"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)
+- 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)
"Realistic" vs "Fantasy" debate - Radoye - 20.07.2009
OK this stems from a debate in another topic.
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.
To define a "fantasy" plane - this doesn't necessarily include paper projects such as "Luft '46" for which some references exist, such as blueprints, performance estimate calculations, wind tunel test results etc. Rather, a "fantasy" plane is a variant - or even an entirely new type of a plane - for which there are absolutely no historical references to draw upon, therefore an entirely speculative variant.
(I know there are a few of such already in - the jet LaGG (pun intended
) from the stock set, and that one Me-410 variant to name a couple.)I believe all such "fasntasy" planes should indeed be clearly marked, i don't mind having them or even including them in the "official" UI packs as long as they are labeled as such (for the record - i'm eagerly waiting for the Porco Rosso plane that our Japanese friends are making, and that one perfectly fits the "fantasy" definition).
IMHO it is not too much to ask from the modders to add one more word to the planes.properties file that would clearly label a non-historical variant to avoid any confusion.
I do realize modders will do what they want to do, and they will do it regardless of what the rest of us think about it.
I do realize how much work is involved in creating these mods and i really and truly appreciate it very much.
What is your take?
- shakthamac - 20.07.2009
I don't see a problem with fantasy aircraft from a Policy perspective. Personally I don't care for them one bit, but AAA should be open to allow anything from a fantasy perspective, because thats how we attract more people from different backgrounds. Once we bring them into the fold, everybody will win.
Canvas Knights anyone? While this is not a work of fantasy, there are modders and players who have come to AAA specifically for that project. I can see how that could translate for other projects as well.
- Guest - 20.07.2009
Uh... Why do you care so much?
- Triad773 - 20.07.2009
Interesting question, but I think most people here could easily tell what's 'Fantasy' vs Historical without any additional naming conventions.
I get the impression that most (not all, but most,) are interested in historical (or, more historical than IL-2 originally had,) - for with real aircraft there is data. For fantasy aircraft (aside from the proposed specs which may or may not have been true), you are butting up against any game engine limitations, which no one knows how close it would be to a proposed aircraft.
Just my opinion.
- dorkfish - 20.07.2009
With respect, that is why sim is called IL-2 1946. The LaGG that you speak of, if you are referring to the LaGG-3RD; is part of the standard game, and is not a mod. The La-7R is a mod, but no less a project than the LaGG-3RD. I'm sure most people who play this game know what was in service and what was project thet never saw service.
- dorkfish - 20.07.2009
4./JG53_Howlin Wrote:@ Dorkfish, are you sure the La-7R is a mod, it was my understanding that it came with the game and was not added by AAA
You're right. My bad.
Which only goes further to the point. Only two of these was made for test. Never saw service.
- Paulo Hirth - 20.07.2009
My desire is the AAA experts still improve the acurate of FM in new slot planes, with objetive do more near possible of documental historic data test, the engine isnt complex enougth to hit this, but lets try do the best, there is a lot wrong FMs to fix.
- Radoye - 20.07.2009
I brought up this question because i noticed several people asking in that other thread questions like "Is this real?" "I never heard of this variant before" and such.
Obviously, there are some here who are confused by it. Not all of us here are history buffs and grognards, though some clearly are
Re: the La-7R - it doesn't matter if it was put in service or not, it physically existed, it flew and it's performance was recorded. Therefore it is real even if there were only two of them.
On the other hand i couldn't find any historical reference to back up the LaGG-3RD. There was a somewhat similar La-152 but the similarity seems superficial - like with Yak-15 and Yak-17, they both look similar on the outside but the airframe is in fact very much different. The La-152 does not look like it is using a LaGG-3 airframe like the plane we have in game does.
So if someone has evidence that can back up the existence of the LaGG jet i'd be very much interested in seeing it.
- mig88 - 20.07.2009
Personally, I enjoy "what if" aircraft as much as "real" ones. I even enjoy making what if scenarios. I'm a Luft46 fan and I'm glad that some projects are in the game and a few on their way although "what if" aircraft from other nations are also welcome. I do agree with comments in other topics that there are a series of major gaps as far as historical aircraft are concerned and that these should be filled at some time or another - several, thankfully, are already WIPs.
In all cases I suscribe to the two basic points throughout this topic:
1 The majority know what was real and what wasn't (and asking doesn't hurt!!!).
2 If you don't want to fly or use it then just ignore it.
- Sora - 20.07.2009
DITTO! mig88
- patton521 - 20.07.2009
I tend to lean more towards historical aircraft, but it is still fun to fly some of those what if planes. There are some planes that where designed but never flew in combat the Heinkel Lerch is a good example, while planes like the HO-229 did fly in combat and were the steping stones for other planes of the same design but on a larger scale. The problem with making a what if plane is that there are specifiactions of the plane are not know.
Re: "Realistic" vs "Fantasy" debate - RealDarko - 20.07.2009
Radoye Wrote:OK this stems from a debate in another topic.
To define a "fantasy" plane - this doesn't necessarily include paper projects such as "Luft '46" for which some references exist, such as blueprints, performance estimate calculations, wind tunel test results etc. Rather, a "fantasy" plane is a variant - or even an entirely new type of a plane - for which there are absolutely no historical references to draw upon, therefore an entirely speculative variant.
(I know there are a few of such already in - the jet LaGG (pun intended
I believe all such "fasntasy" planes should indeed be clearly marked, i don't mind having them or even including them in the "official" UI packs as long as they are labeled as such (for the record - i'm eagerly waiting for the Porco Rosso plane that our Japanese friends are making, and that one perfectly fits the "fantasy" definition).
IMHO it is not too much to ask from the modders to add one more word to the planes.properties file that would clearly label a non-historical variant to avoid any confusion.
Lagg-3RD is not a fantasy plane. The project was examined by a comission of experts and considered premature ( mixing a existing plane with a new experimental engine ), so is a real project designed and considered during WW2.
If you care so much for a word why not add yourself? I'm impressed to see Why is this debate so important to you? Have you noticed Il2 is a game? Even the military "sims" are games, cause you can't simulatre everything happening in a plane. So relax and take it easy
- mig88 - 20.07.2009
If you really dislike "fantasy" planes, why not set up a quick mission against some with historic planes and shoot them down. It might be therapeutic!!!
(This is just a joke and is not intended to offend anyone - just enjoy Il-2 the way you want to)
Re: "Realistic" vs "Fantasy" debate - Radoye - 20.07.2009
RealDarko Wrote:If you care so much for a word why not add yourself?I surely can add a word to my copy of the game, but if you haven't noticed the question/suggestion is about the general AAA policy how these should be handled.
Again, i repeat for the umpteenth time i am not against non-historical aircraft being included.
RealDarko Wrote:I'm impressed to see Why is this debate so important to you?Why not?
And i'm thoroughly confused why some people feel so much threatened about questions like this being raised?
RealDarko Wrote:Have you noticed Il2 is a game? Even the military "sims" are games, cause you can't simulatre everything happening in a plane.And have you noticed that, even though a game, and with all the imperfections and inaccuracies that it has, Il-2 strives to be a historical simulator?
That, for those who don't care for the historical aspect, there are plenty other games to choose from - like Crimson Skies for example?
If we completely take away the historical aspect from Il-2, aren't we actually turning it into a Crimson Skies-like arcade game?
RealDarko Wrote:So relax and take it easyI'm perfectly relaxed but it seems a lot of you guys aren't. So you better take care of yourself first. You know, hypertension can be a real killer, gotta watch out... :wink:
- RealDarko - 20.07.2009
I'm too young to have hipertension :wink:
You're right we need to calm down all, but I'm against policy changes in this aspect.
P.S. Have you seen my response about the LAgg-3RD? Hope to clarify it for you. Sure is a ugly plane