BOBP: Where are the bombers?

[IIN8II]

B26 Marauder gets my vote

[Bremspropeller]

On 8/2/2018 at 7:05 PM, ZachariasX said:

 

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.

 

Exactly!

Not only does it not cure the problem; it also only buys around 15mph, before the Mach-induced pitch-down moment also starts to overcome the dive-recovery flaps.

It's a band aid and it doesn't cure the problem at all.

One additional reason apart from the relatively thick wing-sections is that there are lots of interfering areas, each influencing the other, adding to the problem.

 

Lightnings generally didn't fly at very high altitudes in the second half of 1944 anymore (apart from recce airframes) and the issue was non-existant at low altitudes, as airplanes normally couldn't reach the associated Mach numbers.

[GrinderX9]

sorry if already mentioned. But we are actually getting one playable 4 engine bomber in the game...

The Sikorsky S-22. The ww1 Russian heavy bomber. ok ok. so its ww1 for flying circus, and that module uses ROF flight physics.

But it can be flown together with BOX planes. Doesn't that suggest…. that a B17 with simplified physics, or ROF physics or something could be possible? 

I 100% support that this is the wrong game for a flyable B17. But I think the developers should reconsider the no simplified physics for AI bomber. My Me 262 need that target ?

 

Anyway. I'm not really complaining. I loved flying the B-25 in old IL2. And it will also do as a target, so I'm happy

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, GrinderX9 said:

sorry if already mentioned. But we are actually getting one playable 4 engine bomber in the game...

The Sikorsky S-22. The ww1 Russian heavy bomber. ok ok. so its ww1 for flying circus, and that module uses ROF flight physics.

But it can be flown together with BOX planes. Doesn't that suggest…. that a B17 with simplified physics, or ROF physics or something could be possible? 

 

The problem is not the number of engines but the number of crewmen per plane. The S-22 is no issue in this regard. The B-17 is an entirely different matter.

[ShamrockOneFive]

6 hours ago, GrinderX9 said:

sorry if already mentioned. But we are actually getting one playable 4 engine bomber in the game...

The Sikorsky S-22. The ww1 Russian heavy bomber. ok ok. so its ww1 for flying circus, and that module uses ROF flight physics.

But it can be flown together with BOX planes. Doesn't that suggest…. that a B17 with simplified physics, or ROF physics or something could be possible? 

I 100% support that this is the wrong game for a flyable B17. But I think the developers should reconsider the no simplified physics for AI bomber. My Me 262 need that target ?

 

Anyway. I'm not really complaining. I loved flying the B-25 in old IL2. And it will also do as a target, so I'm happy

 

Unless I missed something, the Ilya Muromets has not been announced for Flying Circus.

 

I think fears that a B-17 would overwhelm the engine are being overplayed. The real issue is developer time. Doing the research and building the multiple stations for a B-17 would soak up nearly the same amount of time as another product development cycle. So we can have 8-10 other aircraft or 1 bomber. Some folks will argue that we should definitely have one bomber and that they would buy it. But it won't sell like 8-10 aircraft would.

 

The developers have not stated at any point that they would be doing simplified physics for bombers either. Not sure where you've heard this.

 

At the moment, I am pretty hopeful that the B-25C (Mitchel II) AI aircraft will eventually be made flyable. Jason said in the Q&A that they did choose that aircraft at least in-part because they could use it across multiple potential titles. If it was magically available today, we'd already be able to use it over Stalingrad and I think Kuban even in VVS service. Later Bodenplatte and even later it could be used over multiple hypothetical Pacific scenarios. It's a smart strategic move. We'll have to be patient (very patient) to see that hopefully pay-off.

[GrinderX9]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

The problem is not the number of engines but the number of crewmen per plane. The S-22 is no issue in this regard. The B-17 is an entirely different matter.

 

8 hours ago, GrinderX9 said:

I 100% support that this is the wrong game for a flyable B17

 

English is not my first language, so if the above sentence was not clear, I do not think the developer should waste time on a flyable B-17. Only on external AI only.

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Unless I missed something, the Ilya Muromets has not been announced for Flying Circus.

 

I think fears that a B-17 would overwhelm the engine are being overplayed. The real issue is developer time. Doing the research and building the multiple stations for a B-17 would soak up nearly the same amount of time as another product development cycle. So we can have 8-10 other aircraft or 1 bomber. Some folks will argue that we should definitely have one bomber and that they would buy it. But it won't sell like 8-10 aircraft would.

 

The developers have not stated at any point that they would be doing simplified physics for bombers either. Not sure where you've heard this.

 

1 minute ago, GrinderX9 said:

English is not my first language, so if the above sentence was not clear, I do not think the developer should waste time on a flyable B-17. Only on external AI only.

 

I agree, B-17 AI only. And I know developers have stated before, no AI only planes. I only think they should reconsider in the B-17 question.

 

You are right the developers have not stated anywhere they would be doing simplified physics. What I meant, was that Rise of flight flight model used in flying circus, are less advanced maybe, or at least accommodate for 4 engine bomber. So maybe this technic could be modified (easily?) for AI only B-17?

 

So your first question last. Are the Ilya Muromets announced for Flying Circus? Yes and no. Not directly and not yet. But it has clearly been stated that all content from ROF are coming to BOX, or at least that is the plan. Of Corse the Ilya Muromets might be the exertion case in this matter for many reasons. But when the proses of porting the content from ROF both are somewhat easy, and no different for the Ilya, I see no reason that it should not. The developers have stated all content from Rof are coming to Flying Circus, not some content or most content but all content

[IIN8II]

2 engine B26 with a smaller crew is a good compromise . Plus is gets no love in sims

Edited August 16, 2018 by IIN8II
spelling goof

[Cybermat47]

I think an AI B-17 would still have the same problem as a flyable one - the large amount of gunners.

[sevenless]

4 hours ago, PB_Cybermat47 said:

I think an AI B-17 would still have the same problem as a flyable one - the large amount of gunners.

 

This is also my understanding. The gunner positions in B17 or B24 draw too much CPU cycles to make it feasible to have combat boxes of a 12 plane B17 squadron in the game. To make it realistic you would need to model at least 3 combat boxes forming a bomber wing with 36 planes flying in formation plus the additional fighter cover of 12-36 planes and the attacking german staffel (squadron) of 4-16 planes. So for such a scenario you would have at least 52 to 88 planes in the air.

 

This works with IL2 1946, but I guess it will be a long way until we see something like this in the BoX universe.

 

 

 

[MiloMorai]

In the old EAW I had over 100 B-17s in custom missions. How did EAW model the gunners?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

DCS has B-17s too, nothing fancy, very primitive damage model but it can do basic manouvers, it can land and it has gunners. That's about it of what I expect from any Ai, no need for advanced flight models or sophisticated brains of bomber Ai. Make it believable but simple.

 

[Legioneod]

17 hours ago, IIN8II said:

2 engine B26 with a smaller crew is a good compromise . Plus is gets not love in sims

B-26 only has 4 gunners so no need to make the crew any smaller. B-26 would be great in this game and I don't think I've ever seen it in any sim before.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Legioneod

[=621=Samikatz]

2 hours ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

DCS has B-17s too, nothing fancy, very primitive damage model but it can do basic manouvers, it can land and it has gunners.

 

 

Is the damage model for it still basic? Last I saw videos of it if you shot it in the wing the wing would just disappear into thin air

[BOO]

2 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

Is the damage model for it still basic? Last I saw videos of it if you shot it in the wing the wing would just disappear into thin air

I think they are working towards "basic" - at the moment its a long way off basic. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yes, damage model is basic or as said above, less than basic. But that is something that can be corrected. The point Im trying to make is that B-17s are possible and doable for competition, since they are in many ways simple. Hence I dont see a reason why we couldnt have them here. 

[InProgress]

8 hours ago, sevenless said:

This works with IL2 1946, but I guess it will be a long way until we see something like this in the BoX universe.

It works in clod too Today i made a quick battle where 8 bf110 attacked 32 Wellingtons. I am sure you can add more, but still it looked impresive and even on my old 9 years old potato pc.. ? i could run that without any lags. And i heard clod may get B17 as well.

[BOO]

2 minutes ago, InProgress said:

 And i heard clod may get B17 as well.

Where did you hear that? 

[InProgress]

2 minutes ago, BOO said:

Where did you hear that? 

 

On 7/28/2018 at 8:43 PM, Buzzsaw said:

There were also numerous USAAC Bomb Groups active in the desert during late '42, including those flying the B-25 and B-17... both in the Desert during El Alamein, and also in the case of the B-17's as early as July of 1942 in cross English Channel missions... as for example, during the Dieppe Raid.  These used the B-17E and B-17F types.

 

Depending on the reception of TF 5.0, we would certainly like to move forward into 1942 and if that happens, we would certainly expect to see quite a number of new US types in our next release.  At this point we can't confirm exactly where we might go after TF 5.0... but hopefully we can make those who admire the US types happy

 

 

Does not directly say "We will make b17!" but since clod already has some huge beasts like fw200.. then i think b17 is possible.

[sevenless]

15 minutes ago, InProgress said:

It works in clod too Today i made a quick battle where 8 bf110 attacked 32 Wellingtons. I am sure you can add more, but still it looked impresive and even on my old 9 years old potato pc.. ? i could run that without any lags. And i heard clod may get B17 as well.

 

Yes, the CloD engine seems to have much technical potential. Maybe it is because it was designed from the ground up to handle large air battles as they happened during Battle of Britain, while the BoX engine originated in WW1 warfare. Anyways it will be interesting to see what the developmental future holds for both lineages.

[BOO]

4 minutes ago, InProgress said:

 

 

 

Does not directly say "We will make b17!" but since clod already has some huge beasts like fw200.. then i think b17 is possible.

Ah. Ok, got ya. . But its a long way down a very uncertain line at the moment. TFS 5.0 will be a pivotal release for sure. 

 

I do agree with the ability to field large formations in Clod Blitz.. Certainly will be a plus point of any future release from an SP point of view if the AI and command system  is able to be improved as many hope too.

 

 

[Godspeed]

23 hours ago, sevenless said:

This works with IL2 1946, but I guess it will be a long way until we see something like this in the BoX universe.

 

 

 

Pretty sure never since BoX developers do not allow real modding.

Its the modders who made Il2 1946 Great and keeps going.

[LukeFF]

In looking through one of my books on German bomber units last night, I realized I'd totally forgotten about the Ju 88 S. It was apparently the fastest of all Ju 88 variants, had GM-1 boost and, most importantly, was in active use by LG 1 during the time of Bodenplatte. This would be a good addition to the game. 

[=27=Davesteu]

"Active" is a rather broad term. Unfortunately LG 1 wasn't based within the BoBP-map.

[LukeFF]

5 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

"Active" is a rather broad term. Unfortunately LG 1 wasn't based within the BoBP-map.

 

True, they were just off the edge of the map being created, but they were bombing targets within the area of the map. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

44 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

In looking through one of my books on German bomber units last night, I realized I'd totally forgotten about the Ju 88 S. It was apparently the fastest of all Ju 88 variants, had GM-1 boost and, most importantly, was in active use by LG 1 during the time of Bodenplatte. This would be a good addition to the game. 

 

Very interesting Luke. I had a quick look at this variant of which I had almost no knowledge of. Quite a bit more engine power, tons of weight reduction, and just a single rear gunner station which means complex modeling would be reduced.

 

Could put it in the running in my mind next to the Ar234.

[Legioneod]

13 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Very interesting Luke. I had a quick look at this variant of which I had almost no knowledge of. Quite a bit more engine power, tons of weight reduction, and just a single rear gunner station which means complex modeling would be reduced.

 

Could put it in the running in my mind next to the Ar234.

I'd take the Ju 88. As cool as the Ar234 is it didnt really have much of a  defensive armament, only thing to do is just go fast and not get caught. Then again, going fast isnt that hard of a thing to do in the Ar234.

 

Theres so many cool aircraft, it's a real shame we can't get all of them.

 

If we ever get the Ar234 it could potentially be the first 4 engined aircraft we see in-game depending on what variant we get.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Legioneod

[sevenless]

59 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

In looking through one of my books on German bomber units last night, I realized I'd totally forgotten about the Ju 88 S. It was apparently the fastest of all Ju 88 variants, had GM-1 boost and, most importantly, was in active use by LG 1 during the time of Bodenplatte. This would be a good addition to the game. 

 

Would be nice, maybe they can also squeeze in the Pathfinder Ju 88 Gs which flew on 1st Jan 45?

• Ju 88 S-1: BMW 801 G-2 mit GM-1-Anlage, Höchstgeschwindigkeit ohne Bombenlast ca. 600 km/h in 6000 m, mit GM-1 ca. 610 km/h in 8000 m, verfügbar ab Herbst 1943
• Ju 88 S-2: statt GM-1 mit Triebwerksanlage BMW 801 TJ mit Turbolader, ohne GM-1-Anlage, verfügbar ab Frühjahr 1944
• Ju 88 S-3: Jumo 213 A mit GM-1-Anlage, Höchstgeschwindigkeit ohne Bombenlast ca. 600 km/h in 6000 m, mit GM-1 ca. 615 km/h in 9000 m, wenige Maschinen verfügbar ab Spätsommer 1944

 

[=27=Davesteu]

It certainly is a very interesting aircraft, but not on par with the Ar 234.
The Ar 234 was based on airfields within the BoBP-map and they flew regularly. LG 1 was based outside the map's boundaries and flew few (few!!!) mission during the BoBP timeframe, all at night.

[MiloMorai]

12 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I'd take the Ju 88. As cool as the Ar234 is it didnt really have much of a  defensive armament, only thing to do is just go fast and not get caught. Then again, going fast isnt that hard of a thing to do in the Ar234.

 

Theres so many cool aircraft, it's a real shame we can't get all of them.

 

If we ever get the Ar234 it could potentially be the first 4 engined aircraft we see in-game depending on what variant we get.

 

That is an understatement as the Ar234 didn't have any. It was planned tho.

Edited August 19, 2018 by MiloMorai

[sevenless]

1 minute ago, =27=Davesteu said:

 

It certainly is a very interesting aircraft, but not on par with the Ar 234.
The Ar 234 was based on airfields within the BoBP-map and they flew regularly. LG 1 was based outside the map's boundaries and flew few (few!!!) mission during the BoBP timeframe, all at night.

 

We need a little artistic freedom here. It´s a game after all.

[=27=Davesteu]

1 minute ago, sevenless said:

We need a little artistic freedom here. It´s a game after all.

Yes it is, but why including a very rarely used aircraft without airfields to operate it from if there is another one without those limitations?

[Legioneod]

5 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

That is an understatement as the Ar234 didn't have any. It was planned tho.

Thats what I wrote at first but I changed it, the B didnt have any defenses at all but I read that the C did have some guns beneath the nose. The B is the most produced variant as far as I know, and it'd be the most likely to be added to the game.

 

I guess when you can cruise at 430 or so mph you don't need much of a defensive armament.

[sevenless]

44 minutes ago, =27=Davesteu said:

Yes it is, but why including a very rarely used aircraft without airfields to operate it from if there is another one without those limitations?

I´m not sure if it will be a decision between Arado 234 OR Ju 88 S, meaning if you take one, you don´t get the other. Both have their merit and since we AFAIK currently have no 2-mot german bomber in the game, why not thinking about the S variant, which can be also a placeholder for the pathfinders? The Arado, if included, will be virtually uninterceptable both in it´s historical bombing as in its recce role. The Ju 88 S on the other hand gives the allied side something to intercept and would have more gameplayvalue, so to speak.

 

Edit: I read somewhere that the germans were very focussed to mine the Schelde estuary to deny access to the Antwerp port. Wasn´t that done by 2-mot german bombers? I dunno by which aircraft and maybe that was done at night, nevertheless, I guess it is within the focus of the game.

Edited August 19, 2018 by sevenless

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

I'd take the Ju 88. As cool as the Ar234 is it didnt really have much of a  defensive armament, only thing to do is just go fast and not get caught. Then again, going fast isnt that hard of a thing to do in the Ar234.

 

Theres so many cool aircraft, it's a real shame we can't get all of them.

 

If we ever get the Ar234 it could potentially be the first 4 engined aircraft we see in-game depending on what variant we get.

The only operational models had just the two engines although there were plenty of other configurations planned.

 

The prototypes did include twin MG151/20 cannons firing rewards and aimed by periscope. I'd be interested in seeing that as a modification. It was a lot of fun in IL-2: 1946.

[Legioneod]

28 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

The only operational models had just the two engines although there were plenty of other configurations planned.

 

The prototypes did include twin MG151/20 cannons firing rewards and aimed by periscope. I'd be interested in seeing that as a modification. It was a lot of fun in IL-2: 1946.

They built around 20 C variants with 4 engines but I'm not sure if they ever saw combat.

[MiloMorai]

3 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

The only operational models had just the two engines although there were plenty of other configurations planned.

 

The prototypes did include twin MG151/20 cannons firing rewards and aimed by periscope. I'd be interested in seeing that as a modification. It was a lot of fun in IL-2: 1946.

 

You have a reference to the prototypes having cannons installed?

 

Good book to read, by well respected authors.

[Asgar]

7 hours ago, Legioneod said:

-snip-

Theres so many cool aircraft, it's a real shame we can't get all of them.

-snip-

nah, we just gotta have patience and keep buying everything they put out ?

[Mysticpuma]

 B-25 will be useful in a Pacific expansion at some point so having the Ai creation converted to flyable will be beneficial for both expansions. 

 

Should a B-24 ever be required Monguse who built the B-24 for IL2 1946 has a vast supply of material to hand, he may be worth approaching for help? 

 

Cheers, MP

[Haza]

http://donhollway.com/bodenplatte/

 

http://www.historynet.com/luftwaffes-last-blow-the-final-major-aerial-offensive-of-nazi-germany.htm

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Haza

[Legioneod]

3 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

 B-25 will be useful in a Pacific expansion at some point so having the Ai creation converted to flyable will be beneficial for both expansions. 

 

Should a B-24 ever be required Monguse who built the B-24 for IL2 1946 has a vast supply of material to hand, he may be worth approaching for help? 

 

Cheers, MP

B-24 is my favorite bomber and it would be a dream come true to see it in-game. It's unlikely that it will ever be made though.