Heavy Bomber DLC- Would You Pay ?

[SOLIDKREATE]

YES! I'd even pay $25.00 USD for the He-177.

 

We need the I-153 Chaika and IL-4 in game too.

 

I wish they would allow third party development like Eagle Dynamics does. Imagine all the aircraft we would have. A Storch with skiis for recon, LOL.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I wish they would allow third party development like Eagle Dynamics does. Imagine all the aircraft we would have. A Storch with skiis for recon, LOL.

 

In the Q&A thread Han has spoken of the possibility, but things would have to be worked out on the production's end before anything.

 

It makes sense that they are pushing out their own material right now, but let's not forget they have already worked with users to develop the Velikie Luki map, which became an official add-on. Yes, in this case Zeus joined their level design team, but the basis and precedent for cooperation is there

[Fern]

While I agree on heavy bombers being fun the game is just not suited to this type of aircraft yet. BoS is by no means optimised for high altitude bombardments nor does it have the scale to make the use of heavy bombers valuable compared to medium bombers. Later one could be a real game breaker (no chance to climb to alt -> heavy bomber becomes easy prey and abusive for "gunshipping").

 

The only types employed in numbers by the Luftwaffe were the Fw 200 and He 177 / 277 while the VVS developed a variety of heavy bombers to target Berlin (TB-3, Yer-2, Pe-8).

 

No saying I'm all against heavy bombers, but that they should be implemented properly and with great attention to their gameplay.

 

 

They should allow bombers to spawn in air at 3000 km on edge of map. Of course limited fuel from "previous trip".

 

or

 

Force player to take off from airfield with full fuel/payloads, then simulate climb and travel to the "map" with a starting altitude of 3000km. Then you dont have to worry about not being able to climb to altitude. Problem solved.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Fern

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

They should allow bombers to spawn in air at 3000 km on edge of map. Of course limited fuel from "previous trip".

 

or

 

Force player to take off from airfield with full fuel/payloads, then simulate climb and travel to the "map" with a starting altitude of 3000km. Then you dont have to worry about not being able to climb to altitude. Problem solved.

there really is no fun in not doing it your self.

[TheElf]

I agree completely.

 

We need more operational variety before we add nuance on existing types.

 

My personal preference would be an He 115 seaplane (esp. the torpedo-bomber variant) and an increase of lake/maritime patrols on a Murmansk map.

 

If Murmansk is on the way, an Fw-200 would be an appropriate choice perhaps. However I'd much rather see recon, transport and communications aircraft added to expand the number of things you can actually do in the sim.

 

 

Both the FW-200 and the He-177 were used in the Battle of Stalingrad Airlift albeit in limited numbers, but they WERE used in BoS....just saying...

[Albino]

I would pay. However for the reasons already discussed here I don't think it should be done until the technology allows the map scale and performance have been improved to do it properly.

 

As good as the devs are at continuing to update the game and add new free content, I have trouble seeing us getting a large 'free' engine update (eg; to DX11/12 or in 64bit). There's just too much work involved. Maybe they'll update the engine for ROF 2?

 

Regards

Albino

[Feathered_IV]

You'd also want an AI navigator, engineer and bomb aimer that were actually programmed to do their jobs and not just sit there as decoration. Otherwise the heavy bomber experience would be no different to flying a Stuka or an I-2.

[FuriousMeow]

Not untill game engine is upgraded to run FM calculations on separate CPU thread.We have quite large hit on performance with 2 engine AI aircrafts. I cant imagine what would come out of 4-engine bomber.Slide show,most probably 

 

The game engine currently distributes all load across multiple cores. Putting the FM in just a single core will actually do more harm. The FM is far more complex than the FMs before it, and the more cores you have - the better the performance in addition to having a more recent CPU. The latest Gen Intels process can process more Instructions Per Clock, so even if they can't overclock as high they can still calculate more - plus the new feature set incorporated with the Haswell CPU.

 

Virtual cores don't help (HyperThreading) for games that utilize the CPU for a lot of calculations, only physical cores.

 

This isn't like where the sound engine was placed on a separate core and everything else remained on core 0 in the past few years.

Edited October 3, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[Albino]

As FuriousMeow has noted, I have also observed that BOS does distribute the load quite evenly over the 4 cores on my i5. However, even when FPS drops considerably, CPU usage is around 70%. I'm not sure why more cycles aren't being used when the CPU appears to be the bottleneck.

 

Back to the topic at hand though, Feathered and others are right in that you'd want simulated AI help flying a large bomber, or at least MP multicrew capability, to make it worthwhile.

 

Regards

Albino

[Brano]

@ meow

here is the post in Q@A

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/?p=288130

 

Two ways:

Variant A: Simple flight model for AI planes

Variant B: Physics thread separating

Both very hard. But we have it in mind.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Brano

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

The first big plane DLC should be a flyable Ju-52 and a Li-2.

 

Both can be used in many upcoming Battle of X

[Feathered_IV]

Just a question: Just because Faction-A gets a particular type of aircraft, should it necessarily follow that Faction-B must receive a doppelganger aircraft of the same role and as identical performance as possible? Does this halve the progression of the sim and the number of available options?   Would it break the sim if when a side gets a dedicated tank-buster for example, the other side gets a reconnaissance aircraft instead?

[MasaIV]

I would love to have the experience of A2A's B17 in a combat flight simulator with a campaign similar to that of "B17 Flying Fortress: The Mighty Eighth".

 

That's a good point, Feathered_IV.  If aircraft were added like you said (one recon and one tank buster), we'd get a lot more variety in the type of aircraft we could fly.  I don't see how it would break the game to have aircraft of different abilities added to each side asymmetrically.

[Rjel]

While I really enjoy playing the gunner role in a multi place aircraft I think the time spent making a flyable large four engine bomber would be better spent in developing other areas of this series. At least for now.

[Zettman]

I would buy a He177. Since it is a huge plane and has lots of gunner positions, I would gues it would be around 50 Euro, but I would still buy it.

 

Wasn't there even a variant with a 75mm gun attacking fortifications at Stalingrad?

 

Zettman

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Just a question: Just because Faction-A gets a particular type of aircraft, should it necessarily follow that Faction-B must receive a doppelganger aircraft of the same role and as identical performance as possible? Does this halve the progression of the sim and the number of available options?   Would it break the sim if when a side gets a dedicated tank-buster for example, the other side gets a reconnaissance aircraft instead?

 

I would say no, it is not necessary. The developers don't seem to think so either, evidenced by the fact that Battle of Stalingrad includes a Pe-2 - a dive/fast level bomber and attack aircraft instead of the Il-4 while the Luftwaffe gets the He-111, a pure medium bomber. In Battle of Moscow, while the Soviets get the Il-2 - an armoured attack aircraft - the Germans will receive the Bf-110, a heavy fighter.

 

The bottom line is, in the current model each faction will receive whichever 4 aircraft were the most relevant in the given theatre, by the looks of it.

 

Han said there is a chance (i.e. no plans or confirmation) they may develop an AI Li-2 further down the road - the license-built DC-3 by Lisunov and Myasishchev. This would technically be the Ju-52s doppelganger but when and if it comes to be the aircraft was period-relevant in 1941, although somewhat less iconic than the Ju-52 was in Stalingrad.

[Cryptonomica]

Sure, I'd pay for such an expansion, but I'd rather see the light/medium bomber lineup expanded (e.g. Su-2, Il-4, etc...)

[SAG]

I think that adding planes "asimmetrically" can lead to a lot of problems online, think of germans almost never flying the 111 in mp and vvs complaining that people never go for targets

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

While that is a valid point, creating plane sets for online balance can break historical accuracy. The He-111 was an outdated 1930s design the Luftwaffe pressed into service all the way through the war and particularly Stalingrad, there is no way around it. They kind of had to simulate it. If they made its direct counterpart - Il-4/DB-3 - they would leave the VVS without its mainstay bomber/attack Pe-2, a criminal offence.

 

Many people said they will be going down low more when the Bf-110 and Ju-88 are out since they are more versatile designs. The more planes they make, the more options people will have to fly in their element.

[Neil]

If Murmansk is on the way, an Fw-200 would be an appropriate choice perhaps. However I'd much rather see recon, transport and communications aircraft added to expand the number of things you can actually do in the sim.

 

+1, the ju52 and/or Li2 first

You'd also want an AI navigator, engineer and bomb aimer that were actually programmed to do their jobs and not just sit there as decoration. Otherwise the heavy bomber experience would be no different to flying a Stuka or an I-2.

+1 I agree! make gameplay is very important!

[Buglord]

It would be nice to have a heavy to fly...maybe in a few years... you never know.. 

[SCG_Neun]

I would be willing to pay $17.42 for each bomber...   I'd rather have a Storch though....

Edited October 4, 2015 by 4./JG52_Neun

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Flyable Storch and Ju-52 is essential for the eastern front.

 

Give us flyable Ju-52!!!

[Trident_109]

Have no interest in a large bomber. I rarely fly the 111. Bombers aren't my thing, I guess.

[Feathered_IV]

Oh boy, that signature pic Mr Trident... 

[Ace_Pilto]

No

 

Because the Ju-88, Do-217, SB-2, A-20, B-25, Hs-129 etc etc etc would be more appropriate than a flying frame rate hog that would take a decade to develop.

[Dakpilot]

Just out of interest, how is the Ilya Muromets 4 engined bomber in ROF when it comes to framerate hit

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Brano]

Devs should focus on planes according their relevance to the theatre chosen.And by relevance I mean significant war contribution,not periodical appearance of few missions flown or 10 of them being there.Oddities like MC 202 should be avoided for Eastern front (IAR 80,anyone?).As many forespeakers mentioned,we have a s**tload of light/medium,recce,transport and attack planes on to-do list.Lets not waste devs precious manhours on Griefs, Pe-8s and such.This should stay a tactical scale CFS.

[Y-29.Silky]

no chance to climb to alt -> heavy bomber becomes easy prey and abusive for "gunshipping").

 

Climbing to 5000m is the only way I can survive in my HE-111, doesn't take as long as people make it out to be. But this isn't War Thunder, to say there's abusive gunshipping is laughable. Edited October 5, 2015 by Y-29.Silky

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Try to climb with a Pe-8 with full fuel and long range ordinance to 8km on a map like BoS while flying a distance legit enought for the use of a heavy bomber and we might have a reason to include it.

 

As it is now it's nothing more than a bigger bomber with barely any combat value. Medium bombers can easily cover any possible target on the map and are far more veresatile (+ were way more cost efficient in reality, hence why the Luftwaffe droped the heavy bomber program in the 1930s).

[Original_Uwe]

Nope.

[TheNotoriousFNG]

I would buy, assuming the devs go the route of single aircraft expansions after BoM or future entries.

 

 

Slighty OT:

 

I've always thought - assuming it's even possible - that it would be a neat feature if players could lead a flight of 2 to 4 AI aircraft in multiplayer. It would do wonders to help populate the multiplayer environment and might make ground attack/level bombing less of a suicide flight if you go solo.

 

While it would detract a bit from forcing teamwork, it still would be cool to see 16 bombers rather than just 4.

[Plurp]

I would love to have a 4 eng bomber, but first,I we need to flesh out more for the bombers we currently have.

 

Plane specific bombsights. We have plane specific trim, radiator control, manual prop control, why not bombsights.

 

The abilty to change radio frequency to have the abilty to tune to different nav beacons

 

The ability to change the course setter on German planes to help with navigation, but more importantly, to help line up the P/S needle on the mag compass of a 111 and 88 when locked on to a nav beacon. This is very useful when flying to or away from a beacon to fly on a certain radial.

 

We have Lorenz gauges in German planes, why not a Lorenz landing system with inner and outer beacons to go along with the excellent night environment.

 

The ability to adjust the bombing altimeter in the stuka and 88 to have auto dive bombing release altitudes.

 

One can dream can't we?

Edited October 15, 2015 by Beedo

[johncage]

not novel enough in this environment, but is niche enough to be interesting nontheless. but time has to < profit for it to be worthwhile investment. just the reality

[Duckman]

I would buy a Ju 52, flyable or AI-only.

 

Reason? They were kind of common (cough) and add a little bit of immersion (cough, cough) and historicity (cough, cough, cough).

[Feathered_IV]

An AI Ju-52 is available already.  It's the cockpit that's wanted.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I want a heavy as level bombing online with even 4-6 pe2s is not enough to destroy an area target in one go unless you are lucky. But on the flip side if we had heavies I guess server admins would just increase the size of the targets to compensate

 

Such a pointless post from myself lol

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

I think there is some possibility that we can see a Ju-52 for sale after BOM. I hope  

 

Or maybe a new BO(X) where its included. Example Battle of France or maybe Crete. Think of the fun missions a Battle of France would give. We got the Ju-52 dropping paratroopers to hold a bridge and at the same time we got Stukas, Ju-88, Bf-110 giving the paratroopers air support and at the same time we have Hurricanes and Spitfires trying to stop these attacks

 

Actually in a Ju-52 there isn't that much to model compared to the He-111 for an example. There is only a cockpit and 1 gunner station. 

Edited October 19, 2015 by McKvack

[SYN_Mugue]

"Heavy Bomber DLC- Would You Pay ?" -We're not talking about a fat guy with a suicide vest, right? ;P

 

If it's got wings, I'd likely buy it.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

They could make a flying turd and I would buy it. Ow wait I already did...p40 lol