Jump to content
Schnauz

B-24 Liberator

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Leifr said:

I would quite like the opportunity to fly some of the larger four-engined aircraft, but I would be ecstatic if they were simply made available for the AI in the first place. Their absence from the BoX series only grows more obvious the further down the road we go.

 

 

Especially if PTO is a no go for the foreseeable future. Mayhaps instead of the PTO-tech, investments into getting the big birds flying are a more profitable endeavour for the future.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would fly 4 engined aircraft but it is hard enough getting protection and enough people to fly them. We are ridiculously few willing to do so. 
This sim going to end up as a mp dogfight only anyway. I am amazed we getting bombers to BON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

I would fly 4 engined aircraft but it is hard enough getting protection and enough people to fly them. We are ridiculously few willing to do so. 
This sim going to end up as a mp dogfight only anyway. I am amazed we getting bombers to BON

 

Because the far bigger consumer base for the series is offline SP maybe... that and their are also folks who like to play co-operative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

I would fly 4 engined aircraft but it is hard enough getting protection and enough people to fly them. We are ridiculously few willing to do so. 
This sim going to end up as a mp dogfight only anyway. I am amazed we getting bombers to BON

Idk man, the 332nd has 15-20 guys on one server every friday, All we do is bomb and escort.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally I don't want to see strategic bombers because they aren't being used anywhere near what they were really used for; no one is gonna be up at 33,000 feet in 1,000 bomber formations carpet bombing the place. 

 

although the thought is cool, the devs should focus effort on strike aircraft such as the A-26 invader 

Edited by gimpy117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gimpy117 said:

personally I don't want to see strategic bombers because they aren't being used anywhere near what they were really used for; no one is gonna be up at 33,000 feet in 1,000 bomber formations carpet bombing the place. 

 

although the thought is cool, the devs should focus effort on strike aircraft such as the A-26 invader 

They flew low level missions as well. The lowest mission B-24s ever flew iirc was the Ploiesti oil raids, it was pretty much a disaster.

It's not completely unrealistic to fly low level mission in heavy bombers.

 

I'm sure many players would fly 15-20K feet and level bomb targets, it's actually safer than flying low because fighters rarely fly high in Il2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, gimpy117 said:

personally I don't want to see strategic bombers because they aren't being used anywhere near what they were really used for; no one is gonna be up at 33,000 feet in 1,000 bomber formations carpet bombing the place. 

 

 

The AI could be if you told it to - plus some people actually want to fly them...and even if not wanting to pilot them, they played an extremely important role for WW2 and also for many of the fighters and interceptors as well.

 

...another very important point to remember is this: not everyone is a multiplayer - indeed they (developers) have told us that the vast majority is single players. Campaigns are important to us  (in addition, there are online players who enjoy simulating history too).

 

But regardless, the game engine cannot do it now anyway - and they are sticking to what it can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2019 at 7:25 AM, Gambit21 said:

 

Again this about tactical operations, not strategic bombing.

That's absolutely true and imho the team has done a splendid job the way they simulated this kind of aerial warfare. I can honestly say that the game has helped me appreciate the tactial air war on a new level.

 

However, why stopping there? I'm not a programmer, so I can't say how valid all those "technical issues" are. But to me it's seems there is quite some demand (including me) for strategic bombers also. And with demand comes the possibility for a company to generate additional profit. Of course there are always limitations on what one can do (cost-wise, capacity etc.). 

Share this post


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

They flew low level missions as well. The lowest mission B-24s ever flew iirc was the Ploiesti oil raids, it was pretty much a disaster.

The idea was to remain undetected by flying low, as a good part of the approach was over the sea of what was a seven (!) hour flight to the target. In executing the plan, they failed at most of their enormous task, so results were pretty „mixed“.

 

The idea of using heavy bombers in low level flights over northwestern Europe is preposterous. They would be detected instantly and flak would make short work of them. Such large and slow non-maneuvering targets. Even they‘d get lucky:

600px-Dlnwbsa16.jpg

 

Also, it takes a long time to assemble a large bomber force. Doing that in sighting distance of German air bases... oh well.

Share this post


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

The idea was to remain undetected by flying low, as a good part of the approach was over the sea of what was a seven (!) hour flight to the target. In executing the plan, they failed at most of their enormous task, so results were pretty „mixed“.

 

The idea of using heavy bombers in low level flights over northwestern Europe is preposterous. They would be detected instantly and flak would make short work of them. Such large and slow non-maneuvering targets. Even they‘d get lucky:

600px-Dlnwbsa16.jpg

 

Also, it takes a long time to assemble a large bomber force. Doing that in sighting distance of German air bases... oh well.

 

True but this is a game. No one flys in a historical manner currently so why should we expect bomber pilots to either? No sense in saying bombers shouldn't be added just because players would fly them low, imo who cares how other fly them.

 

I for one would love to fly heavies over Normandy or Bodenplatte, 4-5 heavies would be enough for me to have a great experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

True but this is a game. No one flys in a historical manner currently so why should we expect bomber pilots to either? No sense in saying bombers shouldn't be added just because players would fly them low, imo who cares how other fly them.

 

I for one would love to fly heavies over Normandy or Bodenplatte, 4-5 heavies would be enough for me to have a great experience.

I agree they‘d be fun, no question about that. Where I see „the problem“ is that we get an aircraft that cannot fly 99% of the missions it was tasked to do. And if it would be used for low level flying, then only because mission makers don‘t put flak up in numbers present then as well as nobody vectoring in fighters to make short work of them.

 

But for sure, even having one B-17 is fun, even without the guns. Just try A2A Simulations B-17 for FSX. It‘s grand. Then again, what really makes the aircraft entertaining in flight is out of scope for the Great Battle series.

 

As for now, I don‘t think GB series are a suitable platform for the heavies, unless in form of AI, where FM and system modeling could be toned down such that larger (air spawned) formations become viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

personally I don't want to see strategic bombers because they aren't being used anywhere near what they were really used for; no one is gonna be up at 33,000 feet in 1,000 bomber formations carpet bombing the place. 

 

Just to be clear, my particular want of heavy bombers is to have them solely as targets.  I don’t have time to sit at a computer for an eight hour round trip.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gretsch_Man said:

However, why stopping there? I'm not a programmer, so I can't say how valid all those "technical issues" are. But to me it's seems there is quite some demand (including me) for strategic bombers also. And with demand comes the possibility for a company to generate additional profit. Of course there are always limitations on what one can do (cost-wise, capacity etc.). 

I`m not convinced that people are against heavies for this reason alone. The biggest problem is that at current stage of GB programming the heavies would cause the game to slow down every time, making it virtually unplayable. First order of business would be to make it feasible which I understand requires simplifying the AIs and paring down the maps a good bit. Is the dev team even open to that kind of adjustments in the first place, I don`t know.  Profit - loss measuring I`d imagine not one bit.

Edited by Mac_Messer

Share this post


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

I agree they‘d be fun, no question about that. Where I see „the problem“ is that we get an aircraft that cannot fly 99% of the missions it was tasked to do. And if it would be used for low level flying, then only because mission makers don‘t put flak up in numbers present then as well as nobody vectoring in fighters to make short work of them.

 

But for sure, even having one B-17 is fun, even without the guns. Just try A2A Simulations B-17 for FSX. It‘s grand. Then again, what really makes the aircraft entertaining in flight is out of scope for the Great Battle series.

 

As for now, I don‘t think GB series are a suitable platform for the heavies, unless in form of AI, where FM and system modeling could be toned down such that larger (air spawned) formations become viable.

 

And why should a B-17 not be able to be flown a mission it was tasked to in real life in Il-2?

We are perfectly fine to take of near Brussel and fly to Cologne to bomb the shit out of it. We "soon" can fly from England over the Channel to bomb the hell out of the German forces located in the Normandy. We may even be able in some years to bomb Submarine pens located in the Biscaya. So I don´t see why we won´t be able to fly 99% of the missions they were tasked for.

We are not able to fly 4 hours without seeing any enemy. But nothing prevents us from climbing to 30k ft and bomb an airfield or a factory, or stay at 12k ft and bomb the fortifications at Omaha Beach. 

We can do everything they did, just with shorter ranges.

And like others said before, just because the people may won´t use it like it was used in real life doesn´t mean they won´t be a benefit for the game.

If people are "comfortable" to fly 5 He-111 through enemy territory, it would be okay to do the same with 5 B-17s too.

Or we could remove the Ju-87 from the game, because most of the time I see people cruising around at 500 to 1000m because "if we fly higher the enemy will spot us". Not exactly like (at least early war) Stukas were used.

 

So I´m all in for some big and bigger bombers. B-17, B-24, He-177, Lancaster, just to name a few. Even just as AI would be a start for the beginning. For mediums we still have enough German, Russian and British ones left that would be usefull. (Wellington, Do-217, Tu-2 and so on.)

 

And I personally think there would be enough people who would pay for a flyable heavy bombers. Considering some of the other Collector Planes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JG3_Hartmann said:

We are perfectly fine to take of near Brussel and fly to Cologne to bomb the shit out of it.

You wouldn't be. It takes about an hour to assemble those combat box formations over Brussel. During this time you'd be raided by any German that could see you still sitting on his own airport. What you would do with the B-17 would not relate in any way how this plane was used. But if you fly it with 10% fuel (still gives you the flight time of a 109), full bombs and ammo and make lone wulf vulching raids, that could be done. With all those guns it would be the vulching plane from hell. Game mechanics certainly would allow it.

 

In short, about half what makes the B-17 interesting to fly and 99% of what it had to do is out of scope for GB series. But if yyou don't care for such, surely, it would be nice "just having it".

 

Let me ask you, would you buy it as $29.99 collector plane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you expect from this game-engine masque? Can you have more than 20x Ai-controlled planes in the air in "IL-2 Flying Circus" - No, never ever - a new game-engine that has the same limitation what the 10 years old "Rise of Flight" game-engine had - what a huge disappointment to see after 10 years nothing done to remove this limitation for WWI planes.  Short said -> WWI is much more complex than WWII for this current game-engine!  And you want to see heavies on this game-engine, lol :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B17? I certainly would, hell I’d buy it at that if it were AI only. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

You wouldn't be. It takes about an hour to assemble those combat box formations over Brussel. During this time you'd be raided by any German that could see you still sitting on his own airport. What you would do with the B-17 would not relate in any way how this plane was used. But if you fly it with 10% fuel (still gives you the flight time of a 109), full bombs and ammo and make lone wulf vulching raids, that could be done. With all those guns it would be the vulching plane from hell. Game mechanics certainly would allow it.

 

In short, about half what makes the B-17 interesting to fly and 99% of what it had to do is out of scope for GB series. But if yyou don't care for such, surely, it would be nice "just having it".

 

Let me ask you, would you buy it as $29.99 collector plane?

It's doent take anywhere near and hour to form up with a 4-5 man flight. Stop thinking in large bomber formations, think smaller. We'll never see 100 bomber flights.

 

Persoanlly I'd pay 70-80 bucks for a flyable B-24, I pay that much for a single DCS module, no reason I can't do it here.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

You wouldn't be. It takes about an hour to assemble those combat box formations over Brussel. During this time you'd be raided by any German that could see you still sitting on his own airport. What you would do with the B-17 would not relate in any way how this plane was used. But if you fly it with 10% fuel (still gives you the flight time of a 109), full bombs and ammo and make lone wulf vulching raids, that could be done. With all those guns it would be the vulching plane from hell. Game mechanics certainly would allow it.

 

In short, about half what makes the B-17 interesting to fly and 99% of what it had to do is out of scope for GB series. But if yyou don't care for such, surely, it would be nice "just having it".

 

Let me ask you, would you buy it as $29.99 collector plane?

 

I would certainly play $29.99 for a B-17...that would be stolen for that money...I would happily pay $49.99 for a B-17, B-24, Lancaster or a He-177.

 

And like others said. We won´t ever do such big formations that we´ll need one hour to assemble them. Wouldn´t work any other than it does at the moment with the medium bombers. 

We would absolutely be able to perform the missions they´ve done. Not the exact mission profile with 4h flying to the target and 4 hours back (maybe...), but the mission type (bombing the shit out of a factory) would be perfectly doable.

 

And if we won´t get them as flyable, having them as AI is nearly must have for western front.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I be far more happy for a B 26. I usually climb up to 6 k meters and drop my bombs on larger targets 4 to 5 K on smaller. 
This got to do with target rendering and spotting. This is hard enough from these altitudes. I do not mind a heavy or two. 
But I find it a bit demanding to do so knowing there are a lot of medium bombers lacking in game we could utilize in a much better way. 
personally I would liked a JU 188 better than 88 g6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The heavy bombers unfortunately have several issues to overcome before implementation. I've  ordered them in most difficult to least:

 

Time and money needed are considerably more then even twin engine bombers and would end up eating into the budget and man-hours set aside for other aircraft, even more if you want them to do anything other then daytime level bombing,

 

The final product would likely be expensive and it is difficult to pin down exactly how well it might sell, which isn't a great thing to say to investors,

 

They push the current engine to it's limits in any reasonably sized formation and additional assets required to simulate flak zones, bombing targets and intercept fighters would make this even worse,

 

And finally they are somewhat outside the tactical scope of the game, and likely wouldn't be as fun as people hope they will be. A large part of heavy bomber simulation is navigation, formation and systems management, none of which have much depth in the game at the moment.

 

Overall it's something I would like to see at some point, but it is probably not going to happen within the next couple of years.

 

Share this post


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

Everybody's talking about carpetbombing.

 

I'd rather go and hunt subs in the Lib.

But that's just me...

 

I doubt that you are alone. We could dream a little bit and call it Battle of the Atlantic, add depth charges, Leight lights and belly gunpacks to the mix plus a Condor for balance and I'm sure it would be fun for a few more...

 

Plenty of other potential springs to mind, escort or "jeep" carrier, Wildcat, Dauntless, Avenger, Swordfish, Wellington, Halifax, B-17,  Sunderland, Catalina.

 

Map would be the easy bit, just don't forget a x32 fast forward button :) 

 

 

Edit. On second thoughts, maybe not the Sunderland, as it was known as "the porcupine" and any potential profits would be lost equipping the switchboard to handle all the additional AI gunner whining...

 

switchboard.jpg.0646b936d9680761897871ec322cea9d.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just seen the publicity for battle of Normandy, how can you do that justice without heavies? They were used as tactical weapons in the Normandy campaign, so the strategic weapon argument doesn’t hold water.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, basically, this has been the general argument so far:

 

SP types: "the game's engine needs reworking so we can see large formations of heavy bombers at high altitude."

 

MP types: "who gives a s--t about large formations! Gib me plane to lone-wolf spam the enemy at low altitude!"

 

🙄

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

So, basically, this has been the general argument so far:

 

SP types: "the game's engine needs reworking so we can see large formations of heavy bombers at high altitude."

Hmm, my impression so far was that this thread is all about having large (heavy) bombers, not large formations, which imho is a slightly different topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Pict said:

We could dream a little bit and call it Battle of the Atlantic,

You know what happens in a flat world made large that tries to mimic a round world?

Share this post


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

You know what happens in a flat world made large that tries to mimic a round world?

 

People fall off the edge?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

People fall off the edge?

 

That too. But either navigation becomes impossible OR you draw up a more or less arbitrary world. When flying distances, navigation is 99% of the work. If you don‘t care about that, then you have no idea about what is actually „simulated“.

Share this post


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

You know what happens in a flat world made large that tries to mimic a round world?

 

Great circle sailing becomes great line sailing I suppose? :biggrin:

 

Did I mention dreaming?...ah yes indeed I did. So...the Bay of Biscay might not be too much of a stretch of the tectonic plates? :)  Hunting U-Boats as they enter & leave the hardened sub pens of Brest, Lorient and Saint-Nazaire. On a map sort of this-ish...or smaller?

 

576186892_BayofBiscay.JPG.8e5c2f8604955b88c34547af80af1b3c.JPG

 

 

Even easier, the Azores, that would put the RAF, USAAF & the USN on the map with very little mapping :) 

 

====================

 

And as it's still Sunday morning here (well it was when started the reply) and I'm still half asleep, the dream could see this expanded to MTB's, MGB's, PT Boats S-Boats and event the U-Boats themselves and call it "Boat Commander" or something like that :) 

 

Jeep carriers would hardly need a map at all...MAC ships, now that would be Audacious ;) or even CAM ships for those who struggle with landing on small carriers :biggrin:

 

Ok, it's after midday now, time to wake up again and face the cold rainy day :rolleyes:

Edited by Pict
Spelling, tweaking etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in old il 2 I did some sub hunting. 
Remember Iam the guy flying PO 2 for two hours getting to a target most likely to be destroyed before I get there. Or I become a easy target practice for a lucky 109. 
In old IL 2 you could have a sub in periscope depth and on surface. Both nearly impossible to spot. 
One need a radar working getting it interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

Well in old il 2 I did some sub hunting. 
Remember Iam the guy flying PO 2 for two hours getting to a target most likely to be destroyed before I get there. Or I become a easy target practice for a lucky 109. 
In old IL 2 you could have a sub in periscope depth and on surface. Both nearly impossible to spot. 
One need a radar working getting it interesting

The only 109s you need worry about is the top 2 percent of pilots. Lol.  Most pilots have no idea how to attack a PO2 because the speed...

I always crack up watching that DerSheriff video where hes flying with the American guy as gunmer (they have a great back and forth dynamic anyways) and a few 109s just CANNOT shoot down the Po2. I think in fact he shoots one of them down! Another I think lawndarts.

You had more luck with physioligy now?  Id think youd see a lot of ppl blacking out :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do a pre-order kickstarter type fundraiser from the 3rd party group that did the Russian bi-plane.  Then, if they get 80% of the cost back run our credit cards and let’s see where the cards fall.  I would pay quite a lot for a heavy bomber.  $50 seems fair


let us crazy people over pay for it and get it into the game and later it can be sold at a discount.

hell, star citizen charges hundreds of dollars for “concept ships” using fake flight models etc etc.  

Edited by WIS-Redcoat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some sugerences

 

Older games have had heavies, b17, b24, lancaster... they are a classic

 

Well, one way to avoid limitations of number of AI gunners y to treat all them as only one, I know it is a simplification but it is efective.

All the gunners from a plane aim to a single point, all like one, the you have limited computing time for multiple gunners, they are acting as onlyone

 

Take this as an idea

 

Edited by pasao

Share this post


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

Just some sugerences

 

Older games have had heavies, b17, b24, lancaster... they are a classic

 

Well, one way to avoid limitations of number of AI gunners y to treat all them as only one, I know it is a simplification but it is efective.

All the gunners from a plane aim to a single point, all like one, the you have limited computing time for multiple gunners, they are acting as onlyone

 

Take this as an idea

 

 

I remember Oleg Maddox saying that’s pretty much how they handled the gunners in the original series.  The multi-gunner in each aircraft was one single entity rather than a group of individual AI in the one aircraft.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2019 at 11:55 PM, ShadowStalker887 said:

And finally they are somewhat outside the tactical scope of the game, and likely wouldn't be as fun as people hope they will be. A large part of heavy bomber simulation is navigation, formation and systems management, none of which have much depth in the game at the moment.

 

They call it the "Battle of...." which is probably a misnomer if its really only "75% simulation of that battle", otherwise it should be called "Fighter Battle of Stalingrad" or "Fighter Battle of Bodenplatte" or "Fighter Battle of Kuban". If you're calling it the battle of, you have to include most of the main things in that battle don't you? 1C have thrown in medium bombers as well (HE111, JU88, B26) so there is recognition of the use of bombers, however they did use heavy bombers in Normandy to soften up targets prior to the invasion. 

 

Just throwing it out there. The fact that the B26 is NOT included in the BoN (as flyable) is disappointing. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, [ASOR]Pharoah said:

 

They call it the "Battle of...." which is probably a misnomer if its really only "75% simulation of that battle", otherwise it should be called "Fighter Battle of Stalingrad" or "Fighter Battle of Bodenplatte" or "Fighter Battle of Kuban". If you're calling it the battle of, you have to include most of the main things in that battle don't you? 1C have thrown in medium bombers as well (HE111, JU88, B26) so there is recognition of the use of bombers, however they did use heavy bombers in Normandy to soften up targets prior to the invasion. 

 

Just throwing it out there. The fact that the B26 is NOT included in the BoN (as flyable) is disappointing. 

That doesn't change the fact that they are not worth making right now for 1CG. And there's a decent chance we will see a flyable B-25/B-26 in the future.

 

It's important to remember we are not dealing with triple A devs here, they are working with limited budget and staff so there's always going to be something left out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t let the „big bomber formations“ argument count.

Even big formations consisted of small formations, and some 20 to 30 planes would be enough and should be doable in the mid to long term.

 

But I agree that it would be nice to get some more useful medium bombers like B-25, B-26, Do-217, Ju-188 and maybe Tu-2 for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Devs are making a terrific job and I'm aware that their resources are limited, but I also think medium bombers need some love.

 

Realistic bombsights would be great in first place.

 

I also remember they said that coop multicrew (copilot, bombardier...) would require a lot of code changes and wasn't on the table. I don't know if someting has changed on the matter since Tank C rew is showing amazing multicrew capabilities. I'm not talking about shared/dual controls, but more like the pilot "passing" full control to pilot or bombardier. Just daydreaming.

 

I understand heavy bombers would be a massive undertaking and are a no-go, so I'll wait patiently for flyable B-25 or B-26.

 

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

×
×
  • Create New...