Cybermat47 Posted August 20, 2018 Posted August 20, 2018 30 minutes ago, Legioneod said: It's unlikely that it will ever be made though. I would have said the same thing about a drivable Tiger tank a few years ago. You never know what the future will bring I’d say that if the issue of the game not being able to handle large crews is solved, the American heavies would be the first to use that improvement.
ShamrockOneFive Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 23 hours ago, MiloMorai said: You have a reference to the prototypes having cannons installed? Good book to read, by well respected authors. Fair question. I've seen it come up several times over the years (critically, that's fallacious on my part as I know incorrect information gets repeated over and over). Here's one source that's generally pretty good in my books: Quote In principle, the Ar 234B had a pair of fixed rearward-firing 20-millimeter MG-151/20 cannon for protecting its tail, with the pilot sighting the guns through the periscope. Not only did the pilot have to be his own bombardier, he was his own tail gunner as well. However, the scheme was clumsy and if a pilot saw an Allied fighter behind him, he could just put on speed to lose it, dumping his external load if necessary. In practice, the guns were not always fitted, and were never an important feature of the aircraft. Armor plate was attached to the rear wall of the cockpit to give the pilot a little protection. http://www.airvectors.net/avar234.html It's also mentioned on Wikipedia, I remember it coming up in some other places too. I'd love to find a photo right now because that would be definitive. It was a feature of the Ar234 in IL-2: 1946 not that that series was devoid of historical missteps either.
1CGS LukeFF Posted August 21, 2018 1CGS Posted August 21, 2018 For what it's worth, the Ar 234 in the Smithsonian's collection does not have the tail gun arrangement. 1
Cybermat47 Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 7 minutes ago, LukeFF said: For what it's worth, the Ar 234 in the Smithsonian's collection does not have the tail gun arrangement. The Smithsonian has an Ar-234? I know where I’m going when I visit the U.S.
1CGS LukeFF Posted August 21, 2018 1CGS Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, PB_Cybermat47 said: The Smithsonian has an Ar-234? Edited August 21, 2018 by LukeFF 1
Asgar Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Voidhunger said: Beauty and the beast i think the 234 is actually really pret..... oh i see 4
MiloMorai Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 6 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said: Fair question. I've seen it come up several times over the years (critically, that's fallacious on my part as I know incorrect information gets repeated over and over). Here's one source that's generally pretty good in my books: http://www.airvectors.net/avar234.html It's also mentioned on Wikipedia, I remember it coming up in some other places too. I'd love to find a photo right now because that would be definitive. It was a feature of the Ar234 in IL-2: 1946 not that that series was devoid of historical missteps either. That is just repeating the falsehood. Aces High had this discussion some months back with lots of info posted > result, no Ar234 had armament fitted.
ShamrockOneFive Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 1 hour ago, MiloMorai said: That is just repeating the falsehood. Aces High had this discussion some months back with lots of info posted > result, no Ar234 had armament fitted. Well until this moment I had no reason to doubt it.
hames123 Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 Before the B-17s, maybe the Lancasters? They all flew on their own, not in a box, and in a looser formation, so less to render at once. And with night fighting, you never know where they are. So the computer can just track the positions of all the planes and such, but only have them spawn when you get within a certain distance of them, or as they start to release their incindaries all over a German city(think of the graphics needed to make a whole city burn, though). The cities not being military targets, you don't need to track or register their destruction as factory objects either. Hunt through the night in a 410 or Mossie.
69TD_Hajo_Garlic Posted August 22, 2018 Posted August 22, 2018 3 hours ago, hames123 said: Before the B-17s, maybe the Lancasters? They all flew on their own, not in a box, and in a looser formation, so less to render at once. And with night fighting, you never know where they are. So the computer can just track the positions of all the planes and such, but only have them spawn when you get within a certain distance of them, or as they start to release their incindaries all over a German city(think of the graphics needed to make a whole city burn, though). The cities not being military targets, you don't need to track or register their destruction as factory objects either. Hunt through the night in a 410 or Mossie. There were no 410's at night, I think the issue was takeoff/landing difficulties. The radar fitted on one of the (planed?) variants was for attacking ships. Would love some night fighter action but I'm not holding my breath.
Mukai Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 (edited) Was there any news about the B-25 being added as a collector plane? (I know it'll be an AI plane) I could have sworn I read that somewhere that it was confirmed (or maybe it was a dream, a freaking sweet dream at that) I know that if it was confirmed I'd buy it in a heartbeat!! Having a blast with the bombers in VR at the moment, I love the A20 and flying the He111 through the rain in VR is absolutely amazing!!! Edited August 24, 2018 by Mukai
Voidhunger Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 (edited) I hope for B-26 at least as AI. Btw, how many B-25 were destroyed (in the air) by enemy fighters in the west? (in our Bobp timeframe) Edited August 24, 2018 by Voidhunger
UFA_Bagel Posted August 15, 2020 Posted August 15, 2020 Any chance to see AI B-17 or B-24? Any news? Any rumours? 1
Semor76 Posted August 15, 2020 Posted August 15, 2020 5 minutes ago, elegz said: Any chance to see AI B-17 or B-24? Any news? Any rumours? Not with this game engine. Maybe with the next one. Who knows.
Gambit21 Posted August 15, 2020 Posted August 15, 2020 2 hours ago, elegz said: Any chance to see AI B-17 or B-24? Any news? Any rumours? Use the search function
Avimimus Posted August 15, 2020 Posted August 15, 2020 (edited) On 8/21/2018 at 6:01 AM, MiloMorai said: That is just repeating the falsehood. Aces High had this discussion some months back with lots of info posted > result, no Ar234 had armament fitted. Yeah, although the previous discussions we've had on the forum show that several Ar234 were field equipped with a forward firing gunpod - including for use as day fighters with two different units. On 8/14/2018 at 11:47 PM, 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. The other issue is the formations... B-17 formations were incredibly dense... even if we ignore the huge size of some attacks, a single subformation of 36 aircraft could all be within firing range of a single Bf-109! So we're talking about >100,000 bullets per minute and dozens of gunners. That is where a Lancaster is viable - Only one to three gunner positions... compared to the four or five for the He-111! They were also used in much smaller and looser formations often. On 8/19/2018 at 5:54 PM, 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. Yeah, I can see the case for it - but the Ju-188 has such a beautiful cockpit! Of course, a Do-217E would make as much, or more sense (as an AI aircraft)... and the Ju-88S is probably a bit more survivable... but the Ju-188 has its cockpit! I don't know if you've ever tried flying one in a flightsim with a 3d cockpit? I've been in love since the FS:SDOE days! Even this frankenplane should make the point: Observations: Visibility is excellent (rivaling the Fw-189) The view forward is unobstructed by instruments The instruments are arranged in a pattern the draws the eyes down and forward The three three vertical elements are used (unlike the four in the Ju-288)... which means that the pilot's view isn't obstructed by a vertical element The vertical elements are arranged in such a way that the eye is drawn downwards and forward Now imagine racing over the treetops and hedgerows in a cockpit done with Great Battles level of fidelity! The Ju-188 doesn't have superb performance, but it was produced in numbers rivaling the Do-217 and considerably greater than the Ju-88S. Furthermore the Do-217 was split between multiple engine, cockpit and armament types (i.e. Do-217E and Do-217K are almost entirely different planes). So the Ju-188 is actually one of the best representatives of a mid-late war bomber for the Axis (rivaling the Do-217E, and only surpassed by the Fw-190F)! Edited August 15, 2020 by Avimimus
MiloMorai Posted August 15, 2020 Posted August 15, 2020 20 minutes ago, Avimimus said: Yeah, although the previous discussions we've had on the forum show that several Ar234 were field equipped with a forward firing gunpod - including for use as day fighters with two different units. So you would like to see the Fw190 with underwing MK103 gun pods? Just because there was few A234s with gun pods, they were the exception, not the rule. The rule should be the what was the most common.
Avimimus Posted August 15, 2020 Posted August 15, 2020 Just now, MiloMorai said: So you would like to see the Fw190 with underwing MK103 gun pods? Just because there was few A234s with gun pods, they were the exception, not the rule. The rule should be the what was the most common. Would I like the chance to mount it on the wings of a Fw-190A6? The option to take the highest velocity cannon with the best ballistics and have all of that accuracy ruined due to having a insufficient rigidity in the mounting? Yes. Yes, I would. I would love that. It would entertain me for days. I would be thrilled by the pointlessness and also by how flammable trucks are. I partly agree with you: - In the historical campaign - especially for the AI - the rule should be the most common. - On most multiplayer servers - the rule should definitely be the most common. But does this mean that the player shouldn't be able to occasionally try out uncommon systems? That we should not have the option? I submit the following sir: If we limited ourselves to the most common we wouldn't have the Ar-234 at all. 1
MiloMorai Posted August 16, 2020 Posted August 16, 2020 So you want the developers spending time on oddballs when they could using that time on subjects more pertinent to the game..
Avimimus Posted August 16, 2020 Posted August 16, 2020 3 hours ago, MiloMorai said: So you want the developers spending time on oddballs when they could using that time on subjects more pertinent to the game.. A single field mod here or there doesn't cost much compared to the development of an entire aircraft - adding the Mk-103 experimental units for the Fw-190A6, for instance, would probably be something like 1-2% of the cost of development of it. Giving people some variety also increases sales. It'd almost certainly be a net win for developing the sim (even if you never use it). I suspect the only downside would be some historically oriented multiplayer server admins having to put up with occasional questions as to why this loadout wasn't permitted on their server. 1
danielprates Posted August 16, 2020 Posted August 16, 2020 I would guess that our most likely new bombers are the b25 and b26 as the 3d models will already be there.
jollyjack Posted August 16, 2020 Posted August 16, 2020 On 5/18/2018 at 8:26 AM, Asgar said: Did someone say He 177? Just saw a docu where it was mentioned as a more or less self destructing plane, rarely successful ... it looks wee a bit like the Enola Gay. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/hitlers-crazy-flaming-coffin-bomber-was-total-disaster-story-he-177-46762
AndyJWest Posted August 16, 2020 Posted August 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, jollyjack said: Just saw a docu where it was mentioned as a more or less self destructing plane, rarely successful ... it looks wee a bit like the Enola Gay. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/hitlers-crazy-flaming-coffin-bomber-was-total-disaster-story-he-177-46762 The He 177 could probably have been a successful aircraft, if (a) they'd dropped silly requirements like expecting it to be usable as a dive bomber, (b) they had enough resources to develop it to its full potential, and (c) they had a proper use for it - the Luftwaffe was in no position to engage in large-scale strategic bombing by the time it was operational. Nothing much wrong with the general design (even the two-engines-bolted-together-per-propeller concept wasn't entirely stupid), but given where and when it was being developed, and who was in charge, it was a waste of resources. 1
Lusekofte Posted August 17, 2020 Posted August 17, 2020 (edited) Fact of the matter is, with BON we still are without a flyable latewar bomber on allied side. No matter how fast a plane is, going down low heavy over a marked target, you are fastfood for awaiting axis fighters looking for such easy pray to boost confidence. And the side having decant but not optimal late war level bombers get another yber plane with level bomber capabilities. I have given up on that hope, it aint going to happend. People already spam what if jets as next pack wish. Edited August 17, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte
=FEW=fernando11 Posted August 17, 2020 Posted August 17, 2020 15 hours ago, jollyjack said: Just saw a docu where it was mentioned as a more or less self destructing plane, rarely successful ... it looks wee a bit like the Enola Gay. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/hitlers-crazy-flaming-coffin-bomber-was-total-disaster-story-he-177-46762 Catchy name for the article! 1
SqueakyS Posted August 17, 2020 Posted August 17, 2020 We really need either the B-25 flyable or the Lancaster. I think the Devs are too focused on the quick money that the fighters bring rather than the increased gameplay oppertunities of the other aspects of combat sims (Transport, recce, level bombing). 1 1
AEthelraedUnraed Posted August 17, 2020 Posted August 17, 2020 Just now, SqueakyS said: We really need either the B-25 flyable or the Lancaster. I think the Devs are too focused on the quick money that the fighters bring rather than the increased gameplay oppertunities of the other aspects of combat sims (Transport, recce, level bombing). Don't forget night fighting and intercepting! Although for the latter, the sim would also need proper multithreading. I can fly against 36 enemy bombers before my PC starts to stutter, but that's about it.
Feathered_IV Posted August 17, 2020 Posted August 17, 2020 I remember Oleg Maddox saying that he programmed the heavies in the original Il-2 to have one AI gunner each. Not ten. The idea being that the AI would warp from one position to another as needed and you would get a massive saving in the computer’s resources. You wouldn’t see all the gunner positions blazing away at once, but the AI would switch so rapidly that it gave the illusion that every position was manned. 2 2
Ribbon Posted August 17, 2020 Posted August 17, 2020 I hope after Hurricane release they'll announce B-25/26 as collector bomber! I would easily pay 30-50$ for it 2
Lusekofte Posted August 17, 2020 Posted August 17, 2020 21 minutes ago, =VARP=Ribbon said: I hope after Hurricane release they'll announce B-25/26 as collector bomber! I would easily pay 30-50$ for it All though I know B 25 Might be used in many things. I wish for a levelbomber. B 26 with only pilot and bombardier pit. If we get the B 25 I bet it will be one with hard nose and no bombaim interphase
Ribbon Posted August 17, 2020 Posted August 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said: All though I know B 25 Might be used in many things. I wish for a levelbomber. B 26 with only pilot and bombardier pit. If we get the B 25 I bet it will be one with hard nose and no bombaim interphase I'd like bigger bombload and levelbomber with playable bomber pit but one thing comes at first place that gives immersion and feel of real bomber........cockpit with animated copilot beside you! And as Feathered said if they could gain performance boost with switchable single AI gunner per plane providing bigger formations that would be great. 1
1CGS LukeFF Posted August 17, 2020 1CGS Posted August 17, 2020 3 hours ago, SqueakyS said: We really need either the B-25 flyable or the Lancaster. I think the Devs are too focused on the quick money that the fighters bring rather than the increased gameplay oppertunities of the other aspects of combat sims (Transport, recce, level bombing). Two bombers are being developed for Battle of Normandy. 2
Lusekofte Posted August 17, 2020 Posted August 17, 2020 (edited) 21 minutes ago, LukeFF said: Two bombers are being developed for Battle of Normandy. One with no levelbomb ability and of course the one that can is on axis side. It simply is not a plane on allied side latewar that is not going low in order to drop ordinances Edited August 17, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte 2
Ribbon Posted August 17, 2020 Posted August 17, 2020 1 hour ago, LukeFF said: Two bombers are being developed for Battle of Normandy. There is a difference between pure bomber and fighter-bomber. I really appreciate dedication and hard work devs put into this sim but real gamechange, variety, refreshment and game evolution after all these fighters, fighter bombers and other planes with fighter like cockpits that become repetitive in gameplay will come with new tech such as torpedo bombers and bombers that provide proper bomber immersion (which is not fighter alike cockpit). We're all aware of game engine limitations but getting close as we can to old il2 should be goal, and b25/26 can do that, not to mention they could opt for ju188 or ju88a17 torpedo bombers instead another ju88c6 fighter bomber...it's getting boring after all these expansions and it's time for something different! 2
Algy-Lacey Posted August 17, 2020 Posted August 17, 2020 On 8/15/2020 at 5:38 PM, Semor76 said: Not with this game engine. Maybe with the next one. Who knows. I'm a tad tech-illiterate when it comes to how game engine's work, but I have heard that IL-2 Great Battles only uses 1 processor core, is that right? If so, why not add a new component to the existing game engine that utilizes 1 or 2 unused processor cores, you could have 1 core solely dedicated to massive bomber formations. For when the formation is outside of a pre-determined range of the players' 'bubble' you could have an algorithm deciding the likelihood of intercepting fighters scoring kills vs the bombers or of the bombers' gunners hitting a fighter. Then, when you get to the sort of range when you are planning which bomber to target, individual flight model and gunner AI get activated along with the complex damage model we've come to expect. You could have say two or three boxes of four aircraft with the expected level of AI and damage model, with the next 12 planes (in their 'boxes') with simplified FM and DM until you get within range to make an attack (0.5 Km? 1 Km?). I know that there are many of us who want to actually fly a 'heavy' with all crew positions modelled : This seems more of a question of the resources of time and money that the developers can afford to throw at modelling heavies, which is a seperate issue to being able to model hundreds of bombers in the air at one time, which is a PC resources issue as well as needing an improved game engine. Thoughts on this?
Avimimus Posted August 17, 2020 Posted August 17, 2020 1 hour ago, 216th_LuseKofte said: One with no levelbomb ability and of course the one that can is on axis side. It simply is not a plane on allied side latewar that is not going low in order to drop ordinances Ah! You are saying that the Mosquito FB.VI isn't designed for level bombing? It was based on such a design, and used for level or glide bombing - it just lacked the bomb-sights of the B versions. But I get your point. FYI - I initially thought you were saying that the B-26 couldn't level bomb. Technically we're getting two twin-engined bomber derived intruders (which retain reasonable bomb loads) and two dedicated bombers... one of which is AI.
1CGS LukeFF Posted August 17, 2020 1CGS Posted August 17, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Avimimus said: Ah! You are saying that the Mosquito FB.VI isn't designed for level bombing? It was based on such a design, and used for level or glide bombing - it just lacked the bomb-sights of the B versions. But I get your point. I've been reading through the RAF squadron logs of the units involved in the Normandy campaign, and FB.VI squadrons definitely level-bombed with the aid of advanced technology like Gee. Add in the fact that German bomber squadrons used Me 410s in the night-bomber role over England into 1944, and one can make the valid case that were are in fact getting 3 bombers with BoN. Add in the fact that (for BoN) only 2 single-engine planes are being added on the German side, plus the fact that one of the RAF fighters being added was almost exclusively a ground attack plane by 1944 (Typhoon), and it's IMO quite plain that their isn't some exclusive focus on fighters. Yes, yes, I know, I would love a flyable B-25 or B-26 as much as anyone else, but at the same time it isn't as if more bombers and ground attack planes aren't being added. Edited August 17, 2020 by LukeFF 1
Lusekofte Posted August 17, 2020 Posted August 17, 2020 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Avimimus said: Ah! You are saying that the Mosquito FB.VI isn't designed for level bombing? Not the one we are getting. No aid for aiming. You would not hear me even ask for a flying B 25 if Mosquito had that capability. It was a great bomber 26 minutes ago, LukeFF said: and FB.VI squadrons definitely level-bombed with the aid of advanced technology like Gee. I highly doubt we get that system, or do you know something? Look I love the Tiffy, mossie, 410 and Arado. Will fly them. But it is tiering going down presenting oneself as a target every time Edited August 17, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte
357th_Esco Posted August 18, 2020 Posted August 18, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said: Not the one we are getting. No aid for aiming. You would not hear me even ask for a flying B 25 if Mosquito had that capability. It was a great bomber Too bad! I was hoping western allies could have bombers other than the A-20. It would be awesome to have a Mosquito and P-38 “Droop Snoot” with a bombsight to counter the Arados. I know some have requested the Droop Snoot, unfortunately it seems there isn’t enough interest in adding it. Fights could be dragged into higher alts with those two! It might quench the high alt bombing for bomber pilots until a proper bomber is created. Edited August 18, 2020 by Esco 2
Recommended Posts