Heavy Bomber DLC- Would You Pay ?

[InProgress]

Ohh yeaa I remember a movie where b17 was flying over pacific alone looking for survivors of another bomber that crashed.

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, Missionbug said:

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.

 

I have no doubt that cost and complexity would be high if this was taken on anytime soon.  The maps of England don't exist (possible reuse from RoF?) .  The maps over the target areas don't exist.  They have never done a four engine heavy, so FM and DM would be a new challenge.  Top turret and ball turrets don't exist.  User usable crew positions would be numerous. 

 

If they did a Channel Front battle (1942 - 1944) first then they would have some of the maps done.  If they make the B-25 flyable then they will at least have done a top turret.  So there is the possibility of intervening development that could make adding a B-17 cheaper.  A lot depends on planning and sequencing.

[Frenchy56]

If you want to fly a Fortress in a box, play B-17: The Mighty Eight. A bit old, but a very nice sim. You only get one box though.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Frenchy56

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Maybe in a similar way they are adding a smaller more detailed maps for Tank Crew. They could make a bigger less detailed map for "Bomber Crew"

[Haza]

Well whatever the 4 engine bomber was, hopefully it  would include a Lanc and as such they would need a little twin engine pathfinder for that Lanc.  Now the thought of that pathfinder gets me excited!

Edited April 11, 2018 by Haza

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, Haza said:

Well whatever the 4 engine bomber was, hopefully it  would include a Lanc and as such they would need a little twin engine pathfinder for that Lanc.  Now the thought of that pathfinder gets me excited!

 

My hope is that we might see the Mossie as a collectable in BoBp.

[Custard]

I'd love to see a B-17, perhaps in a high altitude, 'Defence of the Reich' themed expansion.

 

BUT

 

I honestly see little point in having it as a flyable, not least because probably the only way we will be able to get a reasonable number in the same mission will be to give them the simplest modeling possible, with an 'on rails' basic FM.

 

I see them as objectives to be defended or attacked, modelling them as a flyable (to the level that would do them justice and not disappoint) just isn't worth the huge effort for what would be rather pedestrian gameplay.

[Herne]

11 hours ago, Frenchy56 said:

If you want to fly a Fortress in a box, play B-17: The Mighty Eight. A bit old, but a very nice sim. You only get one box though.

 

Now there is a game I would love to see remade with modern tech

[Rjel]

13 hours ago, Custard said:

I'd love to see a B-17, perhaps in a high altitude, 'Defence of the Reich' themed expansion.

 

BUT

 

I honestly see little point in having it as a flyable, not least because probably the only way we will be able to get a reasonable number in the same mission will be to give them the simplest modeling possible, with an 'on rails' basic FM.

 

I see them as objectives to be defended or attacked, modelling them as a flyable (to the level that would do them justice and not disappoint) just isn't worth the huge effort for what would be rather pedestrian gameplay.

My thought too. At least in the short term. Who knows what five years down the road brings to the computer world? We might still end up someday with a hundred or more bombers and fighters sharing the same airspace. I think that would lead to some fairly believable scenarios.

[Gambit21]

13 hours ago, Custard said:

I'd love to see a B-17, perhaps in a high altitude, 'Defence of the Reich' themed expansion.

 

BUT

 

I honestly see little point in having it as a flyable, not least because probably the only way we will be able to get a reasonable number in the same mission will be to give them the simplest modeling possible, with an 'on rails' basic FM.

 

I see them as objectives to be defended or attacked, modelling them as a flyable (to the level that would do them justice and not disappoint) just isn't worth the huge effort for what would be rather pedestrian gameplay.

 

Well said.

I'd pay $200 for a flyable Betty and a Solomons map.

...and I'm not saying that because I wouldn't feel $200 - it would hurt.

But so worth it.

[9./JG52_Sturm]

13 hours ago, =FEW=Herne said:

 

Now there is a game I would love to see remade with modern tech

 

If only! Mighty 8th was so much fun.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, 9./JG52_Sturm said:

 

If only! Mighty 8th was so much fun.

 

Same here. I spent tons of time with that game. It was a shame its development was cut short.

[hames123]

FW 200. Some of them flew into the Kessel alongside He 111 and Ju 52 transport planes. Maybe even the ME 323 if we get a Med or Eastern Front title.

[Royal_Flight]

31 minutes ago, hames123 said:

FW 200. Some of them flew into the Kessel alongside He 111 and Ju 52 transport planes. Maybe even the ME 323 if we get a Med or Eastern Front title.

 

If I remember correctly though, they stopped using the Condor for the airlift as they couldn’t carry more than the 111s and 52s but used more fuel. 

 

Me 323 would be a good way to get around the loophole, if we’ve been told we can’t get four-engined aircraft...

[Bajzon20]

Heavy bombers? yes, i will pay for that in IL-2 we have flayable B-24D Liberator, some people make mission for this bomber.  I think it is possible for developers to once introduce heavy bombers for players, a career as a B-17 / B-24 pilot, that would be something ...

[Vig]

But a Betty is just a twin-engine medium - you want to bomb Pearl with an Emily and then refuel from an I-boat at French Frigate Shoals. 

[Pharoah]

I've probably responded on this already but I'll go again - I would absolutely LOVE a heavy bomber ie. B17 or B24. I'd prefer the B24 as they were more numerous (19k built vs 12k of B17s) than the B17. yeah i know its not easy but if we are doing the western theatre next, you just cannot ignore the impact heavy bombers had. hell half the air war was either attacking them or defending them. 

 

You can already see there's keen interest in the twins online (JU88, H111, PE2, A20, etc).

 

Maybe offer it up as a premium aircraft, work out how much it'll cost to produce, then work out how many units to sell to break even....

Edited April 23, 2018 by [ASOR]Pharoah

[JG27_Steini]

1. The model is very complex and take much more afford to build

2. Huge bomber formations with many fighter escorts are too much for the engine currently

3. Such missions would be very hard for Luftwaffe. Figthing current BoX is good chance to survive. Intercept B17 is close to suicide

4. You can not make complete new missions, maps, planes for a single mission type, too much work to do

 

 

Only a few would buy this, me not. BoX is currently very interesseting and challeging. Intercept mission again B24, B17 would not. I think the team understands this. Thatswhy we will get Bodenplatte and not the "mighty eight".

 

[Pharoah]

thats why i said, possibly offer it as a premium and see how many preorders you get. If they figure out it takes say 500 orders to break even and they get 1200....

 

 

[Trooper117]

No, would not buy it, not my cup of tea...

[Mauf]

While not my interest I would buy it simply because bombers are often so neglected when it comes to proper representation in sims. They deserve more recognition.

[Trooper117]

It's all moot gentlemen... the Dev's have stated over and over on multiple threads, they will not be doing Heavy Bombers.

[Lusekofte]

Well I feel sorry for the ME 262 guys then, it excelled in hunting heavies

[No601_Swallow]

I had a couple of WWII heavy bombers in FS2004. I'd buy any of them in a trice in BoX. It's a different type of flying, a different type of experience. The Heinkel's lovely, but it's really fairly titchy. If I remember, the Stuka and the 110, as well as the Ju88, are almost as big.

 

[Edit: Just checked: 110 wingspan 16m, 111 wingspan 23m. Hmm. Well, you know what I mean...!]

 

Time for a Heavy!

 

And while we're on the subject - Tunable NDBs please! Heck, I'd love proper navigation, poor-weather flying, and even that German landing system... Ah, to dream...

Edited April 23, 2018 by No601_Swallow

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, No601_Swallow said:

And while we're on the subject - Tunable NDBs please!

 

That's on my wishlist as well.

[Blitzen]

Sure I'll buy almost anything connected to this sim..but if I really had my wish it would have to be the B-17 to connect with the upcoming BoB...

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I think to get heavies into this sim they should make a big mostly empty map with only objects at target and along mission route. This would save resources and possibly allow big heavy formations. It is kinda the opposite of what they are going to do for Tank Crew. It makes sense to me anyway. 

[Gambit21]

Objects on the map are not the problem.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

 

27 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Objects on the map are not the problem.

 

Well to get heavies then they need to:

 

A) Seriously stream line the software.

 

or

 

B) Make the AI planes not use the same FM we do aka the old school way. TBH I don't so much see that being a problem for big bombers that don't really need to maneuver much.

Edited April 23, 2018 by AeroAce

[Feathered_IV]

I was thinking about that.   Aircraft have LoDs that govern how much detail the models have at various distances, but distant aircraft still use the same complex AI and FM.   As Jubel Early would say, does that seem right to you?

[Custard]

Of course the devs know way more about this than I do, and I'm sure they've already thought of this. But using extremely simplistic flight models for AI heavy bombers would seem at first glance to be an avenue worth investigating in the (post-pacific perhaps) future. As a way of achieving acceptable performance.

 

After all, the only time straight and level flying heavies would need anything approaching a complex flight model would be when taking damage or falling to earth.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Custard

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, AeroAce said:

 

 

Well to get heavies then they need to:

 

A) Seriously stream line the software.

 

or

 

B) Make the AI planes not use the same FM we do aka the old school way. TBH I don't so much see that being a problem for big bombers that don't really need to maneuver much.

 

Actually I'll amend my statement a bit.

At low altitude, with enough buildings etc I definitely see a performance drop, say flying  600 meters over Novorossiysk with a flight of A-20's.

Up high, not so much.

[Rjel]

I was never able to play Red Baron II when it was out but as I remember the reviews, didn't the game track flights that weren't visible when at a greater distance from the player? They only became visible as the player approached I believe. That might be another avenue to explore if the day ever comes that AI heavies get incorporated into this series. Having simplified flight models for large formations of bombers would seem to be worth looking at too.

[Pharoah]

14 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

It's all moot gentlemen... the Dev's have stated over and over on multiple threads, they will not be doing Heavy Bombers.

 

I know but if there's enough interest they can't ignore it. Yes, heavy bombers isn't for everyone. Having flown a lot of bombers in IL2 I do know that they are like a flashlight in a forest - you attract every single bug in the area when you're found. And TBH, you don't necessarily need to extend - if they could develop it, just include it in current map rotations like the twins. Eg. In TAW, I fly quite a distance in a twin bomber to bomb a target - all the juicier targets are behind enemy lines. I could be doing the exact same flight but with an extra 2 engines (and theoretically twice the bomb load) so you don't necessarily need to suddenly create massive maps. 

[RAY-EU]

 

[Danziger]

I'm pretty sure we will see it later on as long as the plans work out with expanding the workforce and the orders keep coming in. I imagine a B17F coming as it's own "battle of" cycle with it's own map similar to the Ilya Murmonets in RoF. If the 3rd party team thing works out maybe that is something they could work on parallel to the main team working on whatever battle we're on by then.

[1_Robert_]

I guess I’d buy anything they throw at us because I want to support the developer. 

 

But honestly, if it means waiting longer for the opportunity to launch a Corsair off a carrier, then I’m not too enthusiastic about them developing 4 engine bombers. 

 

Although a Lancaster would be nice...

[PatrickAWlson]

21 hours ago, Rjel said:

I was never able to play Red Baron II when it was out but as I remember the reviews, didn't the game track flights that weren't visible when at a greater distance from the player? They only became visible as the player approached I believe. 

That is already possible with the BoX mission maker.  I do it with PWCG.  It works great when most of the virtual planes never spawn in a mission.

 

The problem in a heavy bomber scenario is that all of the planes are bunched.  They are all going to spawn at once.

[Rjel]

16 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

That is already possible with the BoX mission maker.  I do it with PWCG.  It works great when most of the virtual planes never spawn in a mission.

 

The problem in a heavy bomber scenario is that all of the planes are bunched.  They are all going to spawn at once.

No, mass U.S. bomber streams could reach one hundred miles long and take 30 plus minutes to cross over the same spot. So I've read. I doubt we'll see 1000 plane bomber streams simulated in my lifetime, but maybe a group or two with others following just out of range might be possible.

[Gambit21]

You have to spawn them all at once if you want a coherent group.