Oleg Maddox's Room #1

[csThor]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

Somebody told here that why we are doing the planes that didn't play role in the war... It is incorect opinion. Each plane played some role. And each plane that we model is important part of history and GAMEPLAY for single play. It is also important for users that like to make themselves some episodes of airwar that we or others never covered in a flightsim. Also this will make the sim unique comparing to all other BoBs before. If you'll look for years back, you may se that with original Il-2 was really the same situation ...
Or you don't like to try to fly military autogyro for recon or for the tunings of radar and trying to escape attacks of bf109s? I can give you a guarantie that it will be for many people very interesting and to feell the things that was never experinced before.... Just little sample... Only when you pay attention to such "outside of main picture" detail the product might be interesting for all.

I have to say something about this. I've got my own "priority ladder" for aircraft, ground objects or ships one could add to a simulation.

1.) Primary Objects

These are the main fighting types - those that are historically relevant for the operation(s) simulated by a certain release. This includes aircraft flyable for the player and AI only (say recon types, liaison aircraft or transports) as well as ground objects (tanks, artillery, AAA, trucks, cars, ships etc) needed to display ground operations. Objects of this category are absolutely necessary to accurately simulate the air combat (and ground combat) as it happened in history. However this category also takes the replayability value of the flyable aircraft into consideration.

An example: For the simulation of the "Battle of Britain" the Bf 109 E and the Hurricane Mk Ia ar of vital importance. Both have a great replayability value for the players, both offline and online. Both were used by other nations in later conflicts as well (i.e. Romania 1941) and can be reused for later releases as well.

2.) Secondary Objects

Objects of this category are historically relevant, too, and are adding to the player's immersion when re-enacting the air combat during the operations in question. But in contrast to category 1 these aren't vital for the simulation of the conflict, either because they fulfilled secondary roles or were only present in very small numbers. Secondary objects can also be AI-only aircraft which weren't made flyable (i.e. because the aircraft fulfilled a role which isn't present in campaigns or because the technical limitations of the engine make it impossible to use it in its historical role). The replayability value is less big than those of category 1, but still relevant.

Example: Dedicated short-range recon aircraft, liaison aircraft etc ...

3.) Tertiary Objects

These are objects which were historically present, but not relevant in any relation. They have very little replayability value.

Example: That autogyro. It fulfilled exactly one role for a very short amount of time in numbers not worth mentioning.

I suspect most players have something similar in place using similar characteristics. People wondering about the relative value of types like the autogyro, the Anson or the Bf 108 wonder if the development time (which you mentioned specifically) wouldn't be better spent on aircraft types of category 1 (such as a flyable Do 17, Wellington etc) instead. The questions arise because we - the fans - have little to no real facts at hand about the features you plan. We have no real fundament for our personal evaluation of the planned objects. My 0,02 € ...