BOBP: Where are the bombers?

[ShamrockOneFive]

4 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

 

So... the bomber AI is now so advanced that we can't actually use it.  This truly is the golden age. 

 

Catch 22

[Godspeed]

5 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Lancasters have nothing to do with the map being rendered.

 

You definitely know what i mean or what this thread is about.

[Gil57]

My choice of bombers for BoBp (only 2 engines   ):

 

Allied : B26 Marauder, DH Mosquito, B25J, A20J/K, A26 Invader

Luftwaffe : Do217K/M, Ju188, Arado 234

[Voidhunger]

Marauder and Arado would be nice to have

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, 615sqn_GilB said:

My choice of bombers for BoBp (only 2 engines   ):

 

Allied : B26 Marauder, DH Mosquito, B25J, A20J/K, A26 Invader

Luftwaffe : Do217K/M, Ju188, Arado 234

 

All of them ?

[EAF19_Marsh]

Return on investment being crucial, I assume that the team knows which way to go; twin-engined UK / US / Luftwaffe bombers to fill out the fantastic BoBpp (and FC possibly for summer '44 hack campaign) maps.

 

I cannot see the effort behind strategic bombers being realised soon and I completely accept that direction.

[AtomicP]

12 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Return on investment being crucial, I assume that the team knows which way to go; twin-engined UK / US / Luftwaffe bombers to fill out the fantastic BoBpp (and FC possibly for summer '44 hack campaign) maps.

 

I cannot see the effort behind strategic bombers being realised soon and I completely accept that direction.

 

Adding more twin-engine aircraft is much easier than adding new four-engined ones. Not only must the devs fine-tune the dynamics of a four-engine plane (what happens when it loses 1 engine, or 2?) but also the control scheme must be adapted, runways modified etc. A lot of extra work and probably no extra cash. 

[Guest deleted@83466]

The problem with 4 engined heavies is that they are truly multi-crewed aircraft, and I think that to do justice to the operation of a plane like the B-17 you have to introduce a level of workload that the sim currently doesn't support.  Your B-17 has 4 throttles, 4 RPM levers, 4 Mixtures, 4 Intercooloer levers, 4 cowl flaps, and a master turbo dial, complex fuel system, etc.  The co-pilot is going to be watching the instruments and adjusting these things while the pilot flies the plane.  He's paying attention to things like cylinder head temperature, carburetor air temp, etc.  People who may have flown the A2A B-17G in FSX may understand what I mean here.  To synthesize all of this down so that a single player is managing it all, and being the bombadier, navigator, and flight engineer as well, just doesn't seem like it's appropriate for this sim, or at least it would really require the addition of a very smart AI copilot in order to feel realistic.  I know, I know, things are simplified for twin engined aircraft, and single engined aircraft as well, but it seems like it reaches a point where you've got too much aircraft for a sim that is really optimized around more tactically oriented aircraft.  Besides, what are you going to do, fly for 8 hours from somewhere in England to somewhere deep in the heart of Germany?  What do you do with something like a strategic bomber in the tactical arena of Multiplayer?

Edited August 1, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[CountZero]

you give B-17 to typical online player and hell fly low alt and bomb tank columns with it, its realy pointles to model that type of airplanes for this game, i can see them being usefule in CloD for tf6 for example as you could do historic early B-17 missions on existing Channel map they have, but here no just make it as simple AI s fighter players can have their joy of shooting them down, for bomber players from what i see online it would be just abused for dive bombing or low alt runs on tanks or what not, for sure you wont have online player flying it 2-3h just to do one sortie even if maps existed where you could take of from england. Modeling something like that to standards game how now would be big waist of time.

[357th_Dog]

Realistically while 4 engine USAAF heavies and Bomber Command heavies would be epic to see...they're a bit beyond the "tactical aviation" style IL2 goes for. 

I'd LOVE to see them however, I get all squishy inside remember IL2 1946's mass bomber raids..

However, get 5-6 B-25's together and they'll mess up any target pretty well.  It just takes teamwork..which..seems lacking on servers like WOL but functions well on TAW. 

[LP1888]

I think they will make 2 engine bombers after bobp eventually as maybe an add on but tbh the amount of new stuff we are getting specially the likes of tempest,p-38 and the jug I can’t really complain would love to see b-26 and tbh some game engine improvements to eventually fix the having 4K ticked vsync issue. 

[LeLv76_Erkki]

Related to Bodenplatte addon, I think it may not be coincidence that they chose B-25 instead of Mosquito or B-26, and that P-38 will be included despite it not really being used any more in Western Europe at the time(I think last units swapped to P-51 late summer 1944). Especially not the J variant.

 

However, P-38J, P-39, P-40, A-20 and B-25 do sound like a set of USAAF planes fitting some other theater.

[sevenless]

31 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

However, P-38J, P-39, P-40, A-20 and B-25 do sound like a set of USAAF planes fitting some other theater.

 

Bingo!

[Voidhunger]

So the P38J is out of time frame of bobp? because of Pto? Pfff

Edited August 2, 2018 by Voidhunger

[CountZero]

atleast 2 squadrons used P-38Js in area of map and at time of campaign well in 45, so i dont think they selected them beacause of pacific  

[Voidhunger]

2 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

atleast 2 squadrons used P-38Js in area of map and at time of campaign well in 45, so i dont think they selected them beacause of pacific  

Ok thanks

[=27=Davesteu]

On 8/2/2018 at 12:20 PM, LeLv76_Erkki said:

Related to Bodenplatte addon, I think it may not be coincidence that they chose B-25 instead of Mosquito or B-26, and that P-38 will be included despite it not really being used any more in Western Europe at the time(I think last units swapped to P-51 late summer 1944). Especially not the J variant

Indeed not a coincidence.

The Mosquito Bomber & Fighter-Bomber units for the most part remained based in the UK. Few Mosquito units, mainly Recce & Night-Fighter, were based on the continent, focused in the Lille area. USAAF B-26 were based in France. They aren't on the map and therefore aren't part of the planeset.

RAF B-25 (Mitchell Mk. II & III) were based in Belgium, as was the P-38 equipped USAAF 474th Fighter Group (3 Squadrons). They are on the map and in the planeset. The P-38J was the predominant model.

Edited August 6, 2018 by =27=Davesteu

[MiloMorai]

So did the 367FG 70FW 9AF til Feb 1945 then switched to P-47s.

 

The 370FG 71FW 9AF flew P-38s (can't find info if they changed a/c).

[LeLv76_Erkki]

Yes, but its the J, when L was more numerous and closer match to other fighters in Bodenplatte. It sticks out. I cant remember if they are on the outside and in cockpit so similar that turning J into an L could be be a modification, similar to La-5 and -5F.

[ShamrockOneFive]

6 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

Yes, but its the J, when L was more numerous and closer match to other fighters in Bodenplatte. It sticks out. I cant remember if they are on the outside and in cockpit so similar that turning J into an L could be be a modification, similar to La-5 and -5F.

 

The J fits the widest span of time that Bodenplatte is covering better than the L does. It's also been confirmed to be a J-25 so it has 90% of the features of the L and likely will pick up a few of the L's armament options (I hope anyways). It has slightly less engine power but also slightly less weight so everything comes out in the wash.

[Herne]

which model solved the tail compressability issue ?

[=27=Davesteu]

In the European Theatre the L was mainly delivered to units in Italy, but predominantly to the Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre.

 

25 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

It's also been confirmed to be a J-25

It has? AFAIK only users talking about the blocks.

Production of J-25-LO block commenced in June 1944 with 210 airframes build and 105 out of those converted into F-5E reconnaissance aircraft afterwards. Therefore only 105 standard P-38 J-25. By far the single most numerous J-block produced was the J-15 with 1400 airframes build total, 200 converted into F-5E.
The J-25 had additional wing-fuel tanks and dive brakes factory installed, earlier blocks could be modified accordingly. Probably we get both modifications no matter which block. Hopefully no HVAR rocket clusters.

My big hope is a P-38 "Droop Snoot" mod - Level bombing & Lightning.

Edited August 2, 2018 by =27=Davesteu

[ShamrockOneFive]

4 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

In the European Theatre the L was mainly delivered to units in Italy, but predominantly to the Asiatic-Pacific-Theatre.

 

It has? AFAIK only users talking about the blocks.

Production of J-25-LO block commenced in June 1944 with 210 airframes build and 105 out of those converted into F-5E reconnaissance aircraft afterwards. Therefore only 105 standard P-38 J-25. By far the single most numerous J-block produced was the J-15 with 1400 airframes build total, 200 converted into F-5E.
The J-25 had additional wing-fuel tanks and dive breaks factory installed, earlier blocks could be modified accordingly. Probably we get both modifications no matter which block.

My big hope is the P-38 "Droop Snoot" - Level bombing & Lightning.

 

I take back the confirmed J-25 thing and revise it to a suspected confirmed J-25

 

 

BlackSix confirms its a late series P-38J and that probably lead me to fill in the block number.

[MiloMorai]

42 minutes ago, =FEW=Herne said:

which model solved the tail compressability issue ?

 

The problem was eventually traced to a shock wave that formed over the wings as the Lightning entered the transonic regime, the shock wave preventing the elevators from operating. In order to counteract this problem, starting with the P-38J-25-LO (Model 422-81-23) production block, a small electrically-operated dive flap was added underneath each wing outboard of the engine nacelles and hinged to the main spar.

[Herne]

2 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

The problem was eventually traced to a shock wave that formed over the wings as the Lightning entered the transonic regime, the shock wave preventing the elevators from operating. In order to counteract this problem, starting with the P-38J-25-LO (Model 422-81-23) production block, a small electrically-operated dive flap was added underneath each wing outboard of the engine nacelles and hinged to the main spar.

 

excellent, I was afraid I was going to revisit some nightmares like when I first started flying a 109

[BraveSirRobin]

On 7/30/2018 at 11:24 AM, Godspeed said:

 

You definitely know what i mean or what this thread is about.

 

Much like you should know that this game engine is designed for tactical combat, and not strategic bombing.

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

 

The problem was eventually traced to a shock wave that formed over the wings as the Lightning entered the transonic regime, the shock wave preventing the elevators from operating. In order to counteract this problem, starting with the P-38J-25-LO (Model 422-81-23) production block, a small electrically-operated dive flap was added underneath each wing outboard of the engine nacelles and hinged to the main spar.

 

It is of note that this installation doesn‘t at all cure the inadequately low critical Mach number of the aircraft. One cannot just deploy those flaps and dive like a Spitfire. You deploy those flaps to increase wing lift (and put center of lift a bit forward again) and in consequence retrim the aircraft for pitch up configuratuon, assisting the pullout out of the dive. Spring loaded tabs on the elevator helped as well. Having a very thick profile for the wing sections between cockpit and booms to put the fuel there clearly brought along a price to pay.

[Godspeed]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Much like you should know that this game engine is designed for tactical combat, and not strategic bombing.

 

Oww

 

Much like you should know that this game engine is designed to be flight simulator, and not tanks & formula.

 

Im sure the game engine has nothing to do with this you saying.

Its about choices what to develope and what not.

 

PAC-MAN was designed to be only PAC-MAN with the code made by Tōru Iwatani.

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Godspeed

[BraveSirRobin]

49 minutes ago, Godspeed said:

 

Oww

 

Much like you should know that this game engine is designed to be flight simulator, and not tanks & formula.

 

 

You should inform the developers of this issue, not me.

[JG5_Zesphr]

1 hour ago, Godspeed said:

 

Oww

 

Much like you should know that this game engine is designed to be flight simulator, and not tanks & formula.

 

Im sure the game engine has nothing to do with this you saying.

Its about choices what to develope and what not.

 

PAC-MAN was designed to be only PAC-MAN with the code made by Tōru Iwatani.

 

It's not as easy as "just put plane "x" in". With the recent transfer of WWI aircraft, new code had to be added for the flight models flying and fighting at noticeably different conditions compared to the current WWII aircraft the same will be for jet and would be for heavy bombers. Not to mention the time: profit ratio is not as lucrative as the smaller tactical aircraft and with them already stretched for money there no economical insensitive which, as sad as it is, is the base line for any business 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Godspeed said:

Its about choices what to develope and what not.

Jason himself stated that 4 engines and 12 man crew per plane is an unreasonable overhead for the game.

 

Also, for strategic bombing you need a map size from England to Kairo. Also a flat world will not do. Static weather will not do. You will require a procedural scenery creation (autogen) to make the „map“ look nice throughout the flight. You need a round world, else navigation will not really work.

 

These are basic mechanics, far from trivial, and all absent from the game as it is now.

 

It is really an easy choice not doing strategic bombing missions in the Great Battles Series as it is now.

[Godspeed]

lol why i get flooded with answers.

BOBP in my eyes is worth it and i did pre-order it.

 

I dont have any influence if they add strategic bombers or not.

 

All im saying that Robin guy thinks the reason is about game engine.

What is bit funny to hear.

 

 

[LukeFF]

58 minutes ago, Godspeed said:

lol why i get flooded with answers.

 

Because that's the point of an internet forum.

[Guest deleted@83466]

1 hour ago, Godspeed said:

lol why i get flooded with answers.

BOBP in my eyes is worth it and i did pre-order it.

 

I dont have any influence if they add strategic bombers or not.

 

All im saying that Robin guy thinks the reason is about game engine.

What is bit funny to hear.

 

 

 

Didn't that Jason guy basically say the same thing as that Robin guy?

[Godspeed]

56 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

Didn't that Jason guy basically say the same thing as that Robin guy?

 

 

That the reason why strategic bombers cant be done because game engine prevents it to be done?

So you have heard Jason saying or speaking about the game engine is the issue why strategic bombers can not be made?

I say to you that making strategic bomber with 4 engines with this engine if they want to.

 

 

Bigger bombers would be pointless if the AI flight does not understand to drop bombs on missions.

Can LukeFF answer this why AI issues has not been noticed and fixed on testing phases?

 

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Godspeed

[BraveSirRobin]

Of course they can make one. The problem is that it can't be deployed in anything approaching a realistic situation.  A small group of fighters attacking 2 or 3 B-17s would result in a slide show.  So there is no point to making B-17s in this game engine.

[sevenless]

Unless the engine can handle 20-40 B17s with escort (20-40 planes) it really doesn´t make sense to even think about this strategic topic. Nevertheless, there are so many B25, B26, etc tactical engagements which can be handled by the engine and would make sense to be integrated. Basically on the tactical level a 1 to 1 copy of what we have right now on the eastern front with other planes. For strategic bombing, go back to IL-2 1946, that game can handle that.

[PatrickAWlson]

A bomber box is 12 planes (I think).  Putting 12 B17s in place with 10 AI bots = 120 AI entities.  Until the AI is heavily optimized that cannot happen.  At a minimum it would require optimization of AI gunner bots.   The heavy AI would be both more simple and more complex.  Simpler because they are not doing evasive or offensive maneuvers.  More complex because they would have to manage a four engined aircraft through all sorts of different states from whole to multiple engines out.

 

Never say never, but right now the game cannot manage that.

[ZachariasX]

Imagine for a second that the game as well as dserver go multithread...

[wtornado]

They would have to make a B-17 so that we could have a "Whale war"like in the old IL-2 game with two TB-3's with all the MG positions taken.

Two B-17's going at it at 20 000 feet.

Fun times long ago.?

 

Who played those coops and remembers?

 

With the way CPU's ,GPU's and server technology is advancing it is not that far away to be able to fly with many more aircraft than we see in game now.

Edited August 5, 2018 by SCG_wtornado