"Realistic" vs "Fantasy" debate
#12

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 Rather, a "fantasy" plane is a variant - or even an entirely new type of a plane - for which there are absolutely no historical references to draw upon, therefore an entirely speculative variant.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 Tongue ) 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.

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
Reply


Messages In This Thread

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 12 Guest(s)