Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

....

 A realistic bomber simulation is a tight formation flown at slow, constant speed and  at a low enough altitude to see the target with all the bombers releasing bombs together.

.....

That is something I would love to do, than again I might be just an npc.... Beep Boop. War thunder allowed this with targets that required quantity of bombs and not precision, add a realistic flight and damage model + a decent sized map and I for one am sold. 

Edited by E4GLEyE
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

at a low enough altitude to see the target

How often do you think 8th AF bombardiers saw their target? If not, do you think they went down through the overcast sky to see them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

How often do you think 8th AF bombardiers saw their target? If not, do you think they went down through the overcast sky to see them?

No they turned away to attack their secondary target.

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

No they turned away to attack their secondary target.

But you do understand that when flying missions in big formations loaded with mainly incendiaries against „railroad marshalling yards“, then precision is not really what you expect. There is a wide range between „seeing your target“ and „being sufficiently certain that the target is somewhere down there below“, everything that would render another detour in nasty territory unnecessary.

 

The 8th AF was very dangerous to cows on pasture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

But you do understand that when flying missions in big formations loaded with mainly incendiaries against „railroad marshalling yards“, then precision is not really what you expect. There is a wide range between „seeing your target“ and „being sufficiently certain that the target is somewhere down there below“, everything that would render another detour in nasty territory unnecessary.

 

The 8th AF was very dangerous to cows on pasture.

 

I agree.  I think most worked on principal of 'If I can plausibly claim I thought I was dropping on the correct target then I will just drop everything and get home ASAP.'    I would not blame them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This certainly happened. But doing as if this was very usual is jumped too short. As the leader you won't do that very often, otherwise you won't be leading more than the latrine patrol. those guys were not flying for sightseeing, they had to fulfill a job. Dropping the bombs somewhere in the middle of nowhere might bring them exactly what you think they want to avoid. Another flight to this target, as it still has to get destroyed.

Edited by Yogiflight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
On 7/18/2019 at 9:55 PM, LuseKofte said:

very repetative and soulless

Hi, hello, we would like to talk to you about bomber ops... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2019 at 5:11 PM, BraveSirRobin said:

 

That is really more DCS’s thing.   I wonder why no one has done it?  

 

Also, a fully functional bomber would be boring as hell.  Long boring climb to altitude.  Long boring flight to target.  Maybe you die along the way, that’s really more random chance since you can’t break formation.  Drop bombs when guy in front of you drops his.  Long boring formation flight home.  Land.  Realize that I paid $100 for 6 hours of boring.  Repeat.

 

B-17 - daylight bombing, so at least you get to see the scenery 

 

Now a Lancaster, which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned yet - night bombing, with very little to see. Now that would be boring, but also very challenging......

Edited by fergal69
Link to post
Share on other sites

Old dreams echo.....ahhh, now i would be more than happy with just flyable b25, but even that seems not gonna happen soon or at all.

 

I remember threads on this forum dreaming about PTO, heavy and medium bombers, torpedos....big hopes for il2GB had shrunken a lot in the last few years.

"In the spirit of il2:1946" has been replaced by trucks, TC and FC.

 

But i can see good scenarios in MP on Channel map using a20, ju88, he111 and it will add a bit more naval objectives....looking forward to that in MP!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shameless PWCG plug here: PWCG bomber campaigns do address some of the issues that have been raised.

Bomber/ ground attack campaigns have less fighter activity so you are not always getting mauled.

Player flights always have an escort by default.

Bomber missions can attack several different target types, including airfields, troops, structures (cities), etc.

Bombers are a little closer to the front to reduce flight time.

Coming soon: Stalingrad will have a period where the focus is bombing of the city.

Coming soon: Kuban will have a period of dedicated naval activity.

 

Since this is not a PWCG specific thread, let's keep it general.  What do bomber aficionados think of as a good mission and a good career that they do not have today?  Persistent damage with a rebuild schedule is lacking from career mode and PWCG.  

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

A good bomber career should have various targets, not always the same kind of moving targets to bomb from the sky or to attack at low level.

It should have a good balance between air defense and flat protected targets. 

It should also have some nice and juicy large targets at first iot learn and improve bomb aiming qualities. It’s not so easy to learn well and to be accurate with the bombers in game. The gestion of flying until the target and then switching to the bomber’s place while keeping the plane on course is not so easy nor intuitive. 

In the old days, going to another place onboard was putting the plane on autopilot without switching off the player’s ability to aim and release the ordnance by himself.

After some missions, we could switch progressively to low level attacks and then mixing from low level strikes and level bombing 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, DN308 said:

A good bomber career should have various targets, not always the same kind of moving targets to bomb from the sky or to attack at low level.

It should have a good balance between air defense and flat protected targets. 

It should also have some nice and juicy large targets at first iot learn and improve bomb aiming qualities. It’s not so easy to learn well and to be accurate with the bombers in game. The gestion of flying until the target and then switching to the bomber’s place while keeping the plane on course is not so easy nor intuitive. 

In the old days, going to another place onboard was putting the plane on autopilot without switching off the player’s ability to aim and release the ordnance by himself.

After some missions, we could switch progressively to low level attacks and then mixing from low level strikes and level bombing 

 

Various targets - check

Stationary targets - check

Designing the career mission progression to learn during the career - Nope, and not going to happen.  Either learn on the job or practice on QMB.  

Improving the movement from station to station - that is currently manageable by changing key mapping.  Maybe not perfect but doable today.

Going on auto pilot while taking control at the bombers position - agree.  Can't do anything about it as this has to be coded by 1C, but still agree.

Switching between low and high level attacks - check.  Not as a progression though.  You just might be assigned a low altitude bombing run based on the weather or simply mission choice.

 

Thanks for the feedback.  This is the sort of thing that 1C as well as mission/campaign/career builders need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to autopilots, the Norden bombsight in American heavy bombers could be connected to the plane's autopilot and allowed the bombardier to fly the airplane on the bombrun. This is simulated on DT's B-24D in the IL2 1946 4.13 update. 

 

Depending on what plane you're flying you wouldn't have to give up control totally.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a bomber sim would be interesting and if done and marketed right would be financially successful for a developer.  In our little "fighter combat only sim echo chamber" here, we seem to underestimate there are a lot of folks out there are just fans of aviation in general including larger non-fighter type aircraft.  There are literally thousands of people right now watching other people fly MSFS2020... which has no guns, missiles, bombs or any combat at all to speak of and it dwarfs both DCS and IL2 combined in consistent twitch and youtube live stream views...like its not even close.  Some of those folks would probably jump at flying larger aircraft like bombers if there was a place to do it.  It would take some money and leg work but if a developer was serious about it and put in the work, it could be a successful endeavor.  Hopefully the Mighty Eighth from Microprose will be successful and encourage other developers down the road...time will tell

Edited by DBFlyguy
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Microseprose’s effort is in fact one guy in Canada.

This is sarcasm right?.....right???? 😞

Link to post
Share on other sites

At best the Microprose effort will be a VR bomber experience (usable without VR), and I wouldn't expect much more fidelity than what we had in the previous titles. Honestly, I am OK with that, its not really a flightsim. Are people confusing the Mighty 8th with the Lancaster one being made in Canada? Or is it the same person (allegedly)?

 

Coming back to the old topic how many times were bombers used in shorter range missions? Can't really press 'T' for time compression in a multiplayer game (unless its disabled when playing on servers?). I know they used B-17s just before D-Day and I recall modified Lanc's were used to destroy tough targets like aqueducts, anything more?

Edited by TheBlackPenguin
Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone interested WitW for Bodenplatte features Luftwaffe Ju-88 and A-20 campaigns for the USAAF and RAF. I did my best to diversify the target packages but some issues were hard to overcome.

 

1 hour ago, DBFlyguy said:

This is sarcasm right?.....right???? 😞

 

Nope. As @DD_Arthur pointed out, it's more or less a one man operation, for now.

 

Microprose started developing the sequel to B-17 over a year ago, and by developing I mean they "hired" some 3D artists to render cockpits and external models and post them to social media. They never created terrain, weather systems, flight models, avionics, damage modeling, ballistics, anything. Hell, they didn't even have an engine to build upon and incorporate all of these components into if they had. Just renders via Twitter...

 

Then Microprose' PR or their HH department came upon Valiant Effort, a very, very, early WIP sim likely happened across via a random Google search, probably by the same people that didn't purchase the models seen in the renders from Turbosquid. 🤐 Some behind the scenes talks take place and...BLAM! Sharp End Studios becomes Microprose Canada. Seriously, that's how it happened.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, DetCord12B said:

For anyone interested WitW for Bodenplatte features Luftwaffe Ju-88 and A-20 campaigns for the USAAF and RAF. I did my best to diversify the target packages but some issues were hard to overcome.

 

 

Nope. As @DD_Arthur pointed out, it's more or less a one man operation, for now.

 

Microprose started developing the sequel to B-17 over a year ago, and by developing I mean they "hired" some 3D artists to render cockpits and external models and post them to social media. They never created terrain, weather systems, flight models, avionics, damage modeling, ballistics, anything. Hell, they didn't even have an engine to build upon and incorporate all of these components into if they had. Just renders via Twitter...

 

Then Microprose' PR or their HH department came upon Valiant Effort, a very, very, early WIP sim likely happened across via a random Google search, probably by the same people that didn't purchase the models seen in the renders from Turbosquid. 🤐 Some behind the scenes talks take place and...BLAM! Sharp End Studios becomes Microprose Canada. Seriously, that's how it happened.

 

That's really disheartening... good to know though, I actually was hoping a team was actively working on something.  Seems like the Microprose "comeback" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors which is definitely disappointing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DetCord12B said:

For anyone interested WitW for Bodenplatte features Luftwaffe Ju-88 and A-20 campaigns for the USAAF and RAF. I did my best to diversify the target packages but some issues were hard to overcome.

 

 

Nope. As @DD_Arthur pointed out, it's more or less a one man operation, for now.

 

Microprose started developing the sequel to B-17 over a year ago, and by developing I mean they "hired" some 3D artists to render cockpits and external models and post them to social media. They never created terrain, weather systems, flight models, avionics, damage modeling, ballistics, anything. Hell, they didn't even have an engine to build upon and incorporate all of these components into if they had. Just renders via Twitter...

 

Then Microprose' PR or their HH department came upon Valiant Effort, a very, very, early WIP sim likely happened across via a random Google search, probably by the same people that didn't purchase the models seen in the renders from Turbosquid. 🤐 Some behind the scenes talks take place and...BLAM! Sharp End Studios becomes Microprose Canada. Seriously, that's how it happened.

 

This.

which is worrying as Valiant effort had plans for lancasters, halifax's, mosquito's, wellingtons etc etc.

 

 

My genuine hope for Il2 is we get at least a flyable B25, (the 26 would be lovely but obv i realise costs etc), and I'd very much like to see the C47 flyable as well for allied supply and para runs. there's more of us dirt turners than people think I reckon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

It shows.  Not the Canada part.  The one guy part.

 

 

The Canadian part is that he's quite friendly but unduly sensitive to being confused with an American!
/just kidding, I have no idea who this guy is

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DBFlyguy said:

 

That's really disheartening... good to know though, I actually was hoping a team was actively working on something.  Seems like the Microprose "comeback" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors which is definitely disappointing.

 

Microprose right now is more of a publisher on Steam than an actual development house.

 

https://store.steampowered.com/publisher/microprose

 

Some titles do look nice, but yeah the B-17 game is certainly absent...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the general sentiment that Il2 needs more bombers. 

 

Tactical bombers anyway. I'll agree Strategic bombers are a bit beyond the scope of Il2GB.

 

I don't like a sim that only focuses on fighters and makes bombers AI only or leaves them out entirely.

 

And I always shake my head at the haters. Considering the most popular flight sim in decades (MSFS) doesn't even have any semblance of combat at all. Literally all you do is fly from point A to B. I enjoy it, and others do to. At least we don't ask for the world to revolve around us and keep any other simming activity we don't enjoy out.

 

Flight sims seem to have a lot of this smug, hate filled, self righteous attitude and it doesn't need any more thanks but no thanks.

 

People act as if one "wrong" suggestion on a forum will some how bring the sim crashing down and its obsurd.

 

47fa53f0e3177ed033bdfd5bef9969e8.jpg.10c2427ca0e725c23736f306ac350fa2.thumb.jpg.c95dfb9271a686517cd300fe8e0ab4fb.jpg

Edited by Motherbrain
  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess one can easily see the dealbreakers (apart from the ones mentioned already):

 

A strategic bomber sim means litterally hours of boredom interrupted by moments of terror.

And then there's the "real sim world" issue: Two guys flying a B-17 raid being intercepted by six target-camping fighters (armed to the teeth with 30mm and a flare-gun).

 

That gets old very, very quickly.

Edited by Bremspropeller
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

A strategic bomber sim means litterally hours of boredom interrupted by moments of terror.

That gets old very, very quickly.

 

For you, maybe?

Sign me up though, please!

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Until you get multiple active radio stations and nav beacons throughout the maps and a reasonably functional ADF, whats the point in bombing?  No medium or heavy bombers ever navigated by eyeball as their primary or only means.  If airfield vis was good enough for takeoff and forecast good for landing they weren't offered the option to sit it out if they couldn't see the ground most of the way.  As a minimum you need three separate known radio beacons and the ability to tune each to triangulate your map position with any sort of accuracy.  Currently you can only do one and only to the closest field, fix this, the stations and pointer are for the most part already there.  Place a powerful radio station or two in the major cities of each map, they all had them, hell, put a custom music folder for them and make them tunable to the swing of an ADF needle.

 

That would reduce bomber pilot workload tremendously, allowing to fly head in the cockpit, and plot nav routes and bomb runs with superior accuracy to anyone dependant navigating visual only.  It would make it much harder for defending fighter pilots.  With basic functional navigation aids you can attack from any route, both higher and lower in harsher weather without need to see the target or any visual terrain features until your nearly time on target.  When you can plot routes and position with a map and instrument your no longer chained to or dependent on any terrain visibility, features, and the limitations that go with. 

 

Also assist the attack pilots with ADF's equipping their fighters making them more potent strikers with greatly reduced work load.  Or for ADF equipped fighters, give them a map grid and expected time, and in any weather they have the ability to be there for rendezvous without wagging a best guess.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Until you get multiple active radio stations and nav beacons throughout the maps and a reasonably functional ADF, whats the point in bombing?  No medium or heavy bombers ever navigated by eyeball as their primary or only means.  If airfield vis was good enough for takeoff and forecast good for landing they weren't offered the option to sit it out if they couldn't see the ground most of the way.  As a minimum you need three separate known radio beacons and the ability to tune each to triangulate your map position with any sort of accuracy.  Currently you can only do one and only to the closest field, fix this, the stations and pointer are for the most part already there.  Place a powerful radio station or two in the major cities of each map, they all had them, hell, put a custom music folder for them and make them tunable to the swing of an ADF needle.

 

That would reduce bomber pilot workload tremendously, allowing to fly head in the cockpit, and plot nav routes and bomb runs with superior accuracy to anyone dependant navigating visual only.  It would make it much harder for defending fighter pilots.  With basic functional navigation aids you can attack from any route, both higher and lower in harsher weather without need to see the target or any visual terrain features until your nearly time on target.  When you can plot routes and position with a map and instrument your no longer chained to or dependent on any terrain visibility, features, and the limitations that go with. 

 

Also assist the attack pilots with ADF's equipping their fighters making them more potent strikers with greatly reduced work load.  Or for ADF equipped fighters, give them a map grid and expected time, and in any weather they have the ability to be there for rendezvous without wagging a best guess.

 

Until there is bombers in game what's the point of fighters!

 

Edited by =VARP=Ribbon
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Carl_infar said:

Just buy the FC vol2, you'll have 2 strtegic bombers there.

Or Desert Wings- Tobruk. That has several bombers that aren't in IL-2 Great Battles; one (or perhaps 2) is a torpedo bomber.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2021 at 3:55 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

Shameless PWCG plug here: PWCG bomber campaigns do address some of the issues that have been raised.

Bomber/ ground attack campaigns have less fighter activity so you are not always getting mauled.

Player flights always have an escort by default.

Bomber missions can attack several different target types, including airfields, troops, structures (cities), etc.

Bombers are a little closer to the front to reduce flight time.

Coming soon: Stalingrad will have a period where the focus is bombing of the city.

Coming soon: Kuban will have a period of dedicated naval activity.

 

Since this is not a PWCG specific thread, let's keep it general.  What do bomber aficionados think of as a good mission and a good career that they do not have today?  Persistent damage with a rebuild schedule is lacking from career mode and PWCG.  

 

 

 

 

 

What is this PWCG thing again I read here and there in the forum?

 

 

Recently I enjoyed the fighter stuff more and more, as I am flying alone when my men have no time to bring bombs somewhere needed at the front line.

I am a ground attacker main and my squdron does mostly Ju87, Ju88 and Bf110 missions.

 

Lets say, that we get the most fun out of bomber missions (Ju88's for this example), if we can impact with our long flight invested time, the frontline outcome, or reducing supplies for the enemy or just wiping out arty positions and such.

Off course, that is mostly only possible on dynamic "serious" servers with such done impact visible, after map rotation.

For example TAW, Finnish 1 and Finnish 2 server, the Coconut Hardcore server (still in rebuilding process).

 

To have such an impactuful and successful mission, it is neccesary, that the Ju88 flight is working together, being able to stay in formation together for a good hit and good coverage.

You have to be on time, everybody has to be concentrated and it is more "work" (imo) than just a free hunt in a fighter plane.

 

Also, on multiplayer servers eskort fighters are a must and its for the eskort also more difficult to work together with the bombers.

Spotting the sky, keeping the bombers down below in sight, staying in formation left and right and checking six all the time.

So, actually we were and are training those things also with befriended digital fighter squadrons and its not the easiest work but satisf(l)ying.

 

 

Just an example without eskorts:

 

 

 

And as the discussion went over the B-17 game and stuff:

Well, I am old enough to have played on the Amiga, back in the 90's, the B-17 game and without the modern Internet at first, I think I can remember that the game only had a singleplayer mode secondly.

Yes, back than we pushed the button to speed up the time but it was still enjoyable, cause we were flying the big planes in a dangerous zone - weather, Flak, fighters.

So, as you can not speed up in multiplayer, the impact which I spoke about above, is the most enjoyable thing.

Actually you do something as many players are just in a fighter for a free hunt.

 

 

My opinion about strategic bombers in IL-2 Great Battles:

In multiplayer servers the map rotation must on lowest 6 hours, and you have to be right from the server start in the 4-engined bomber on the airfield.

Difficult.

Are the maps large enough to implement strategic bombers?

Not yet.

Larger maps would mean new technological challenges, more capable servers for more players and the larger maps than we have right now, just to fill also fighters on the search, on a 600km x 600km map.

Would I love to fly a B-17 or a HE 177?

For sure, but there are so many difficulties when the strategic bomber box would open, that I can understand the developers when they say that it stays for the moment on the tactical level.

 

Personally, in our Ju88's we only bomb military targets or such from operational value, everything else is, just by time and effort standards from us alone, a waste.

Better to give the tactical bombers, the various ground attackers (CAS) more love and flesh them really out.

I am not at all against it, but I see the difficulties it would bring.

 

 

Best Greetings to all and have a nice weekend ;)

 

 

  • Like 2
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
×
×
  • Create New...