New Aircraft in 2026

[AEthelraedUnraed]

Instead of complaining how we're not getting a 12th (!) Bf-109 or a Wunderwaffe that saw a grand total of 3 weeks of action off the in-game maps, one could also be happy about the fact that we're getting 5 new aircraft at all, for a game that is effectively end-of-life.

[PaperPilot]

10 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Instead of complaining how we're not getting a 12th (!) Bf-109 or a Wunderwaffe that saw a grand total of 3 weeks of action off the in-game maps, one could also be happy about the fact that we're getting 5 new aircraft at all, for a game that is effectively end-of-life.

That’s a good point, but I think if the dev team can spare anymore resources towards Great Battles these days, I think it should be on the Finnish Air Force and the Karelian division of the Soviet Air Force, as well as some Luftwaffe planes. This would help enrich the Leningrad map and the Finnish Virtual Pilots server experience. I shouldn’t go on, but I think it would be a good idea.

[Shinobimono]

15 часов назад, Docholiday сказал:

Supercrate-variants who saw nearly no action during during the war sell better 😉.

Jokes aside, I think that I-185 M-71 would sell at good enough rate. 😌 

Edited Friday at 06:29 AM by Shinobimono

[MDzmitry]

1 час назад, Shinobimono сказал:

Jokes aside, I think that I-185 M-71 would sell at good enough rate. 😌 

Imagine the amount of complaints about engine handling if it really appeared in the game... 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 hours ago, PaperPilot said:

That’s a good point, but I think if the dev team can spare anymore resources towards Great Battles these days, I think it should be on the Finnish Air Force and the Karelian division of the Soviet Air Force, as well as some Luftwaffe planes. This would help enrich the Leningrad map and the Finnish Virtual Pilots server experience. I shouldn’t go on, but I think it would be a good idea.

As far as I'm aware, the Finnish team is still making the G.50 and Buffalo so you can have your wish.

Say, do you happen to know a guy called Jack?🤔

[Shinobimono]

1 час назад, MDzmitry сказал:

Imagine the amount of complaints about engine handling if it really appeared in the game... 

Complaints of bad engine could be possible in DCS. Here we have only aircraft of "gold standard".

This game is about dogfight and not about aircraft systems, unfortunately. 

[PaperPilot]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

As far as I'm aware, the Finnish team is still making the G.50 and Buffalo so you can have your wish.

Say, do you happen to know a guy called Jack?🤔

Yoiu got me.

[AndreiTomescu]

14 hours ago, Shinobimono said:

This game is about dogfight and not about aircraft systems, unfortunately. 

Fortunately this game is about historical reenactment of the Great aerial Battles that took place in the past. Dogfighting including. 

Good for those wanting to virtual fly those encounters, right?

For mechanical hyper accuracy, there is DCS. 

Technical details, in GB, and maybe even more Korea, are, IMHO, sufficiently and plenty represented in terms of:

- technical difference between planes

- damage model, behaviour after damage

- flight model between planes, etc

Not hardcore represented, but plenty enough to give me the vibe of how I Imagine the real deal, while keeping the sim enjoyable.

The accent is put on historical recreation of the encounters.

I really appreciate this game for what it is, for what it does (nothing is flawless) and for what it gave me so far: around 3k hrs of enjoyment.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Exactly, this is a historical combat flight simulator, not a cockpit procedure button mashing festival that requires a manual the size of a dictionary for each plane.

If this sim went the way of DCS I'd bail as fast as if my virtual plane was on fire. 

[FuriousMeow]

Not to mention the cost. We get a very healthy representation of these aircraft with a module that includes ten of them plus a map for what would be a single aircraft in the study sim.

Lots of times these aircraft were already running when the pilots got to them anyway, Soviet aviators weren't camping in the cockpit while the engines were being run in their little winter huts to keep the oil from becoming the viscosity of obsidian. And in-flight combat the La5 does require noticeable attention to the engine controls vs a 109 or 190 to maintain optimal operations.

Edited Saturday at 02:52 AM by FuriousMeow

[Shinobimono]

7 часов назад, BlitzPig_EL сказал:

that requires a manual the size of a dictionary for each plane.

If this sim went the way of DCS I'd bail as fast as if my virtual plane was on fire

This is exactly what it means to be a pilot. But thank god we have such a barrier between people who love tech and marmosets jumping from virtual fiery lids. 🙂 

Edited Saturday at 06:19 AM by Shinobimono

[AndreiTomescu]

Oh, I've searched on Google, didn't know what a marmoset is! 😊 It's a small and lovely monkey.

But that's exactly my point.

There is already an excellent sim for those who want to pretend they are pilots, virtual, of course: DCS. I wonder if someone really good on DCS could just jump in a real cockpit thou, taking the physical necessary training aside.

How long it took a REAL, experienced pilot to convert from one plane to another? 2-6 month? Wonder if it is the same in virtual DCS life.

We have plenty of actual, true pilots here, in GB. I know about 5, won't name them. Guys, how it is ?

On the other hand, we have this: Il-2 Sturmovik. With its iterations. Genre: sim. Plane sim? Nope!

Historical sim ? Yes. Different type of sim.

There is also a "pilot sim" on the market, that Wings over ......

Here us, marmosets, some of us passed our first, second third and so on youth, are reenacting that wartime experience.

A bit of plane accuracy, but not too much, since this week i'm a Canadian on Spit, next week i'm Boris on a Yak, and next i'm Ruspoli taking the skies in a Macchi. Otherwise, it would take 2-6 month for the change....

After having the honour to know and help a bit some extraordinary guys, designing missions/campaigns, I understood the amount of WORK needed to SIMULATE historical facts. Yes, indeed, it takes about 6 month for a campaign lasting 20+hrs in game time..... and there's more than often 3-4 people involved.

So, that's simulated here. History of our air wars. Be a transport pilot, ground pounder, mighty fighter, patient bomber guy, or gunner.

So, yes i do see your point. But this simulates a different facet : more the event, less the machine. But things are intertwined, like in Bundy Family : can't have one without the other!

You need a bit of marmoset to simulate the tech, and you need some tech to keep the marmoset alive ! 😆

Edited Saturday at 07:49 AM by AndreiTomescu

[HootsButOlder]

36 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said:

How long it took a REAL, experienced pilot to convert from one plane to another? 2-6 month? Wonder if it is the same in virtual DCS life.

 

Interesting fact (to me anyway) the men and women pilots of the UK Air transport auxiliary underwent no real conversion training for the aircraft they delivered, often being given just a copy of the ferry pilot notes. They often went from delivering a spitfire to delivering a Lancaster.  My grandfather flew in Lancasters and told of a time a bunch of crews watched a Lancaster land with a bit of a bounce so the gathered to take the piss out of the pilot but out stepped a tiny woman who had delivered the Lanc solo so they all felt a bit sheepish. 
A fascinating and under reported facet of WW2. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

5 hours ago, Shinobimono said:

 marmosets 

So, someone disagrees with you and it's straight to name calling, very mature of you.

I am under no illusion that this is anything like being a real airman engaged in aerial combat.

Tell me this, when you do get "shot down" do you immediately shut off the computer, take it out side and set it on fire?

No?  So much for realism.

[Catch]

3 hours ago, AndreiTomescu said:

We have plenty of actual, true pilots here, in GB. I know about 5, won't name them.

Thanks for keeping my anonymity secure Andrei but ultralights hardly count. Not the fancy ones mind, the real simple ones. Complexity ain't my cucumber sandwich.

 

3 hours ago, HootsButOlder said:

out stepped a tiny woman who had delivered the Lanc solo

Them chicks had balls if I may be so vulgar.

[Shinobimono]

1 час назад, BlitzPig_EL сказал:

So, someone disagrees with you and it's straight to name calling, very mature of you.

You shall not be talking about maturity at all. I was having a conversation with someone else about handling the I-185' engine in the context of the game, where no systems are developed, and yet you somehow felt the need to add your two cents about how you can’t handle some DCS aircraft and choppers. 🤷🏼‍♂️ 

[Shinobimono]

14 часов назад, AndreiTomescu сказал:

The accent is put on historical recreation of the encounters.

Such type of recreation was made by community even in War Thunder at community's event servers. With historical aircraft sets and locations. Not a big deal actually.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I always fly with full engine management, no matter the aircraft type.  But one thing I won't do is denigrate other players who choose not to.  Who am I to tell someone else how to enjoy themselves?

[Shinobimono]

18 минут назад, BlitzPig_EL сказал:

I always fly with full engine management, no matter the aircraft type.

This has nothing to do with what I was discussing in the context of the I-185. Plus, when it comes to online gameplay in Il-2, servers usually put all players on equal footing.

6 минут назад, USSR сказал:

I didn't understand what they were saying in their millenial txt spk!

Ok, turn of the century. But actually it's bad for any game when it has small and non-growing/non-updating player base of gramps (for example by Steam' statistics for DCS last 24-hours peak is 1232 players, for Il-2 it's 382 players).

[FuriousMeow]

6 hours ago, HootsButOlder said:

Interesting fact (to me anyway) the men and women pilots of the UK Air transport auxiliary underwent no real conversion training for the aircraft they delivered, often being given just a copy of the ferry pilot notes. They often went from delivering a spitfire to delivering a Lancaster.  My grandfather flew in Lancasters and told of a time a bunch of crews watched a Lancaster land with a bit of a bounce so the gathered to take the piss out of the pilot but out stepped a tiny woman who had delivered the Lanc solo so they all felt a bit sheepish. 
A fascinating and under reported facet of WW2. 

A story I had heard about, can't recall the source, with US WASPs where they had to ferry some fighters but somehow the planes were reassembled incorrectly so the controls were reversed and they found that out getting airborne.

Unfortunately Google turns up nothing on that. 

1 hour ago, Shinobimono said:

But actually it's bad for any game when it has small and non-growing/non-updating player base of gramps (for example by Steam' statistics for DCS last 24-hours peak is 1232 players, for Il-2 it's 382 players).

Uh, GB is kind of on its way out. Limited support, a few planes being added, dev focus is on Korea, that's not really the comparison you think it is. More players use the launcher too, Steam can't track that. 

Edited Saturday at 03:23 PM by FuriousMeow

[Shinobimono]

21 минуту назад, FuriousMeow сказал:

that's not really the comparison you think it is.

I didn't make any comparisons except availability of the systems.

22 минуты назад, FuriousMeow сказал:

More players use the launcher too, Steam can't track that. 

That's correct for both simulators. But you can track Steam statistics only.

23 минуты назад, FuriousMeow сказал:

dev focus is on Korea

Between 01.01.2022 and 31.12.2022 in was solid 2000 for DCS and 550 for Il-2, Steam. 

[LukeFF]

Guys, this topic is not about DCS, thank you.

[MDzmitry]

4 часа назад, Shinobimono сказал:

I was having a conversation with someone else about handling the I-185' engine in the context of the game, where no systems are developed

To be fair I wasn't talking about the difficulty of engine handling, but rather its unreliability and temperature issues. You managed to turn it into a "game systems" talk.

Even with Il-2's simplified (compared to real life) performance and limitations, even M-71's temperature alone would bring a good portion of pilots to their knees (probably begging to return to the simpler La or Yak).

[AEthelraedUnraed]

One should not forget that there's more to the aircraft systems in IL2 than merely what's exposed to the GUI. Even GB already had many more and much more complex internal systems than can easily be seen. And that will only increase in Korea. The fact that we don't have a keyboard command to explicitly switch a particular system on or off because it's all embedded in the automated startup sequence, does not mean it isn't modeled.

Whether or not memorizing a start-up sequence is an essential part of what makes one a pilot, as some comments above seem to suggest, is up for debate. Personally, I think remembering the order in which to press a number of buttons is about the least-important part of piloting a warbird, but feel free to disagree.

[Shinobimono]

1 час назад, MDzmitry сказал:

To be fair

Do you have the report on the combat tests of the M-71 engined I-185? I don't think so.

Also, just like you write about the "horrible" behavior of the Me-210A, forgetting that the production aircraft underwent a series of design changes (yes, they didn’t solve all the issues, but it was no longer a prototype).

I also remind you about the problems with the M-82 engine. Where are they in the game? Where are the assembly issues of Soviet aircraft from the early years of the war?

Absurd for the sake of absurdi. 🤷🏼‍♂️ 

Edited Saturday at 06:30 PM by Shinobimono