Heavy Bomber DLC- Would You Pay ?

[tfleck01]

 

 

The Li-2 is essential for the set of planes but in reality is probably less exciting to most than the Ju-52 (I'd be surprised if that turned out to be incredibly untrue...) It may have to be anticipated to not break even and/or add them

Personally I haven't bought the Ju-52 and I love transport planes.  But an Li-2/C-47/DC-3 I would jump on in a heartbeat.  Personally, the Ju-52 seems slow and boring, even by transport plane standards.

 

As far as heavy bombers, sure, I'd buy a B-17 or B-24, but I don't think there is much use for them.  I'd rather have a B-25, B-26 or similar medium bomber.

[kestrel79]

Yep.

[senseispcc]

No, the maps are to small and not many of the players should be willing to play the 8 hours’ missions strategic bombers normal missions duration. I think. And doing tactical missions with a heavy bomber is something tried during WW2 but not often done with great success. And doing missions without taking off or landing, yes it is not the same, not complete... And Russians or Germans could not offer a lot of escort to long range bombers, so...heavy losses expected. Last but not least heavy bombers are by function, heavy, and have a lot of crew, two conditions that impose a lot of players for one side during a long period of time, heavy bombers are not very fast, not doing a lot, with very short period of intense activity, for little results. So no, I should not buy flyable heavy bombers.  

[Eicio]

I think it would take an entirely game.

 

I'd be overjoyed with a full length flight ( with timeskip/save), full click pit, B17 sim. Single player only (maybe PvE), NO flyable fighters, detailed crew management, full DM, massive single map of East England to the continent, weather, physics etc. etc.

 

It won't happen in il2 battles, and it probably won't happen in my life time, if at all, but that is my bomber dream.

 

(other bombers would be added after the B17 of course )

It's old, not cockpit clickable but you could fly any heavy bomber you want to fly on Il2 1946 with mods on really big maps.

 

Maybe you already know and you want a dedicated and brand new sim but... if you don't know you might enjoy it.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Eicio

[Reckoner_]

I'd personally love to fly an He-177, B-17 and others at some point in the future, but only after the addition of more planes that "fits" better the current maps/objectives, and eventually after the BoB and Pacific expansions.

[Porkins]

It's about two things. 

1. Resource consumption in game (especially CPU for all of those crew positions)

2. Resource consumption in the development process.

 

If those two were resolved then the sky would be the limit.  Some kind of "warp" a la Aces Over the Pacific to skip hours of ocean and eliminate the need to map all of Europe in mind numbing detail.  Then at least a box of 12 with an escort (currently possible with existing plane set).  The game already supports level bombing, already supports all of the mission elements to perform an intercept, and already has detailed ground elements.  Fact is that the series already supports strategic bombing and nighttime strategic bombing - just in RoF and not BoS.

Flying 4 engine bombers isn't actually high on my "want" list. I would be far more excited to pay $10-$15 to add 4 engine bombers that are purely AI controlled to the game. I want to attack and defend the heavy bombers, I don't really care much for flying them. If the devs did that, it should drastically cut down on both CPU load and development costs.

[PatrickAWlson]

Flying 4 engine bombers isn't actually high on my "want" list. I would be far more excited to pay $10-$15 to add 4 engine bombers that are purely AI controlled to the game. I want to attack and defend the heavy bombers, I don't really care much for flying them. If the devs did that, it should drastically cut down on both CPU load and development costs.

I'm in the same camp.  However, while it would definitely cut down on development time and costs it would not cut down on CPU.  It is the AI that consumes CPU.  

 

To save CPU they would have to do something new like develop a simplified FM (and therefore simplified AI).  That would save CPU, but that in itself would be a lot of work because such a thing does not exist now.  

[Gambit21]

CPU is not the problem

[PatrickAWlson]

CPU is not the problem

 

Interesting.  I had always heard that CPU was the primary performance bottleneck with RoF and BoS.  The fact that the AI really flew the plane and the gunners were constantly in their processing loop was CPU intensive.  If not CPU, what is the primary bottleneck?

[Avimimus]

I wouldn't... The Russian's really need a medium bomber first (Ilyushin Il-4/DB-3 is the best bet). So I'd spend the development money on that.

 

The exception would be if night bombing on the Western Front was modelled (because that has never had a simulator dedicated to it - and is sorely neglected).

[Gambit21]

Interesting.  I had always heard that CPU was the primary performance bottleneck with RoF and BoS.  The fact that the AI really flew the plane and the gunners were constantly in their processing loop was CPU intensive.  If not CPU, what is the primary bottleneck?

 

To be clear here, I'm speaking of performance on the release version and using my asset heavy Ju-52 missions as a test example back when I was building and testing those missions.

 

 

Moscow map, 12 Ju-52's, escorts,  AI aircraft scenery, opposing fighters, and enemy ground units, AAA, trigger MCU's up the wazoo, etc.

CPU utilization is 14-17% fairly steady.

From where I sit, that's a ton of overhead.

 

In fact building those missions AI 'brains' were not even a concern, I could pretty much build whatever I wanted to a reasonable extent.

Out of habit and in the interest of time, I only place AI where it matters to the player, but this was never a CPU concern...I just don't want to spend 6 months on a single mission.

 

I've never tested how many AI I would have to place to start straining my CPU - I will eventually when things settle down.

The only real strain I see on the release version is GPU, and lots of aircraft spooling up on the ground or taxiing for take-off.

Now is the CPU being tapped to it's full extent? I don't know. I just know that going back a long ways, and I've said this here on previous occasions when hardware discussions

come up, even my i5 2500k didn't really notice BoS much, my new Ryzen system even less so.

 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it ChiefWH.

[PatrickAWlson]

Different point of view.  My concern really was AI CPU usage.  PWCG missions, being procedurally generated, it is actually easier to do the whole front.  That would result in triple digit planes and maybe 1000+ ground units.  I have to write extra code to slim it down.  Even slimmed down PWCG missions can exceed 600K lines of text.

[Gambit21]

Same/same with regard to concerns over bomber AI.

I'd be interested in seeing your CPU utilization during one of those missions, and the number of active AI units.

[Gambit21]

It was just my understanding that gun positions on aircraft created CPU load and all the stuttering.

 

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your underpants.

 

[Juuuxie]

I absolutely would. I enjoy flying bombers / attackers over fighters so that kind of DLC would be perfect for me.

[Hauksbee]

Lets listen to what the community has to say about this idea!

It will not be considered until we find a top-notch modeler/coder who speaks fluent Russian, and will go to Russia to be trained, and work for damned-near nothing.

[johncage]

20 crew air cruisers

[Retrofly]

C-47 or some other Allied Cargo Paratrooper plane please!

 

Axis get all the hauling fun!

[Herne]

I want to say yes, but I just binge watched all six seasons of Ice Pilots, a show where they still use DC-3's, C-46's and DC-4's in the North West Territories, and the thing that really struck me was, just how much of a two man job it was to fly these birds.

 

Excellent show though, highly recommend it.

Edited April 9, 2018 by =FEW=Herne

[ruby_monkey]

The most engines I'd pay to have on a bomber, would be the three on a Ju-52 if we were ever to see a Spanish Civil War expansion. Massed heavy bomber raids would bore the hell out of me unless we were reenacting Operation Tidal Wave.

 

I'd readily pay for a Tupolev Tu-2 or De Havilland Mosquito, though. Hell, add a Winter War/Continuation War package and I'd pull out my wallet for a Bristol Blenheim or Dornier Do-17. Multi-engine light bombers and strike aircraft are fun; Dresden firestorms are a chore.

Edited April 9, 2018 by ruby_monkey

[chris455]

I would buy it, but I don't recommend the 177. The operational history of the aircraft is a study of its failure as an aircraft. I love the concept, but it's execution left much to be desired. The Luftwaffe was the greatest and saddest authority on this fact, other than perhaps Eric Brown, who test- flew it and also gave it two thumbs down..........

Now, if you want to discuss modeling the Kondor.........???❤️

Edited April 9, 2018 by chris455

[56RAF_Roblex]

4 hours ago, Retrofly said:

C-47 or some other Allied Cargo Paratrooper plane please!

 

Axis get all the hauling fun!

 

The soviet version of the C-47,  called the Li-2,  is quite likely to happen so we can match the JU-52.  I am sure the server creators will also appreciate being able to allow both sides to do paratrooper & cargo flights without pretending they squeezed 16 paras or a dozen crates into a PE-2 :-)

 

What Jason said was that if the team currently building the Po-2 do a good job then they will probably be given the Li-2 next.

[Y-29.Silky]

Blows my mind that people think you won't be able to climb to 25,000ft above your airfield and go to your target like the rest of the aircraft.

 

Since it's a heavy bomber, you're magically required to fly 8 hour sorties as if the He-111 didn't do that.

[InProgress]

Some people would enjoy it, i think AI heavy bomber is must have. I am sure devs could do some nice tricks to make it possible, like fake 4 engines that would work as 2 or something, so it would not be so demanding. If it would be AI only, it could spawn in air, on high alt and stay there, so maybe it would also help because pc dont need to bother with ground stuff at this moment. But who knows

[Hauksbee]

On 10/1/2015 at 2:24 PM, 19//SAG said:

Hey guys, i was thinking that having heavy bombers and 4 engine bombers would be a great addition to BoX

 

Yes! B-17's mainly, so my 190's and 262 have something worthy to hunt.

[Smoke_Fan]

I would by the B29 super in a heartbeat

[PatrickAWlson]

It could be progressive development. 

 

Phase 1: Create an AI B17.  Offer a European map.  Missions would be escort or bomber intercept.  Allied planes would air start.

- New features: four engine bomber FM.

- New map

Phase 2: Create the B17 forward cockpit.  Three positions: pilot, bombardier, and top turret. 

- New features Four engine bomber controls.

- Higher altitudes.

- Turret

Phase 3: South east English map.  Planes can take off and warp to European map.  Add tail gunner and ball turret gunner. 

- Ball turret (this is a pretty unique position as it moves in 3 degrees of freedom)

- England map.

 

Total cost for this one plane would be the same as any other "Great Battles" since the development cost would be so high.

[blitze]

On 2/2/2018 at 7:55 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Interesting.  I had always heard that CPU was the primary performance bottleneck with RoF and BoS.  The fact that the AI really flew the plane and the gunners were constantly in their processing loop was CPU intensive.  If not CPU, what is the primary bottleneck?

 

Single threaded use of modern CPU's is the bottleneck of BoS.  Getting this puppy running across multiple CPU cores is a must for future expansion and longevity of the series bringing AI and other benefits.

Vulcan use for Graphics API would be preferable so as to not tie the series down to Windows.

 

28 minutes ago, Smoke_Fan said:

I would by the B29 super in a heartbeat

You get the B29, I ask for the Mig15 then we dance in numbers over the skies of Korea

 

(Look up B29 losses over Korea in recently declassified documentation, not pretty).

[Herne]

13 minutes ago, blitze said:

 

Single threaded use of modern CPU's is the bottleneck of BoS.  Getting this puppy running across multiple CPU cores is a must for future expansion and longevity of the series bringing AI and other benefits.

Vulcan use for Graphics API would be preferable so as to not tie the series down to Windows.

 

You get the B29, I ask for the Mig15 then we dance in numbers over the skies of Korea

 

(Look up B29 losses over Korea in recently declassified documentation, not pretty).

 

B29 isn't really practical. Especially when you consider that the throttles and engine management wasn't even handled by the pilots, but a third guy who sat behind them facing the rear.

[Feathered_IV]

The reality of massed bomber fleets travelling halfway across Europe to bomb strategic targets from 25000ft would translate in-game into a dribble of solitary B-17s travelling 15 minutes to dive bomb pinpoint targets from 500ft.

[ROTER_BART]

4 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

The reality of massed bomber fleets travelling halfway across Europe to bomb strategic targets from 25000ft would translate in-game into a dribble of solitary B-17s travelling 15 minutes to dive bomb pinpoint targets from 500ft.

 

In on-line multi-player play, yes.

 

[sevenless]

9 hours ago, Sambot88 said:

I'd totally pay for a heavy bomber DLC if it was capable of replicating what made those scenarios so special: Massive numbers and scale.

 

Since I tremendously enjoyed SWOTL and its career when I still was a kid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Weapons_of_the_Luftwaffe

 

I´d buy everything which will come close to that. And yes AI bombers only. I don´t want to fly those things, but shoot them down. 

[Gambit21]

46 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

The reality of massed bomber fleets travelling halfway across Europe to bomb strategic targets from 25000ft would translate in-game into a dribble of solitary B-17s travelling 15 minutes to dive bomb pinpoint targets from 500ft.

 

Its funny because it's true.

Well put - and got a laugh on this end.

[InProgress]

1 hour ago, Feathered_IV said:

The reality of massed bomber fleets travelling halfway across Europe to bomb strategic targets from 25000ft would translate in-game into a dribble of solitary B-17s travelling 15 minutes to dive bomb pinpoint targets from 500ft.

Not everyone focus on multiplayer, but yea.. that's true :|

But carieer kind of fixed that for SP i think, doing bombing from 100m will get you killed sooner or later, same with chasing 1 plane 10min into his AF. At least for ironman mode people wont do this kind of stuff. Big bombers would work well for sp. Multi? Not so much.

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, Feathered_IV said:

The reality of massed bomber fleets travelling halfway across Europe to bomb strategic targets from 25000ft would translate in-game into a dribble of solitary B-17s travelling 15 minutes to dive bomb pinpoint targets from 500ft.

 

I disagree. Plenty of players level bomb in-game from a decent alt. Though, bombing from 500 ft wouldn't be so unrealistic it happened once or twice during the war.

 

I remember flying heavy bomber formations in 46 and its some of the greatest experiences i had of that game.

[InProgress]

2 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

I disagree. Plenty of players level bomb in-game from a decent alt.

I don't play multiplayer much but when I do I always see bombers on low alt, I don't even bomb so low as bf110 as people do with he111. Never seen high alt bombing in multi (only on YouTube videos)

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, blitze said:

 

Single threaded use of modern CPU's is the bottleneck of BoS.  Getting this puppy running across multiple CPU cores is a must for future expansion and longevity of the series bringing AI and other benefits.

 

I am 99% sure that BOX is multi threaded.  How effective the thread coordination is I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it's not single threaded.

[Gambit21]

9 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

I remember flying heavy bomber formations in 46 and its some of the greatest experiences i had of that game.

 

Bombing Henderson in the Betty - good times.

[Royal_Flight]

1 hour ago, ROTER_BART said:

 

In on-line multi-player play, yes.

 

 

Probaby in singleplayer too, given the limitations of how many objects and aircraft can be in at once.

 

Not in ones and twos, maybe twelve or so B-17s plus a roughly equivalent number of escorts and a handful of interceptors popping into view as soon as they cross the 10k bubble. 

But not the mass formations turning the sky black and painting their own overcast clouds with contrails, sheparded by sweeps of little friends, vs swarms of enemy fighters and destroyers stirred up like hornets from a kicked nest.  

 

The fidelity would be higher, sure. But the scale and scope of '46 is probably out of reach and there's a substantial risk that the result would be underwhelming.

Let alone other issues with the tactical nature of BoX not being suited to the altitudes or distances required. 

[Missionbug]

I would not buy something specifically aimed at four engine types, however, that does not mean I would not purchase a premium aircraft that was a four engine bomber or transport even.

 

Do not forget that RAF coastal command would fly lone B-17 and B-24 aircraft on sea patrols, as did the USA, so with some kind of appropriate map there is no reason why they should not appear in game but I think the massed formations as has been stated are something probably never likely to be done again except in the old IL-2 1946.

 

It all comes down to the cost of the complexity at the end of the day, how many might buy and how many other types could you make for one B-17?

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.