ED Forums

ED Forums (https://forums.eagle.ru/index.php)
-   Western Europe 1944-1945 (https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=340)
-   -   The Battle of the Stretch Goal (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=114788)

Darkmater 09-29-2013 11:37 PM

Honestly, as a non pledge giver yet, your issue isn't free planes, its not the planes selection, its not the map.

Why I haven't pledged, is that I don't believe you can deliver a competitive WW2 sim that's is fun without more control over the engine. The forums are full of these comments. You can provide accurate this and accurate that, which is great for just buzzing around, but if you want to hit a larger community you need the following:

--Better more/interesting AI to fight against
--Better graphical damage model (engine oil splatter on the windshield, bullet holes in the glass, pilot damage, flying buy a bomber with the tail gunner slumped over, knocking a landing gear down from its store, all amazing and immersive.
--Effects like the turbulence of plances flying by you, and you plane sort of bounces in the air from it, very immersive.
--All of the above things you know from Cliffs, I just want that game again but done right, I want all the pieces of it that made it immersive and challenging, thats where my dollars lie.

oh and for the WIN, if you really wanted the money from peps

A DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN THAT RIVAL FALCON...

But honestly, I like Cliffs of Dover, especially with Team Fusion fixing it up. Want I wanted was for this to say we are making Cliffs again, but we are doing it right. I JUST DON'T believe you can do it right if you just have control over the map and airframes. At best you get a few good planes for flying around like the P-51, but a not a great game.

Just my opinion. Take it or leave it, but remember its not about the planes and their realism, no one doubts the planes, its about delivering a good game that people or better put "I" doubt.

Thanks,

NoCarrier 09-29-2013 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ff4life4 (Post 1889929)
Also don't get me wrong a campaign restart will have its backlashes as well, it just appears they are between a rock and a hard place. Either try to produce the deliverables with what appears to be too little funds, or have to suffer the repercussion of having a campaign restart.

Actually, I don't think it's a bad idea at all; to call off the campaign and return half a year or a year later for another attempt. No-one can deny that DCS as a combat flight simulator platform has some issues that need resolving in the following months—EDGE and the current multiplayer instability being just a couple of examples. The hardcore simming crowd knows this, and I have a feeling it's been mostly this crowd that has been pledging.

Hans-Joachim Marseille 09-29-2013 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyre (Post 1889926)
I for one believe the hook for this project to be a free flyable COMBAT aircraft.

Combat trainer with guns; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...Texan_variants.

Vampyre 09-30-2013 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans-Joachim Marseille (Post 1889951)

A T-6 Texan with guns is no more a combat aircraft than the AT-38B was in it's time. It is meant to teach basic gunnery and basic tactics and is nowhere near the capability of the combat aircraft in use in 1944. It would not be competative. Further, there were no combat squadrons in Normandy so equipped in 1944. to get the sales needed new pilots have to have a true taste of what could be. I would rather have a dedicated ground attacker like the Hs-129B-2 or A-20G Havoc for a free plane but those are not even on the list...yet. A trainer is a bad idea.

Hans-Joachim Marseille 09-30-2013 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyre (Post 1889961)
It would not be competitive ... A trainer is a bad idea.

But then again, it would not be meant to be competitive. It would be a trainer with guns, for free roaming the map. An incentive to buy the game's fully-fledged warbirds.

9./JG27 DavidRed 09-30-2013 12:30 AM

luthier already said that they cant afford to make a trainer at the current stage...

Hans-Joachim Marseille 09-30-2013 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidRed (Post 1889969)
luthier already said that they cant afford to make a trainer at the current stage...

Hi DavidRed, whereat?

luthier1 09-30-2013 12:36 AM

All right, what a lively discussion.

So, the updated plan to discuss is as follows:

1. Add PayPal. This is a little more complicated than I thought, I have to set something up with PayPal. I hope there'll be enough time.

2. Announce a partial update to the retail strategy at relase. One free plane to be voted for by backers. The rest available for a separate fee.

ALL kickstarter backers receive rewards as previously stated. I.e., the project features are exactly as they were announced TO ALL BACKERS.

Non-backers - one free plane.

Won't muddy the waters with updated pledges. We were happy to give those planes away for free to everyone, so giving them to backers who pledge $1 is no problem at all.

Good? Bad?

3. Updated video. Working with MP. We'll probably just put it right up there replacing the current main video. I think KS allows me to do that.

Now, some answers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by GT 5.0 (Post 1889729)
if all the existing backers would up there pledge an additional (just under $20,- bucks), then the first stretch would be met...no need of them to re-pledge, and they would keep their rewards, they need only edit the dollar amount in the manage page...I'll be the first, it's really just 1/2 of one aircraft cost :smartass:

I really can't think of anything I could justify asking 20 extra bucks for. Planes, manuals, it's all in there.

The combination of the three free aircraft and the low $40 all aircraft goal is what got us here. I don't mean that in a bad way. If we had originally promised one free aircraft, and priced the all aircraft option at $100 or something like that, the entire campaign might have ran differently. Who knows if we would have reached even the initial goal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadTommy (Post 1889733)
Paypal is a no brainer IMO, lots of younger games can often only pay via paypal.

You should be posting the kickstarter updates on the major game forums. Here, SimHQ etc etc. Having them only on kickstarter is fairly useless, it does not reach new people. Each update should get its own thread.

Right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 1889762)
Luthier, my honest answer - as someone still undecided how much I can justify pledging on a very limited budget - has to be that making wholesale changes at this late stage doesn't really inspire confidence. If the 'three free planes' proposal isn't financially viable, then clearly it will have to go - but I can't see how doing this would result in increased Kickstarter funding.

I'm sorry if you're losing confidence. Nothing we're discussing affects the actual development.

Everyone wins if we hit a stretch goal with kickstarter. Everyone also wins if we make a metric ton of money on initial release, and can put it right back into the project and make more theaters and planes.

This is how development usually is. We're way, way, way early to lock anything down, especially in terms of a pricing structure. With a project like this, you'd normally decide on the free vs paid content, their price, etc, well into the beta test.

In other words, we're obviously not trying to give you an inferior product. We're trying to find a way to make it more commercially viable - which in turn gives it longer life - and that in turn ends up giving everyone a bigger better flight sim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pizzicato (Post 1889804)
1. There have been a few high profile Kickstarter debacles in the news recently which may have shaken people's confidence in this whole business model.

Those were overly ambitious projects done from scratch.

I've already done my overly ambitious project done from scratch. Still feeling the burn.

DCS WWII is done on an existing engine, and is specifically designed to be modest. A lot of people would like to add giant multiplayer improvements, AI changes, dynamic campaigns, etc. I am really itching for that too. However we're not doing that precisely because we want to stay lean and clean in the beginning.

We could have written out giant specs, priced them out, and added everything mentioned above to the kickstarter, and tried to raise the extra $$$. Would we have? Perhaps. Would I be 100% confident that we'd be able to deliver everything on time?

And that's exactly why I did not promise you guys a sky full of diamonds.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Pizzicato (Post 1889804)
2. Many people in the community still feel burnt by the Cliffs of Dover experience. The rights, wrongs and details of what actually occurred are unimportant compared to people's individual perceptions of what happened. Some people (like myself) are willing to give you another shot. Many others are not. This may be unfair and frustrating, but it's an unavoidable truth.

Perhaps I have not done the best job reaching out to those people, but I'm muzzled and I cannot really offer my explanation on any of those events. That would have made an honest discussion nearly impossible.

Like I said above though, if you'll just compare our attitude and our promises when developing the two projects, you'll really notice the difference with DCS WWII, the lessons learned. We only promise the things we KNOW we can deliver. With an existing engine, with tracks already laid down, making airplanes or landscapes is not an unknown.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pizzicato (Post 1889804)
4. The frequent changes of focus (first you were going for a brand new audience, then you shifted to the hardcore), the increasingly complex/confusing pledge rewards, the indecisiveness over stretch goals, the rather amateurish videos and the general lack of communication with the community make the whole endeavour seem rather unprofessional and poorly thought out.

That's how it usually is. Things are very fluid this early in development.

Like I said above, none of the changes affect the actual game we're building. The kickstarter, the videos, all of that is done by me personally with virtually no help. Does it inspire confidence? I would hope that the fact that I can identify things that are not working, and not stick with them with a poker face, is actually a good thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pizzicato (Post 1889804)
I don't mean any of this to sound nasty or personal (I really, really don't)

I really appreciate your comments. I'll even take some personal attacks right now if that can help me get better in the future. I'm definitely not perfect, and your comments is precisely what I was looking for, why I started this discussion in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charly_Owl (Post 1889817)
c) A dedicated person to act as a community manager. Star Citizen had Wingman's Hangar and we always had little updates. Constant interaction with the community and updates about what's going on are key to successful funding. I understand your resources are limited, but if you're to see this project hit greater stretch goals, you need to think about other people than the diehard fans that we are.

That's a wonderful idea.

I think the biggest mistake in this kickstarter is not having one.

I'm a very poor PR person, as should be clear to everyone. We would have done infinitely better had we started off with a knowledgeable, dedicated, motivated PR person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charly_Owl (Post 1889817)
4) About changes to project features
Your project features are what I have in mind. But the base aircraft must NOT be one of the cool aircrafts.

I disagree.

An uncool airplane is worse than no demo at all. If you don't really enjoy the demo, why would you ever consider giving the project your money?

I still believe the free game should be awesome. We're not looking to give you something you try for one night, and then reach for the wallet. Fine, fly and enjoy it for six months, and maybe decide then.

Anyway, time will tell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charly_Owl (Post 1889817)
What we need to consider here:
Flight sims need to become more accessible. Hardware is a major issue because it's expensive. There needs to be a "Getting into Flight Simulators for Dummies" video on youtube. I'm planning on doing one eventually for newcomers to flight simulators. I plan on giving "do's and don't's", "what to buy with a limited budget", "what information is relevant", a detailed step-by-step guide on "how to fly", and other useful tips.

Yes, exactly. Hardware requirements are a hurdle which I really don't know how to overcome.

There needs to be a no-hardware entry point, and then the sim itself should make it easy for the players to get what they want. I know how confusing it must be to people who never encountered this.

Definitely a great topic to discuss, but perhaps not for right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris (Post 1889819)
My suggestion: Get more publicity! Take the project to the wider gaming community. Wake the nostalgic sentiments of gamers who have since moved on to other genres.

That's pretty clear, but it's actually not working. We are sending out press releases. We are trying to reach out to media outlets.

The project is just not exciting the unconverted. I'm not sure why that is. It's probably because we're, A, unable to use our old series name, and B, because we're so early in the process we just don't have a very impressive presentation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoCarrier (Post 1889917)
Come on, Ilya, you have stretch goals set at several hundred thousand dollars. Several hundred thousand dollars worth of pledges for a new product in a genre that has basically become niche, as you yourself pointed out in one of your videos.

Right. Going to give the main page a major overhaul right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkmater (Post 1889933)
Honestly, as a non pledge giver yet, your issue isn't free planes, its not the planes selection, its not the map.

Why I haven't pledged, is that I don't believe you can deliver a competitive WW2 sim that's is fun without more control over the engine. The forums are full of these comments. You can provide accurate this and accurate that, which is great for just buzzing around, but if you want to hit a larger community you need the following:

--Better more/interesting AI to fight against
--Better graphical damage model (engine oil splatter on the windshield, bullet holes in the glass, pilot damage, flying buy a bomber with the tail gunner slumped over, knocking a landing gear down from its store, all amazing and immersive.
--Effects like the turbulence of plances flying by you, and you plane sort of bounces in the air from it, very immersive.
--All of the above things you know from Cliffs, I just want that game again but done right, I want all the pieces of it that made it immersive and challenging, thats where my dollars lie.

oh and for the WIN, if you really wanted the money from peps

A DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN THAT RIVAL FALCON...

That's an awesome list, but like I mentioned above, we're going to hold off on making any promises (but not on attempting to address those things) precisely because we burned so many people in the past.

Can we try to improve the damage model? Sure. Can we, as we are today, PROMISE improved damage model? Nope. Something'll go wrong, as it often does, and we're where we were three years ago.

Fact is, features like that are just too unpredictable. It's not because I'm a poor project manager or we have idiots for programmers. Everybody runs into problems like that. It's just they're a lot more noticeable in a flight sim. FPS or RTS or RPG ships with moronic AI? Everyone groans but keeps on playing. Flight sim promises great AI but ships with UFOs? Forum explosion.

Anyway, thank you guys, keep em coming!

BabyJail 09-30-2013 12:38 AM

To be completely honest, I do not even want three free planes with the base game. Call me crazy, but here is why:

- my flying is crap, and Im not going to change that if I try to suddenly learn three planes at once. I dont have the spare time.
- before I become an owner of stuff I like to do some research on it, taking my sweet time deciding.
- which leads to general satisfaction with what I decide finally. I dont want a hangar full of planes that I will only fly a couple of times.

My two cents. Now sitting back in my comfy chair watching how it all turns out over the next few days! :book:

9./JG27 DavidRed 09-30-2013 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans-Joachim Marseille (Post 1889970)
Hi DavidRed, whereat?

on the kickstarter comments of the last update...

grifo 09-30-2013 12:48 AM

As someone already said, money are tight today! So why I have to back for something i will have for free? I'm not yet a backer and I see no reason to back other for supporting Ilya's project. But I will be happy to buy every single aircraft if they will be not free and as accurate as P-51!
By the way, just my two cents:
We already have a great P-51 ad soon we'll have FW-190 by ED. What we need now are NEW MAPS and GROUND UNITS of WWII... Why don't you release DCS:WWII for free with only the map and ground units, maybe before Sept. '14, so we can use and try it with our P-51. Then You can focus producing the single aircrafts one by one and sell it separately.. As I said I'll definitely buy them!
I think even $100.000 are sufficient for this task and for creating 1 good (not free) aircraft!
Obviusly the products have to be free for all who backed yet!
We are all playng DCS with only one flyable aircraft since 2010.. so I don't think this community will upset if in the initial stage there will be only one good plane!:smartass:

But if you need more money NOW because you realized $100.000 are not enough, then I will be glad to pay 20 or 30 for just 1 aircraft.

One more thought: I Think that focusing about casual gamers is just a waste of time.. They will yet have something arcadish with Battle of Stalingrad and War Thunder!
And don't waste time producing new videos... I know your work is very early stage and you have very little to show us... I don't need nothing to be more confident, just a good project and your Name!

In any case don't let any aircraft for free;)

Best of Luck!

NoCarrier 09-30-2013 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luthier1 (Post 1889971)
Good? Bad?

Sounds good, Ilya.

And remember, your Kickstarter is already over the finish line. Do some good work with the limited means at your disposal now, and the money will come. Don't lose heart.

EDIT: Although I do think Hans-Joachim's reasoning below is sound. And obvious. Be prepared for a whole lot of $1 pledges if you go that way.

Hans-Joachim Marseille 09-30-2013 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luthier1 (Post 1889971)
ALL kickstarter backers receive rewards as previously stated. I.e., the project features are exactly as they were announced TO ALL BACKERS.

Non-backers - one free plane.

Won't muddy the waters with updated pledges. We were happy to give those planes away for free to everyone, so giving them to backers who pledge $1 is no problem at all.

Good? Bad?

Seriously? I can see a stream of $1 bills coming now from fence-sitters and free-loaders, which will not get us anywhere near $150k in 5 days.
It'll be laughing stock. And this is very unfair for people who found out about this KickStarter too late.

Rather, update the pledges. $40 pledge will get you all 3 planes, on initial release only.
Even the guy that had no money and went out of his way, emptying a hay barn to get some to pledge, put in $40 ...

luthier1 09-30-2013 01:04 AM

PS I just realized the perfect way to hit those stretch goals.

Add a new $100 reward level. Offer a tell-all novel about the events of the past few years.

Oooh. If only :)

9./JG27 DavidRed 09-30-2013 01:05 AM

:)

9./JG27 DavidRed 09-30-2013 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJWest (Post 1889762)
Luthier, my honest answer - as someone still undecided how much I can justify pledging on a very limited budget - has to be that making wholesale changes at this late stage doesn't really inspire confidence. If the 'three free planes' proposal isn't financially viable, then clearly it will have to go - but I can't see how doing this would result in increased Kickstarter funding.


easy- you and lots of others will have either to support the kickstarter now, or pay later for the modules...for RRG this is certainly a win win situation...

Hans-Joachim Marseille 09-30-2013 01:13 AM

Could the Fighter Collection give away some free tickets to Flying Legends next year, or access to the Imperial War Museum at Duxford? This for the higher pledges.

IvanK 09-30-2013 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luthier1 (Post 1889992)
PS I just realized the perfect way to hit those stretch goals.

Add a new $100 reward level. Offer a tell-all novel about the events of the past few years.

Oooh. If only :)

I reckon I could write that :)

Royraiden 09-30-2013 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luthier1 (Post 1889992)
PS I just realized the perfect way to hit those stretch goals.

Add a new $100 reward level. Offer a tell-all novel about the events of the past few years.

Oooh. If only :)

OH BOY :D

Pizzicato 09-30-2013 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luthier1 (Post 1889992)
PS I just realized the perfect way to hit those stretch goals.

Add a new $100 reward level. Offer a tell-all novel about the events of the past few years.

Oooh. If only :)

Looking through the forums, you could probably get a new $1000 reward level for the FW-190 sans bar! :megalol:

Furbs 09-30-2013 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luthier1 (Post 1889992)
PS I just realized the perfect way to hit those stretch goals.

Add a new $100 reward level. Offer a tell-all novel about the events of the past few years.

Oooh. If only :)

That would have to be $500 for a series of books from series of people, even then it would mostly likely be 90% fiction from each author.

You think autobiographies are the truth? ;)

I would buy you a pie and a pint though and listen to your side if your ever in the UK again Luthier, you look like you could do with both, well maybe not the pie. :)

I hope you get all this sorted, and get to make your own sim, the way you want.

Good luck from me Luthier.

NoJoe 09-30-2013 03:40 AM

I'm embarrassed to admit, but I have not pledged yet. But all this talk of making only 1 plane free to non-backers has me reaching for my wallet.

So I say, do that! Make only 1 plane free to the general non-kickstarting public. That way I'll have no excuse not to pledge. :D

--NoJoe

ff4life4 09-30-2013 03:41 AM

Well according to what was just said you could pledge the $1 amount and still receive the 3 planes free.

NoJoe 09-30-2013 04:00 AM

I think I'll be doing the $40 level. I've been eyeing that one ever since the announcement, but haven't done it yet. I think the reason why I haven't pulled the trigger is that money is tight, and if I was going to receive 3 DCS-level planes for free anyway, why pay?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I definitely want to support this project! But I think that's what's going on in my head subconsciously. Now suddenly if I'll need to pay to get those planes, that's what'll get me off the fence and into a pledge. And I'll bet there are a bunch of people out there just like me. :)

--NoJoe

zaelu 09-30-2013 05:29 AM

Seeing how the other third party developers are working and planning to release their modules I think this project was thought a bit too optimistic.

100 000$ for developing a map and 3-4 planes close to DCS P-51 standard is too little I think.

5 Days remained and nothing can be done to change the outcome of this funding. My opinion is you should drop the free content altogether to reduce costs and avoid stalling the project.

Create just a big beautiful map (please drop the enthusiasm killer of 120km wide map) and use P51 and Dora as only planes available (not for free). Then you can advertise new planes that the backers will get for free after development.

Also lower the emphasis on new game, new game world etc... make a module that people already understand without dividing the community.

luthier1 09-30-2013 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zaelu (Post 1890083)
100 000$ for developing a map and 3-4 planes close to DCS P-51 standard is too little I think.

Oh that's not the entire development budget BY FAR.

It's stated in the main kickstarter text and I've noted this a couple of times, but I guess it gets lost in all the other text.

We would have done DCS WWII anyway even if the kickstarter had failed. We'd just have to do it quicker and cheaper, and therefore not do quite as much not quite as well as we're going to do now.

Plus, of course, the kickstarter opened up the opportunity to add more content such as the 262. We're still hoping it can do that.

But yes of course, if we only had the 100K and nothing else, we wouldn't be able to do anything.

SlipBall 09-30-2013 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ff4life4 (Post 1890087)
I agree zaelu. I think they shot themselves in the foot by offering 3 aircraft of DCS quality for free. Seeing how long it takes ED to produce the Dora, or any 3rd party producing a module shows how much time and effort it takes to do a proper job.

$100,000 may not be enough


The kickstarter is for funding beta testing not for the aircraft

SlipBall 09-30-2013 05:45 AM

Luthier, I was saying kicking in an extra 20.- each, just because we want to reach the first stretch and get the 262, while not looking for additional rewards

Cnuke 09-30-2013 06:59 AM

My advice: Don't change promises to anyone that have backed or will back your kickstarter till it's over with such small time left.
For funding you need credibility to unite backers with the same conditions.

Decisions being so late...
The longer the wait the more unreasonable it can become. (A sad point generally in life when it comes to money, not personally meant to anyone)
Analysis of the kickstarter model were being discussed after day 1. Opting for a sustainable business model for you with ideas and those changes.

It's just a matter of being realistic about your business model instead of checking funding results. I also find too much stress has been put on backers that already backed for higher pledges. Instead of attracting new backers. The passion you showed and love for the genre has been answered by fans in your kickstarter. The whole community (backers and non-backers(i.e. no cc but paypallers)) did a lot of the PR work.

In fact too much is asked now and done too little early on.

*Paypal option should have been provided and setup before the moment we reached the 100k goal(so no risk in refunding all funds on that), but still is possible ofcourse and maybe the best option. Even for continuation.


If it's a miscalcuation then the whole KS 100k goal was with the promises.
A mistake in the KS idea and should have been corrected as fast as possible.


A change that non-backers receive 1 aircraft is I think good option for a business model as the game is a free download. With such a change non-backers can't really complain and but they need to back the KS quickly. Although many will be too late to step in, realising the change after the KS is closed in a few days. Ofcourse those potential backers should have been in the pocket.

The popularity(attraction of newer simmers) remains to be seen at the launch. It's important to make the impact there. Hype it to the launch, by showing off the quality! (really massively).

luthier1 09-30-2013 07:31 AM

All right folks, pretty much ready to hit Publish on the new changes on KS that reset the NON BACKER free game to one flyable aircraft.

While opinions differ, I will not change anything with any existing rewards tiers. I.e. if you had backed at $1 before, or will back at $1 at any time before Oct 5, you WILL receive the three currently stated free aircraft.

I could have locked down the current $1 tier and made the extra aircraft available later, but it'll just add to the confusion.

I also just spent a few hours trying to refine the rewards matrix and it's just impossible. I tried once again to simplify everything and bring it up to a common denominator. Just choose a number of add-ons you want, and pledge accordingly, and then choose the rewards you want, manuals, alpha access, etc.

It's just a nightmare of confusion even for myself. Most importantly, things just cost differently, and it's already reflected in existing rewards. I cannot price a t-shirt the same as a copy of a FW.190D in DCS World. If I average things out, that makes things look weird and overly expensive compared to old rewards. Most importantly, we already have a gazillion rewards, and I cannot edit or hide these. Changes like these mean adding a whole bunch of new rewards while keeping all the existing ones visible. Trying to choose the correct one then will just drive the new people crazy.

Also, yes, the main idea is to add new people to the backers list. I am incredibly thankful to the people who have already pledged, and I'm definitely not saying it enough. Continuing to ask you for more and more money is just plain wrong.

Anyway, I'll sleep on the changes to the overall KS, and either hit Publish in the morning, or not. In the end, we have already reached our goal. Is a flyable Me.262 worth making yet another drastic change in the project?


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.