beautiful JU-52 used in the movie. Once again I'm a big :aok for Iron Annie in AH.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/junkers-ju-52.jpg)
-
No way in hell I'd try to take the B-24 model and convert it into an H8K. The only similarities between them are the number of engines and the high-mounted wing. They're two ENTIRELY different airframes otherwise. It'd be easier to remodel the existing B-24 into the PB4Y-2 than to convert the B-24 into the Emily.
-
Agreed. It would be difficult...and to the degree of taking something such as the Ju-88 and turning into an He-111 or B-25 it would be easier to just start from scratch, whereas the transition from a P47N to P47M is just a few tweaks and some programming corrections.
However, let's take the example of the H8K2 and looking at the base design (try to visualize a 3d wireframe model)...aside from some of the really intricate details, a transition from the B24 framework shouldn't be impossible. Take a look the specs between the 2 airframes.
From what I understand, they start from scratch even when converting old 3D shapes to new 3D shapes, so I would imagine they don't try to morph anything at all unless it's almost identical.
Also consider that they didn't redo the Ta 152 at the same time as the rest of the 190's (rather a LONG time later) nor the Tempest at the same time as the Typhoon. I think Pyro's also said that the Yak 3 is too different to use the existing Yak's as a base.
-
+1 for JU52 :rock :aok
-
JU-52 FTW :aok