Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There is some proper Ignorance in this topic.... FFS...

"they are failing the Bomber Pilots"

they can only fail a goal that they have defined themselves.
they never aimed to create a Sim that includes a 1000 Bomber Raid from London to Berlin...

So they do  not fail at all.

"Go home, ur drunk"

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to share my opinion.

8 years ago, I was desperately wanting a heavy bomber for the old il2

I thought : "Oh that is going to be a blast with all theses turrets shooting down fighters, Large playload"

When the mighty Daidalos Team put the PE8, I was eager to try it. 

I was disappointed, because I concluded it adds not a lot compared to a medium bomber, and it is not maneuverable at all ,  requires a lot of runway.

It is a fantastic plane, but this compensate for all the work they put into it?

I do not know.

Since then, I appreciated more the medium bombers.

 @FFS_SaburoSakai I understand your wish. If the dev team put any large bomber, I will buy it for sure. But, I am not sure, thanks to my experience, it is more fun to fly than a medium bomber like the B25 or a G4m Betty.

This is Just my humble opinion.

Try out the B24 and the Pe8 on Il2 1946 and tell me what you think

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Finkeren said:

 

Except that is an Me 210. AFIAK the Hungarians never operated the Me 410.

 

As I have read they operated 210’s with great success, or at least adequate. 

Edited by LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LuseKofte said:

 

As I have read they operamedarbeider 210’s with great success, or at least adequate. 

 

Apart from its dangerous handling and somewhat underwhelming performance the Me 210 was not a bad aircraft. And the Hungarian Air Force was not bad for its size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

Apart from its dangerous handling and somewhat underwhelming performance the Me 210 was not a bad aircraft.

 

Lol what? The Luftwaffe would beg to differ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Finkeren said:

 Yes, they do. The AI uses the exact same FM, DM and engine management that we do. That’s part of what makes this sim unique.

 

without Player - Cockpit and Player - Gunner - Cockpit. AI - Engine management is auto - controlled where the Player - Engine management can be auto - controlled or manual - controlled.

So there is a difference in the end in complexity 🤔

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, LukeFF said:
37 minutes ago, Finkeren said:
40 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

As I have read they operamedarbeider 210’s with great success, or at least adequate. 

Apart from its dangerous handling and somewhat underwhelming performance the Me 210 was not a bad aircraft.

Lol what? The Luftwaffe would beg to differ.

 

They revised the aircraft considerably later on. All Me 210 Ca were built accordingly, many early airframes modified.


Except for maybe the Hungarian use I'm not particularly interested in this aircraft or the Me 410. Mostly because they served in areas I'm not focused on.

Edited by =27=Davesteu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Finkeren said:

 

Except that is an Me 210. AFIAK the Hungarians never operated the Me 410.

They/We did. Hungarians fixed the problems of the '210, and WE developped the 410. 
Hungarian '410 pilots made some dogfights with P51s, too. 

Edited by -[HRAF]BubiHUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Lol what? The Luftwaffe would beg to differ.

 

Hmmm wasn’t the handling specifically the issue during the long, ardous testing process for the 210? And wasn’t the Me 210C at least acceptable to the Hungarians? 

7 minutes ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

They/We did. Hungarians fixed the problems of the '210, and WE developped the 410. 
Hungarian pilots made some dogfights with P51s, too. 

 

I’ve never seen pictures of a Hungarian 410 that wasn’t a mislabeled 210C, but I might well be wrong.

36 minutes ago, Livai said:

 

without Player - Cockpit and Player - Gunner - Cockpit. AI - Engine management is auto - controlled where the Player - Engine management can be auto - controlled or manual - controlled.

So there is a difference in the end in complexity 🤔

 

 

The fact that engine management is automated does not make it less complex, quite the opposite.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

 

Hmmm wasn’t the handling specifically the issue during the long, ardous testing process for the 210? And wasn’t the Me 210C at least acceptable to the Hungarians? 

 

I’ve never seen pictures of a Hungarian 410 that wasn’t a mislabeled 210C, but I might well be wrong.

That's because when the weaknesses of '210 have been revealed, the modifications that needed to be done on them was made in hurry. 
Another interesting fact is, those '210s '410s and Bf109s that were made in Hungary, they were slightly better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

The fact that engine management is automated does not make it less complex, quite the opposite.

 

Why quite the opposite?

With automated engine management you can be every time 100% sure that everything works correct but under manually engine management you need to check everything twice. All bugs what we had before happened under manually engine management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Livai said:

 

Why quite the opposite?

With automated engine management you can be every time 100% sure that everything works correct but under manually engine management you need to check everything twice. All bugs what we had before happened under manually engine management.

 

Not true. All systems are modeled to their full extent, regardless if they are automated or not. It might be easier for us as human pilots to manage, but in terms of modeling and AI management, it is every bit as complex as the manual systems. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

They/We did. Hungarians fixed the problems of the '210, and WE developed the 410. 

 

What's the source for that?

 

1 hour ago, =27=Davesteu said:

They revised the aircraft considerably later on. All Me 210 Ca were built accordingly, many early airframes modified.

 

Very true. What I was getting at in my earlier reply to Fink is that the early Me 210s were truly horrid aircraft, and that calling it a good plane even with dangerous handling characteristics is...strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Very true. What I was getting at in my earlier reply to Fink is that the early Me 210s were truly horrid aircraft, and that calling it a good plane even with dangerous handling characteristics is...strange.

 

The early development of the Me 210 was truly horrific yes. I mean, it couldn’t even fly straight, but the Hungarian license built ones were at least acceptable in handling, though still inferior to the later 410 development. 

 

A plane that has problematic, even somewhat dangerous, handling can still be a good aircraft regardless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I like how the entire conversation slowly rolled farther and farther away from the point of the OP’s. :poster_offtopic:

Edited by angus26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, LukeFF said:
2 hours ago, =27=Davesteu said:

They revised the aircraft considerably later on. All Me 210 Ca were built accordingly, many early airframes modified.

Very true. What I was getting at in my earlier reply to Fink is that the early Me 210s were truly horrid aircraft, and that calling it a good plane even with dangerous handling characteristics is...strange.

My comment aimed at the overall conversation rather than specifically your comment. I share your opinion on the early 210. :good:

 

 

45 minutes ago, angus26 said:

I like how the entire conversation slowly rolled farther and farther away from the point of the OP’s. :poster_offtopic:

I would agree with you in most cases, but I don't feel talking about the Me 210/410 is too far off OP's "question"/"statement". Also there are already multiple threads discussing the topic of additional (heavy) bombers in detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2018 at 12:46 PM, RedKestrel said:

It's pretty clear heavy bombers aren't happening in this sim, for a variety of reasons. The size of the maps, the game engine, and the size of the dev team make them borderline impossible (in the time it takes to model a B-17, they could probably model 4 fighters). 

TBH a heavy bomber sim would have to be its own thing, with a dedicated team and an engine built to deal with the issues of bomber combat. To get the kind of fidelity you get out of BoX and still be able to run it without God's own gaming rig...that's a tall order. There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for it, so maybe someday someone will take a run at it. But this team has basically said they're not going to and we have to respect that.

 

i would argue that almost every previous multiplayer sim had four engine bombers ... the fact is with they system they are using for this game it is alienating about 20-25% of the population of players... let me tell you getting knocked out in one pass constantly in bombers kills the immersion and most of those interceptor aircraft what have been pointed out are not really as effective as people want to believe... lets be honest while large bombers take up a lot of resources they are important for the long term activity of this game especially in multiplayer.. second if you think this game will survive without out that look at the multiplayer community. its WEAK... while non multiplayer simmers account for a large part of the population. Its the truly competitive players that drive games. your online playing and someone flys by with a 190 A5 cowls closed and your A3 is pulling to get into range the A5 with his higher speed and cleaner fuselage slides by into range and gets the kill. Let that happen a few times and the player will be saving for the new aircraft. you will never have the competitive push to purchase aircraft from the non multiplayer community

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FFS_SaburoSakai said:

your online playing and someone flys by with a 190 A5 cowls closed and your A3 is pulling to get into range the A5 with his higher speed and cleaner fuselage slides by into range and gets the kill. Let that happen a few times and the player will be saving for the new aircraft. you will never have the competitive push to purchase aircraft from the non multiplayer community

 

 

Honestly I prefer the A3 and fly it over the A5 when both are available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 9:42 PM, TG1_Nil said:

I would like to share my opinion.

8 years ago, I was desperately wanting a heavy bomber for the old il2

I thought : "Oh that is going to be a blast with all theses turrets shooting down fighters, Large playload"

When the mighty Daidalos Team put the PE8, I was eager to try it. 

I was disappointed, because I concluded it adds not a lot compared to a medium bomber, and it is not maneuverable at all ,  requires a lot of runway.

It is a fantastic plane, but this compensate for all the work they put into it?

I do not know.

Since then, I appreciated more the medium bombers.

 @FFS_SaburoSakai I understand your wish. If the dev team put any large bomber, I will buy it for sure. But, I am not sure, thanks to my experience, it is more fun to fly than a medium bomber like the B25 or a G4m Betty.

This is Just my humble opinion.

Try out the B24 and the Pe8 on Il2 1946 and tell me what you think

 

 

The only way I really enjoy heavies is when I fly full throttle at deck (30-50m above SL) with several enemy fighters in hot pursuit and I'm dropping delayed bombs on them... for some reason it makes great fun for me.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer an Il-4/DB-3 to be honest... much more common, and it would give the Russians a medium bomber with a heavy payload.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dkoor said:

The only way I really enjoy heavies is when I fly full throttle at deck (30-50m above SL) with several enemy fighters in hot pursuit and I'm dropping delayed bombs on them... for some reason it makes great fun for me.:)

Oh yes! dropping bombs on planes is always fun, 

Having fighters on your tail as well.

When I was playing Il2 1946 me and my squadron we made "wild dogfight"

I took a bomber and several of them where against me... it was so fun as the turrets where easy to control.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mac_Messer said:

Why do people seem to think the Me262 is relevant in any way? It`s just a troll plane.

 

Because it was relevant to the time frame? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Because it was relevant to the time frame? 

It`s a bit problematic, don`t you think? Meteor and P80 are also relevant to the time frame, but not included in BoBP plane list.

 

The Schwalbe is a great plane to fly but from gamey pov it`s useless. Against humans I flew it maybe 5 times, it was so unpopular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mac_Messer said:

It`s a bit problematic, don`t you think? Meteor and P80 are also relevant to the time frame, but not included in BoBP plane list.

 

Not at all, and I'd no problem if they decide down the road to add the Meteor. P-80 not so much, because it truly was entirely irrelevant. 

 

The game doesn't revolve entirely around the whims of the MP community, you know...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 7:26 PM, Avimimus said:

I'd prefer an Il-4/DB-3 to be honest... much more common, and it would give the Russians a medium bomber with a heavy payload.

YES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you been able to bombard a target at 6500m? ... render very bad, hangars and buildings .....

Imagine you do loose at 10000m or more ....

I think the problem is that, the rendering of high-altitude targets. (see them in the crosshairs, make corrections and drop the bombs) 

As always is my personal opinion, without the intention of creating controversy or anger 

 

I hope the B25, B26 is implemented ... greetings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I read threads like this,  the more I am convinced that heavy bombers are only feasible in a single-plane-dedicated sim,  like "the mighty eighth" did years ago. Maybe not even that is viable anymore,  when you think how the expectations regarding realism and graphics have risen since then. My guess is that development costs would be too high,  for such a niche sim coping with todays standards. There apears to be no market for it nowadays.... its too bad. 

 

That is not exclusive to ww2 flight sims. Silent Hunter 3 and 4 were masterpieces,  which are still being modded and played today,  whereas SH5 was a failure beyond repair (imho) at the same time it is too complex to be modder-friendly,  thus pratically ending the cycle of sub-sims. It is as if development for a realistic,  modern sim has hit a dead end somehow.

 

1C does well to try to avoid deadends like that.

Edited by danielprates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love a 4 engine bomber in the game; two actually, one for each side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so a Libereiter for the Yanks and a TB-3M for the Russkis?

or are u talking about the Condor or the 264? the Do-19 mebey? Or that Arado jet thingie.
Piaggio 109 - possibly with the anti tank gun?

There are none?
The DB606 is a single engine. fire lighter.

[/trollpost]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×