All-Aircraft-Simulations
"Realistic" vs "Fantasy" debate - Printable Version

+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: IL2 MODS Download & Discussion (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=267)
+--- Forum: IL-2 4.09m (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=348)
+---- Forum: IL2 MODS Discussion Section 4.09m (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=292)
+---- Thread: "Realistic" vs "Fantasy" debate (/showthread.php?tid=63459)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

- Pongie - 21.07.2009

It's only about labelling add-on A/C that didn't make it to the construction boards?


I'm all with you. Easy, because:

1, Even if forum users are in the know of what had been aloft then many new players and occasional ones aren't!

2, As stated, being shot down by "heat seeking missiles"/Uber planes will give those players an impression doing disservice to real WW2 pilots

(Why had they been shot down in high/low numbers? To dumb to hit a barn door? Wontehwarplanes.... :???: )

3, No effort is lost, every plane MOD will find its pilots. Forumwise vivid concerns about server population and planeset bannings won't give the majority of players (offliners) sh*t to care about. They'll enjoy the new mounts big time nevertheless.

4, A bracket labelled "(fictional)" for non-historicals would be spot on, no need to label "HST"s. Nission makers and not so experienced server admins will benefit from a not so prolific use of suffices. Kind of evens out a mark to be outstanding. Labels like "1946" or "1947" contain big amounts of guess-work. No recomendation towards that, especially as revolver cannons on "1945" planes (Me410) have not been used historically in 1945.


Greets,
Pongie

- Friendly_flyer - 21.07.2009

I believe the plane that sparked this debate is the proposed Hurricane EX (I suppose the EX means experimental, and as such a nice designation for a fantasy plane). The model is a result of a "what if" scenario where Sovjet took over Hungarian license production of the Hurribird and continued development. Personally, I'm all for making this bird, I am all for discussing it's proposed characteristics (lacking the post-cockpit filler it would lack some of the Hurries sideways stability for ex), and I'm very thankful for the modeller spending their time and talent on giving us interesting types, even if they represent planes that never even was planned. I for one enjoy the Hurries we have (and the Sea Hurricanes too!), and would love to see what potential existed in the basic design.

Fantasy planes or historical planes are ultimately the result of what modellers feel like making. This debate is a parallel to the debate over historical maps, scaled maps and fantasy maps. We are given what someone care to make. Those who feel that the time making non-historical planes (or maps) would be better spent on making historical ones, or improving what we already have, have misunderstood the process. The modellers that wish to make the experimental Hurricane or Porco Rossos plane make those planes because they wish to. They do not necessarily wish to make the Do 17, Helldiver or other historical planes we miss. There is no either or, we get what the modellers want to make and share with us, or we get nothing.

- Boosher - 21.07.2009

I am in 100% agreement with you Friendly Flyer. I'm happy that people are willing to model at all, given the investment necessary.

- caldrail - 21.07.2009

In all honesty I'm suprised that peoplem are generally okay with fantasy aeroplanes (I know there will be those that aren't). Rather than spark any heated arguement on the subject, it really is a case horses for courses. If all you want is the historical stuff that don't bother with anything else. Actually, if people are happy with fantasy planes I might give that a crack. The practice would be useful and I never did progress very far with a Potez 630 frankenthing I started a while back.

As a creative person, I do like to doodle, much the same as designers of the period, and the great thing about a sim like IL2 is you get to fly the resulting aeroplane and fulfill your aircraft designer fantasy in a virtual way.

However, what is important is that fantasy models should be labelled as such, as this is a historical sim at heart and many will want to re-enact the battles of yesteryear (like me, oddly enough).

So unless anyone has any real objections, I'll start doodling. Let's see where we go... Smile

PS - There will be a delay however. Having gotten all enthusiastic I've just remembered my PC isn't breathing anymore. Doh! :roll: Sad At least I have a motivation to work magic with a screwdriver before I plug bits of polygon together...

- Friendly_flyer - 21.07.2009

Ah, would you take a look at the fantasy Zimbutu while you are at it, mate?

- Thrud - 21.07.2009

i prefer to watch the history channel over the sci-fi channel. :wink:

- Triad773 - 21.07.2009

I too am grateful for the addition of imaginative modelers and coders who have given me not only some nice what ifs, but a crop of planes that I historically had no exposure on. Bottom line was that I learned a lot from exploring what others thought was interesting, even if I wasn't interested from the start- the concept won out because it was a good one (no matter how I felt about it).

But I digress. I believe the original poster's question was The question was whether "fantasy" ("what-if", "alternate history") modded planes should be clearly marked as such or not - or even if they should be allowed on AAA at all.

People have provided arguments both pro and con- perhaps what the relevant factor will be if the participants feel if it is worth the effort or not. Getting their buy-in is essential in implementing any such change in naming conventions.

I guess having it for those not knowing if it is fantasy or not get more info, while people who do know just have another set of naming conventions to deal with.

- dorkfish - 21.07.2009

I still don't really get the point. It seems the OP is arguing that modders should clearly mark planes that were not in WWII...or ones that did not fly period. Seeing this sim IS part fantasy. WWII in 1946. And if Oleg did not clearly mark the LaGG-3RD, which never flew, and was only a project on paper; why should people who make modded planes mark them as such.

- philhl - 21.07.2009

Well whats about orange skins? like the japanese colored their prototypes!

[Image: nakajima_g8n-s.gif]

- WOEI - 21.07.2009

dorkfish Wrote:I still don't really get the point. It seems the OP is arguing that modders should clearly mark planes that were not in WWII...or ones that did not fly period. Seeing this sim IS part fantasy. WWII in 1946. And if Oleg did not clearly mark the LaGG-3RD, which never flew, and was only a project on paper; why should people who make modded planes mark them as such.

What if Oleg never takes a shower? Are we then forbidden from taking a shower? I think it would be a good thing that 'fantasy' (being aircraft that never left the initial drawing board stage) aircraft were marked as such. Just so that people who are new to this sim have an idea what's real and what's fiction. In the end, not eveyone is aware that the Blowing XP-1337A did take to the skies and that the 1337-XD or whatever never was produced or tested.

About the orange skins, that's real. The Japanese used it for their prototypes as you stated. Nothing fictional about that. It's up to a campaign maker / server admin to allow or not allow such stuff.

- dorkfish - 21.07.2009

LW/KG10_BlackKnight Wrote:What if Oleg never takes a shower? Are we then forbidden from taking a shower? I think it would be a good thing that 'fantasy' (being aircraft that never left the initial drawing board stage) aircraft were marked as such. Just so that people who are new to this sim have an idea what's real and what's fiction. In the end, not eveyone is aware that the Blowing XP-1337A did take to the skies and that the 1337-XD or whatever never was produced or tested.
Only giving my opinion. No one is forbidden to do anything, especially by me. Although your shower analogy is quit silly. Again, this sim is based on fantasy in part. As in what if WWII had kept going past 1945. As far as modders marking them ... I could really care less. I don't fly that big a variety of planes anyway. And the ones I do fly are all WWII common aircraft. Bf 109s. Mostly G-2. P-40C/P-47D-10/P-51D-20 and late Spitfires. I don't fly the fantasy planes. Nothing against them. And this was a debate.... one where I was only offering my opinion.

- Radoye - 21.07.2009

This game has now far surpassed the "WWII 1946" label - with the Canvass Knights project on one side and all the Korean War stuff on the other the time scope of Il-2 is being stretched ever more. What worked before the time of mods isn't working anymore.

Before modded planes were added you could get away with marking the "fantasy waffe" planes 1946 - everyone knows WWII wnded in 1945, anything beyond that was made up. So there was already a way to segregate "fantasy waffe" from historic aircraft. Now, with the Korean War, we have historic planes that are being labeled 1946, 47, 48, 49... and the old system is broken.

But again, this is not so much about the Luft '46 projects. What to do when the "alternate history" variant shares the same designation with a historic variant but the two are very much different aircraft (example - the "Yak-3K" mod)? Obviously, there has to be some kind of a naming convention put in place to make it possible to distinguish between the two. Or, what should we do about stuff like that bubble top Hurricane? If you mark it "1946" it will be a total anachronism with the rest of the "1946" stuff. If you mark it "1942" (in the alternate history world from which this comes it was a 1942 model) it will be mistaken for a historical variant - maybe not by most people on these boards but certainly by most people who will use it online or otherwise. There are lots of kids who play this game who don't know off the top of their heads each and every variant that ever flew, like some of us do. Some of these kids actually look up to this game and use it almost as a kind of a Bible of WWII combat aircraft, i know my cousin's kid does.

I'm not suggesting this because i wish to exclude non-historic aircraft, on the contrary, i wish to find a way to accommodate them and to give them a place in the game yet still keep the historical simulation aspect of Il-2 preserved. I believe it is important.

- WOEI - 21.07.2009

dorkfish Wrote:
LW/KG10_BlackKnight Wrote:What if Oleg never takes a shower? Are we then forbidden from taking a shower? I think it would be a good thing that 'fantasy' (being aircraft that never left the initial drawing board stage) aircraft were marked as such. Just so that people who are new to this sim have an idea what's real and what's fiction. In the end, not eveyone is aware that the Blowing XP-1337A did take to the skies and that the 1337-XD or whatever never was produced or tested.

Only giving my opinion. No one is forbidden to do anything, especially by me. Although your shower analogy is quit silly. Again, this sim is based on fantasy in part. As in what if WWII had kept going past 1945. As far as modders marking them ... I could really care less. I don't fly that big a variety of planes anyway. And the ones I do fly are all WWII common aircraft. Bf 109s. Mostly G-2. P-40C/P-47D-10/P-51D-20 and late Spitfires. I don't fly the fantasy planes. Nothing against them. And this was a debate.... one where I was only offering my opinion.

Me too...me too... :wink:

- caldrail - 22.07.2009

Friendly_flyer Wrote:Ah, would you take a look at the fantasy Zimbutu while you are at it, mate?

Only too willing to oblige. At the moment all I can look at is a disassembled computer. Enjoy the beta in the meantime Smile

- Radoye - 23.07.2009

There was an interesting moment in the Me 334 thread, someone found a description of a CFS addon on the net and thought it was a real life historical pilot account on this plane that actually never flew. :|

So some people do indeed take very seriously the information they find in games even when it's wrong.