Make B-25 flyable please?

[CanadaOne]

On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2020 at 8:20 AM, Bremspropeller said:

 

To bomb what? Krasnodar?

 

Anything that moves.

 

Or doesn't.

[Blitzen]

This should give you some idea :

 

 

( of course we'll need a few additions ..like a new map & a few Navy ships to launch from...)

[Danziger]

I would be happy if they covered over the noses of the A20 and B25 and filled them up with guns.

[Enceladus828]

I'd say the B-25 will become flyable sometime after the release of BON; likely the early work will begin in the late stages of BON and then will be released sometime during early development of the next Battle after Normandy. But whether or not they make it flyable after immediately after BON is completely uncertain; all we know for certain is that the devs want it to be flyable at sometime, don't know when, but after BON is released it will be.

As for the B-26, depending on what variant they make for BON, I'd say they'll make it flyable whenever they do Midway.

 

[yossarian_lives]

If it's made and has gunner positions that players can access I'll buy it.

[Feathered_IV]

There seems to be an unwritten law that a bomber needs to have every gunner's position modelled to be flyable.

I think that is a dumb law.

[Ribbon]

23 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

There seems to be an unwritten law that a bomber needs to have every gunner's position modelled to be flyable.

I think that is a dumb law.

Agree!

Flayable positions: pilot, top fuselage gunner, tail gunner and bobardier are more than enough.

 

In my case pilot and bombardier would be just fine, AI gunners do the job way better than human players.

[Missionbug]

I would only want to sit in the pilot seat and fly the thing no need for any other position, let the crew do their jobs I will do mine.

 

 

Some I know like to do the Bombardier thing so okay, maybe the two crew positions are all that is necessary really, anything else is just extra work and expense that will most likely never be used by the majority of players and prevents these types of aircraft getting into the sim.

 

We certainly need the bombers available to fly as well as those lovely transports.

 

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[GiftZahnsSteigern]

[Lusekofte]

5 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

There seems to be an unwritten law that a bomber needs to have every gunner's position modelled to be flyable.

I think that is a dumb law.

I agree. For my sake I would be happy for a flyable B 25 and just that. If there gonna be a extra cockpit I would love to have the bombardier pit. For easier spotting of waypoints and target

this goes for the A 20 we have too. I gladly exchange both gunner positions for a bombardier pit. The complex turret of B25 probably would make the plane very expencive to make anyway

Edited April 17, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Velxra]

3 hours ago, GiftZahnsSteigern said:

-amazing picture-

What kind of black magic is this?? lol

[danielprates]

5 hours ago, Missionbug said:

 

Some I know like to do the Bombardier thing so okay, maybe the two crew positions are all that is necessary really,

 

Like the current A20, where not even the bombardier pit was modelled (with all the obvious spotting, navigating and approach advantages it offers). Only the bombing sight view was given, and most people feel ok with it. Gunner seats are there but I guess most people hardly use them. For the B25 an B26, I feel I would be  EXCEEDINGLY GLAD if merely the driver's seat + the plain bombing sight was offered. I would even pay extra for that.

Edited April 17, 2020 by danielprates

[-RR-Napoleon-]

If they could figure out a way to give the navigator/bombardier position some map tools and access to the bombardier it would make co-op playing bombers loads of fun! I honestly would buy the A-20 again if it came with a B-25 and a fully revamped co-op crew operation.

[GiftZahnsSteigern]

20 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

What kind of black magic is this?? lol

 

 

Use to be you could choose a bombing single player mission in SYN_Vander's wunderbar EMG, select B-25 as your plane, and EMG would make a selectable mission, which would not load, yet would still put the Mitchell in your hanger. Won't now, even with tinkering the generated files with the ME.

I'm an absolute maven for finding all sorts of stuff that doesn't work, or breaks things.

[Lusekofte]

I do not know what the devs know. Putting it as a flyable collector plane or in a pack later on, is the question. 
I believe the developers know there is a community expectation to have this flyable. And 

they know they going to make it at some point. 
But I am pretty sure it is not going to happened while BON is under construction. 
I think if nothing else this topic might be taken as we never will be satisfied. 
In my opinion if a B 25 not going to have level bomber capacity I rather have the Mosquito we are getting. 
In my opinion choosing between the two is very difficult if not impossible. BON delivered planes I could not dream of comparing to what we got in BOBP. So I am pretty much good with status

[Ribbon]

13 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

I do not know what the devs know. Putting it as a flyable collector plane or in a pack later on, is the question. 
I believe the developers know there is a community expectation to have this flyable. And 

they know they going to make it at some point. 
But I am pretty sure it is not going to happened while BON is under construction. 
I think if nothing else this topic might be taken as we never will be satisfied. 
In my opinion if a B 25 not going to have level bomber capacity I rather have the Mosquito we are getting. 
In my opinion choosing between the two is very difficult if not impossible. BON delivered planes I could not dream of comparing to what we got in BOBP. So I am pretty much good with status

I think B-25 should get it's place in collectables while B-26 can be packed in future expansion planeset.

So there is option to fulfill both needs!

 

Otherwise it will be a long long wait to get b25/26 bomber as flyables.....?

 

 

[MarderIV]

On 4/18/2020 at 6:02 AM, -RR-Napoleon- said:

some map tools and access to the bombardier

 

As much as I love bombers (profile pic evidence enough), I think this is what's been ticking me about bomber play in the sim. Lately I've been using C-47s in XP11 and I began to wonder why when after rotating to bombers in Il-2; I start to sense something off in terms of engagement. Like there's less happening inside an A-20 than in a C-47 in another sim. And no, it's not about there not being clicky-pits or that bombers are "boring" - specially not when I can muster the insanity that is long commercial flight. I just can't seem to put it into words somehow.

 

Perhaps it's the workload or the crew interaction? Or specifically that Il-2 captures fighter and fighter/bomber workload better than bomber workload? I mean the quintessential fighter experience comes off as deep since the expectation is front-loaded towards dogfighting and/or ground attack and the simulator naturally captures all the important aspects of that experience.

 

But for bombers I can't help but suspect that there is a lack of bomber-centric elements to off-set just how well captured fighter and fighter-bomber experiences are. Surely there are other elements to the Bomber Commander and their duty that can be captured and translated into an experience here?

 

That's why I think those map tools you mentioned are important. Because there might be more to bombers' responsibilities and experiences than what's currently captured in Il-2, and I would love to see those things as well. 

 

 I want to see more of what their pilots had to deal with inside than to have a new bomber on the table, honestly. Rather both if the pocket-books align.  

 

 

 

[Lusekofte]

I can put that in words.

Flying bombers un supported against enemy fighters. 
Most times you are facing the fact that fighters on your side do not have the patience to escort you. 
But when it comes to bagging you the opponents fighters got all the patience in the world for getting an easy kill. 
Gameplay in servers give little room for bombers, But flying a bomber is more survivable than flying low upon a target with a fighterbomber. Despite all this I enjoy the challange trying to get a bomber to target and back, but I fly very little online anymore. You simply grow tired flying 1940 bombers against 1944 fighters

6 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Otherwise it will be a long long wait to get b25/26 bomber as flyables.....?

That is why they like Pacific never mention it. 
We will have a long wait if getting it at all. 
depending on what version of Mossie we get this game will be a bit more boring without levelbomber capacity 

Edited April 20, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[BlitzPig_EL]

I have to agree, bombers, Allied or Axis, are easy prey in the Sim, Uber gunners not withstanding.  That said, the Sim is, and always was, all about low level tactical employment of air assets against ground forces.  It was never labeled as, sold as, or, implied to be anything other than that.  Nor was the game engine built around high level, mass formation bombing missions.

 

If that is what you seek, you are wasting your time.  This is a down in the weeds tactical air ops sim, one that happens to have light and medium bombers, because they are well suited to the tactical role. Not that they don't need escort, they do, but you can't expect the kinds of missions, and workloads you would have in strategic bombing.

[Feathered_IV]

I don’t know if I would say the sim/game was all about low level and ground attack. It isn’t an area that it does that well, with the smoke switching on and off every ten to fifteen seconds and the objects you destroy vanishing after twenty.  Plus the issues with AI ground attack and command.  For me I would say the primary focus was on dogfighting in an MP environment. It does that quite well.  

[ACG_PanzerVI]

1 hour ago, Feathered_IV said:

I don’t know if I would say the sim/game was all about low level and ground attack. It isn’t an area that it does that well, with the smoke switching on and off every ten to fifteen seconds and the objects you destroy vanishing after twenty.  Plus the issues with AI ground attack and command.  For me I would say the primary focus was on dogfighting in an MP environment. It does that quite well.  

Concur.  But I'd LIKE it to be more about low level ground attack, and coordinated air combat interdiction.  Best missions I've been on in sim were coordinated hits on targets that included a flak suppression element, a primary strike package, and a CAP.  Although fighter bombers seem cool because in theory, they can do all of this, I think that relying on them alone leads to people thinking they can do it all themselves, and/or coordinate in the air, and that makes for a more chaotic, arcade-style, juvenile experience.  I think that keeping light bomber / light attack aircraft in the game keeps the mature, hard-core enthusiasts on board with an immersive experience.  To that, I still think that portraying more of the late-war attack planes is needed.  Easiest to start with on the Allied side would be the A-20G.  Guns in the nose, later model engine (1600 continuous HP I think) and upgunned defensive armament (.50 ventral, and twin .50cal dorsal turret).   

My next choice would be the A-26.  

There are several German designs that might fill the same roles.  While I acknowledge that they didn't really do missions like these frequently, for a variety of operational/strategic reasons, I don't think that we need to limit our sim missions to perfectly mirror history.  Give both sides the tools to compete.  Bombers that can either defend themselves better, run away faster, or both.  Help fill the tactical roles we need to play. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

The Luftwaffe have a very good attack bird in the sim right now, the Bf110G2.  Great guns, good bomb load, and it's fast enough to get out of Dodge, unlike the HS 129.

[183_IAP_Baranov]

There will always be those virtual pilots who want to fly in a dedicated bomber unit regardless of what is happening below the cloud deck tactically.  Don't discount those people who enjoy flying bombers at the higher altitudes.   IL-2 1946, its previous versions and where we are now with IL-2 brings people from all over the world with different interests aircraft wise to make this online community what it is.  Medium and Heavy bombers !  lets make it a goal for the community to enjoy.  Make it a goal !

[Antiguo]

some of you enjoy il2 flying fighter and attack planes, but some like me, we enjoy bomber planes, if possible at level and height.

 

I sincerely believe that this IL2 series is neglecting or forgetting those of us who enjoy gaining altitude, facing the target, making corrections, and dropping the bombs with our bomber sights.

So in this thread, we are asking that a bomber be flyable, just that.
Cheers

[Ribbon]

Well, some of us are just immersion addicts, i don't care much what payload is (except torpedos ?), what is plane performance or will i have tactical use of it!

 

I just want to sit in that cockpit with AI crew beside me, light up cigarette, start engines, takeoff, gain alt, calculate safe approach to target and avoid being spotted in MP, drop the bombs and get home alive......how much i will destroy on ground or what score i will gain i dont give a flick.

It all about immersion and currently we don't have bomber with cockpit that will provide us with feel of having a true crew (copilot and that guy in the back).

 

//Would be cool to if we get torpedo as a mod for b25 ?//

[Feathered_IV]

At the risk of incurring another bitchy laughing emoji from my creepy stalker guy, the ideal for bomber immersion for me would be to have some of the non-gunner crew simulated as AI as well.  
 

At the start of an online mission for example, it would be great to zoom in on the map and place your intended waypoints, much like can presently be done in career mode.  Also adding the Initial Point for the run in and the target itself.  
 

Flying the mission, the AI navigator could then do his job and give you course corrections where needed.  The flight engineer might come on the intercom and say when to go on oxygen (cue heavy breathing). At the IP the bombardier could either take over or give you the left-right-steady instructions for the bomb release.  
 

That sort of thing would be the ideal for me.  Bombers tend to be a one man band in all sims that I can think of, but I hope there will be a future time where the multi crew aspect gets simulated.    

[Lusekofte]

I have a favorite campaign in DCS in MI 8. Where my navigator/ copilot do the checklist for start with me. You switch the button and he say what you do. Give bearings on flight and tease the loadmaster inbetween. 
It give a sense of being part of a crew. These voices are from pro voice actors. 
If one should dream a sort of crew cooperation would be nice. 
But right now I be happy with just pilot pit and second a bombardier pit. All other stations could be ai for my sake

[Lusekofte]

8 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

how much i will destroy on ground or what score i will gain i dont give a flick

I try to find a logic in how the ground targets are placed.  And come in at a direction where most as possible get hit by the bombs. 
As long as I did not miss the target area I am pleased. I done what I could. And find it very satisfying being able to land at home base. Secondary getting my crew over to friendly territory

[BlitzPig_EL]

Guys, I want everyone to be happy playing the sim, that said, the reality of what the game engine can do precludes large formations of multi-crewed, 4 engine, aircraft.  Also the development time and costs for large aircraft vs. the small size and budget of the dev team, and the small customer base, means we will be damned lucky to get flyable mediums, or even a PBY Catalina.

 

I wish this were not the case, I really do, but I am a realist, and the days of plane sets like we had in IL2 1946 are long gone, and it's our own fault, because we demand ever more realistic models, physics, and operational systems on the aircraft, that it makes producing them, and running them acceptably in the game environment a daunting, and expensive task, at best.

[Lusekofte]

Yeah. But the developers know their stuff. 
They knew another fighter only pack would 

not do. They know what to do.  
I cannot stress this enough, I am very grateful for the Mossie and Arado. Participating in this debate might give a feeling of ingratitude, witch it is not at all. 
I am just saying together with many, that if they make mediumbombers flyable I be fine with no gunner cockpits.  That is all

A sim of this magnitude would be a sad place without flyable general purpose planes. 
I think there is enough late war fighters in this sim for European theatre’s. 
If there is going to be more to Europe medium bombers like JU 188 DO 217K B 25 and B 26 is basically only thing left for a complete sim

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[BlitzPig_EL]

LuseKofte,  I'm in agreement with you on how to implement the medium bombers, pilot and bombardier stations only would be just fine with me.  And yes we have the fighters for the European Theater covered.

 

Where do we go from here?  Clearly the late war Eastern Front can, and should, be fleshed out, along with filling some of the gaps for the earlier Eastern scenarios, IAR 81, I-153, IL-4, HS 123, Hawk 81, etc...  So when done, where do we go?

 

Pacific?  Sadly not likely, because rivet counters.

Med?  Not unless CloD fails or folds.

BoB?  See above.

 

Korea?  Doubtful as it's a political hot potato vis-a-vis conflicts with current Chinese politics.

 

It's a real conundrum.

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by BlitzPig_EL

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It's a real conundrum.

This is why I believe we are overthinking stuff 

 

Catch 22 quote. 
“ you worry to much, you go worry, worry, worry and dead. Me, I go happy happy happy dead”

Me think they have a plan to go pacific in mind. 
And already have a plan for next pack, or an idea. I think they have an eye on whats mooving in here, and they will accommodate us with just enough bombers to keep us happy. Not more just enough. 
I think using late war Europe have been such a success that they probably find more in tHat regard. I think I would guess Italy, Sicily, Malta area would not be making anyone pissed. 
For my sake Balkan and Crete would also be of interest

 

[danielprates]

2 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

A sim of this magnitude would be a sad place without flyable general purpose planes

 

How true. Congrats on reducing exactly what I feel (and others too I'm sure) into one eloquent sentence.

[Ribbon]

3 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Guys, I want everyone to be happy playing the sim, that said, the reality of what the game engine can do precludes large formations of multi-crewed, 4 engine, aircraft.  Also the development time and costs for large aircraft vs. the small size and budget of the dev team, and the small customer base, means we will be damned lucky to get flyable mediums, or even a PBY Catalina.

 

I wish this were not the case, I really do, but I am a realist, and the days of plane sets like we had in IL2 1946 are long gone, and it's our own fault, because we demand ever more realistic models, physics, and operational systems on the aircraft, that it makes producing them, and running them acceptably in the game environment a daunting, and expensive task, at best.

We are all aware of game engine limitations and accepted it, we don't ask 4-engine bombers or large bomber formations.

We ask for already ingame modeled AI plane to become flyable!

Imagine il2 without He111 (and ju88), you see how big impact they have on general perspective on il2, for fighter and bomber pilots, aswell on new potential customers when reviewing the game.

Now B-25 would be pinacle of il2 bomber assets and most popular of them all, i would bet on this!

No other bomber ingame would give bigger impression of "look this game have fighters and bombers" as it is closest to heavy bombers with cockpit, crew and payload.

 

Budget, manpower and time....well i don't see that as problem, when il2 was way less popular and with smaller playerbase and budget devs provided us with he111, ju88 and a20.

1C team even managed in cooperation with 3rd party studios cover all 3 titles (FC, BoBp and TC).

So imo asking for flyable B-25 should not be a problem (also given it's already AI modeled ingame).

I'm sure we'll get it, only question is when!

 

Those counting rivets and demanding every bomber station playable, well i think they are only few in numbers so if they don't want it they don't have to use it.

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Believe me, if a flyable B25 or B26 is made available, I will be at the front of the line to order one.

[Ribbon]

24 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Believe me, if a flyable B25 or B26 is made available, I will be at the front of the line to order one.

There would be no line, it would be kaos?

[183_IAP_Baranov]

We should focus on solutions instead of making up excuses for why something can't be done due to resources.  Provide a realistic cost analysis on how to solve this request and let the right people create the product.  Seems fair enough ?  I'm sure others would agree !  

[Taxman]

1 hour ago, 365th-FG_Collins said:

We should focus on solutions instead of making up excuses for why something can't be done due to resources.  Provide a realistic cost analysis on how to solve this request and let the right people create the product.  Seems fair enough ?  I'm sure others would agree !  

Boy do I agree with your statement.  Many years ago I wrote an article, 1999 I think, on how to support this community with the amount of funding that would required in order to keep upgrading and provide the future products that would satisfy the demand in a shorter time.   At that time I was put down for my idea, and as of this date we have not reached that level of funding for the software,  since then I have spend much more on hardware upgrades 10 or 20 times then for the software for my hobby.

  

Edited April 21, 2020 by Taxman
Spelling

[jollyjack]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Believe me, if a flyable B25 or B26 is made available, I will be at the front of the line to order one.

 

A C47 first ! .... i hate to disguise those Ju52 into RAF, USAF or whatever is needed.

I made this skin out of sheer frustration: 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by jollyjack

[Ribbon]

1 hour ago, jollyjack said:

 

A C47 first ! .... i hate to disguise those Ju52 into RAF, USAF or whatever is needed.

I made this skin out of sheer frustration: 

 

 

 

Wrong thread!

There is Li2/c47 thread if you scroll down the forum instead derailing this one with that^^^!