Jump to content
[ASOR]Pharoah

Medium bombers

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ww2fighter20 said:

Really depends if A20B's where used in western europe, most where send to the soviets and as far as I know the main variants used in western europe where A20G and J's which had quite some changes that would require an new model.

 

Yes, this is also an important point (more so than about bomb loadouts) - the A-20B is a woefully out-of-date model for 1944 Western Front scenarios. The oldest model one would have seen in that theater by 1944 was the C model. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2019 at 5:29 PM, Y-29.Silky said:

It's kind of pathetic the only bomber America has is the A-20. I would pay for a B-17 as much as a whole new game.

And I know they can easily find flight data for every US heavy/medium bomber if they're adding the Arado... 

 

 

 

Service Arado's had no defensive armament (gunners) while the B-17 had, what, 13 50cals divided among 8 gunners or something like that.....Flight model isn't the biggest hurdle. It's the amount of AI that would be needed and the number of shells in the air that would all need to be calculated for a single B-17. We'd be lucky to get two to three on screen at a time without massive performance hits.

 

I would love to see her in my gun sights but the Flying Fortress is a long way off I think.

Edited by pfrances
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish we had the G...would work in Russia too.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ww2fighter20 said:

Really depends if A20B's where used in western europe, most where send to the soviets and as far as I know the main variants used in western europe where A20G and J's which had quite some changes that would require an new model.

 

The A20 squads are there on the map, they are just not available to choose from for flying the career.

 

4 hours ago, OrLoK said:

Have some faith  though, if something irritates us know that it also irritates the devs

 

I for sure am not "irritated".

 

Seems a too small reason to keep us from flying tho. And modeling new bombs and renaming them sure seems easy enough to warrant it being "upped" on the to-do list. Insofar we have no bombers  to fly in the Rheinland map, just the FBs. Its such a big map, we are sure lacking level bombers and the A20 is the closest thing. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather they went for 60$ B-25 as collector than yaks and hurricane.

BoBp is missing bombers and feels empty without it!

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2019 at 12:58 AM, E4GLEyE said:

That is my fear as well, maybe the Ju52 was a flop and thus we wont be getting more cargo planes or hell, even twin engine bombers... (I wonder how sales went with the U2 as well)

This was, at best, a marketing stretch.  The U2 is a nich within a nich within a nich, has nearly no use in game.  Ju52 was probably a bit better, but only slightly.  Early war transport isn't exactly thrilling.  

 

I would consider any late-war bomber miles above either of these.  And, I would be comfortable assuming the player community largely would agree.

 

I'm not saying the 52 or U2 are bad, but they certainly can't compare to the playability of a B26.

 

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairly sure that it was said the  A20's did historically not operate from airfields on the map, (but fairly close) and are included as AI only as a compromise to have them. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, danielprates said:

So the reason we can't fly the A20 in western Europe is because the bombs modeled are Russian? For god's sake...! 

 

After @Gambit21 completes his Hell Hawks project he will build a historical A-20 night intruder mission (similar to what he did for the U-2 in the Kuban). 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I'd rather they went for 60$ B-25 as collector than yaks and hurricane.

BoBp is missing bombers and feels empty without it!

 

This +1000.

 

While B-17 and B-24 would be nice to have, in reality to properly simulate their operations it takes time (to climb to altitude, form up and fly long way to target). Medium bombers like B-25 and B-26 provide a nice compromise for MP and SP use while not totally stretching the limits of game engine (as can be seen by He-111).

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
spelling
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

This +1000.

 

While B-17 and B-24 would be nice to have, in reality to properly simulate their operations it takes time (to climb to altitude, form up and fly long way to target). Medium bombers like B-25 and B-26 provide a nice compromise for MP and SP use while not tottaly stretching the limits of game engine (as can be seen by He-111).

B-25 is already modeled as AI so i guess it would be first choice, at the cost of slight delay of first BoN planes which wouldn't be the end of the world while it would make huge difference in BoBp.

I really need that cockpit and copilot in VR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, busdriver said:

 

After @Gambit21 completes his Hell Hawks project he will build a historical A-20 night intruder mission (similar to what he did for the U-2 in the Kuban). 

 

This is great news. And I bet nobody will stop by just to complain about the bombs being named "FAB".

Edited by danielprates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every heavy bomber simulation that I have seen did "warp to contact" or air starts.  I would not object to an AI only heavy that could be air started.  Flying allied escort you would be obliged to air start.  Flying Germans you could do whatever.

 

I would not say never on this.  The current reason why not is the difficulty of modeling the plane and AI performance.  I think interiors are harder than exteriors so AI only helps a lot .  Performance issues are solvable.  Attach a profiler and start knocking down the heavy consumers.  It is not easy work and takes dedicated resources over a span of time, but it can be done.  

 

As for mediums, we have several already so more would be nice.  I suspect that the interiors are very expensive and 80% or more of the people fly fighters anyway, so the ROI might not be there.  I would not mind AI only with 1C exploring the full versions as collector planes.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Flying allied escort you would be obliged to air start. 

 

I don't see why, except for the long distances involved. The fighters usually were dispatched to join bomber formations at various points along the bombers' route. And, of course, the fighters aren't arranging themselves into 100+ plane formation combat boxes as the bombers were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

I don't see why, except for the long distances involved. The fighters usually were dispatched to join bomber formations at various points along the bombers' route. And, of course, the fighters aren't arranging themselves into 100+ plane formation combat boxes as the bombers were.

 

If we are talking strategic bombing missions, distance is the reason why.  Actually flying the distance requires two things.  First, an absolutely enormous map.  Second, people willing to sit behind their computer and fly for six to eight hours.  Fighters were dispatched but that was still from England.  Now you have to join up, get in formation ... and fly to Schweinfurt.  Then fly back.  

 

You could do tactical or short range strategic missions on the Normandy maps, but IMHO mediums are better suited for that.  We are getting that next so that is a good thing. 

 

Heavies were used for that sometimes.  Very early raids were frequently short hops into France with P47 escort.  Later on (usually over the great objection of the 8th AF command) heavies were used for tactical strikes but it was not common.  Again, it was mediums more often than not.  So yeah, for late 43 - 1944 type strategic missions I don't see a map big enough or people willing to fly long enough to do it without some kind of game mechanism in between.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If modeling all internal stations is pricey and time consuming, the start could be modeling cockpit and bombardier positions which are absolute must have.

 

Then again, I do understand this feels "half finished". Probably a lesson learned with A-20 that is sorely missing its nose position for navigation purposes...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO the customer base needs to be understanding.  If 1C promises you can pilot the plane then that's what you get.  All or nothing is the enemy of progress.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

If modeling all internal stations is pricey and time consuming, the start could be modeling cockpit and bombardier positions which are absolute must have.

 

Then again, I do understand this feels "half finished". Probably a lesson learned with A-20 that is sorely missing its nose position for navigation purposes...

Adding to that, I feel that because we're getting a bomber in the next installment the devs should try to implement the bombers in this game with the bombsight historically used by the type of aircraft, E.g. Lofte, OPB, etc. The historical bombsights are implemented in IL-2 1946 and IL-2 Cliffs of Dover, which have WAY MORE playable bombers than in this game (7).

 

Salute

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

If modeling all internal stations is pricey and time consuming, the start could be modeling cockpit and bombardier positions which are absolute must have.

 

Then again, I do understand this feels "half finished". Probably a lesson learned with A-20 that is sorely missing its nose position for navigation purposes...

 

I for one would be completely happy with more mediums, sans the defensive fire positions. The pilot and a bombardier is all we need. The bombardier position in the A20 was not modeled because, as someone told me back then, 'there is no machine gun there'. Cool, so all the other pits were modeled, but a necessary view for navigating and target approach was not? Bad choice in my opinion, it should have been the other way around. In fact, there is constant talk about x% of simmers preferring fighters over whatever, but are there numbers about how much people actually spend time as gunners? I am guessing not a lot. 

 

I imagine that eliminating the gunner pits for the B25 and B26 would make them cheaper to develop, hardly anyone would miss the gunner positions. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need AI aircraft for scenery - Jason knows this. I wouldn’t count on an aircraft becoming flyable even down the road just because it’s been added as AI.

 

At this juncture sceneryAI bombers are far more important than flyable bombers, and far easier to implement. They add to the environment/immersion - so yes give me all the AI units possible. 

 

That’s called bang for the buck.

I’d love an AI spotter.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be happy to have a more modern light bomber, A20G or A26, as a flyable.  They fit our maps better, and are more in line with the mission profile that the BlitzPigs, and myself, like to fly.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bombers, of any kind, making flyable only with the pilotstation (and a switch to bombsight) only might be a solution IMHO. If the AI routines of the gunners are not too much. 

 

And yes, for singleplay experience are AI aircraft very important for immersion!

Edited by III/JG53Frankyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2019 at 2:04 PM, pfrances said:

 

Service Arado's had no defensive armament (gunners) while the B-17 had, what, 13 50cals divided among 8 gunners or something like that.....Flight model isn't the biggest hurdle. It's the amount of AI that would be needed and the number of shells in the air that would all need to be calculated for a single B-17. We'd be lucky to get two to three on screen at a time without massive performance hits.

 

I would love to see her in my gun sights but the Flying Fortress is a long way off I think.

 

Your logic confuses me.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Y-29.Silky said:

 

Your logic confuses me.

I'm pretty sure the number of AI gunners has been given as a major obstacle for adding heavy bombers to the game by the devs.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also pay lots of bucks for a fully fleshed out (!) B-25. With that I mean a similar approach to mods like on the A-8:

Give me a normal bomber, a glass nose with the strafer mod, a solid strafer nose (more guns) and the stubby-nosed 75mm gun version.

 

I'd also buy an A-20G/J/K as premium, a B-26 and an A-26.

The A-26B is the airplane most people don't realize they actually want.

 

To keep things nice and cozy for the VSS, I'd also buy a Tu-2, which AFAIK has never been modelled before.

Great airplane anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'd also buy an A-20G/J/K as premium, a B-26 and an A-26.

The A-26B is the airplane most people don't realize they actually want.

 

I can second that especially for the A-26 and can add one on top. What I really really want to see, and I think BoN and BoBP would be perfect for that, is a P61 Black Widow. They (425th NFS) flew against V1 from July 44 on and then on the continent from 10/44 from Coulommiers and later from Florennes and did not just night fighter business but also CAS. One can only dream...

 

p61.jpg

 

12 hours ago, Lord_Strange said:

I'm pretty sure the number of AI gunners has been given as a major obstacle for adding heavy bombers to the game by the devs.

 

Funny thing is, that the older incarnation, Cliffs of Dover, seems to be pretty capable to portray large amounts of planes. About time to rip off the code for that and integrate it into BoX. Look here:

 

 

Edited by sevenless
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, sevenless said:

What I really really want to see, and I think BoN and BoBP would be perfect for that, is a P61 Black Widow. They (425th NFS) flew against V1 from July 44 on and then on the continent from 10/44 from Coulommiers and later from Florennes and did not just night fighter business but also CAS. One can only dream...

 

The Block 5 and Block 10 airplanes of the 422nd NFS and 425th NFS did not have the top turret installed, meaning nothing for the gunner to do. The squadron gunners were reassigned to other A-20 units when these two squadrons transitioned from the Havoc. While the 425th NFS modified their P-61s moving the radar operator's station forward to the gunner's position, the 422nd NFS did not.  

 

So the rivet counters would demand both versions (for historical accuracy of course).  ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2019 at 11:53 AM, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

i guess the most players want to shoot at something, or at least bomb something!

 

I hope that this very limited approach to the potential of the IL2 environment is true for a small minority. For them there are more arcade type of games where you just can shoot frenetically to whatever comes in front of you. 

IL2 has the potential to be a very rich and more realistic real war theater environment where the player is only one part of a more complex set of events and actions, and where he can play different roles.

The search for realism in the reproduction of the terrain, places, seasons, maps, weather, ground objects, vehicles, planes,  trains, ships etc. means to appreciate the whole world around and to appreciate flying. Shooting at something in real WWII terms was very often a very small part of the whole mission. Planning, flying to rendez-vous with other squadrons or bombers, escorting etc. are also the important part of the game.

In IL2 we have also this possibility in a given mission to be actor and spectator. The good use of cameras can allow us to switch from pilot to spectator and back again. A good way to appreciate the richness of the IL2 world.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

I hope that this very limited approach to the potential of the IL2 environment is true for a small minority. For them there are more arcade type of games where you just can shoot frenetically to whatever comes in front of you. 

IL2 has the potential to be a very rich and more realistic real war theater environment where the player is only one part of a more complex set of events and actions, and where he can play different roles.

The search for realism in the reproduction of the terrain, places, seasons, maps, weather, ground objects, vehicles, planes,  trains, ships etc. means to appreciate the whole world around and to appreciate flying. Shooting at something in real WWII terms was very often a very small part of the whole mission. Planning, flying to rendez-vous with other squadrons or bombers, escorting etc. are also the important part of the game.

In IL2 we have also this possibility in a given mission to be actor and spectator. The good use of cameras can allow us to switch from pilot to spectator and back again. A good way to appreciate the richness of the IL2 world.

 

 

+ 1.

Share this post


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

I hope that this very limited approach to the potential of the IL2 environment is true for a small minority. For them there are more arcade type of games where you just can shoot frenetically to whatever comes in front of you. 

IL2 has the potential to be a very rich and more realistic real war theater environment where the player is only one part of a more complex set of events and actions, and where he can play different roles.

The search for realism in the reproduction of the terrain, places, seasons, maps, weather, ground objects, vehicles, planes,  trains, ships etc. means to appreciate the whole world around and to appreciate flying. Shooting at something in real WWII terms was very often a very small part of the whole mission. Planning, flying to rendez-vous with other squadrons or bombers, escorting etc. are also the important part of the game.

In IL2 we have also this possibility in a given mission to be actor and spectator. The good use of cameras can allow us to switch from pilot to spectator and back again. A good way to appreciate the richness of the IL2 world.

 

I agree, that goes for every game out there....gameplay variety is the key!

 

That's why i'd rather devs give us something close as possible to heavies, like B-25/26, torpedo bomber for naval ops and transport plane such as DC3.

 

Finnish dynamic war server had great design in that matter, to capture airfield and advance frontline you needed to destroy enemy units first (tankbases/artillery and airfield defences) then drop paras or land with transport plane on target airfield.

 

We already have more than enough fighters and heavy fighters/ground pounders so B-25 and DC3 would be more than welcome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

...

Older games had smart aproch to things by not lisening to SP players demands to have AI that uses same FM and control of airplane like human do, and have all gunners controled by one brain, not every brain for every gunner. Now you have AI that is hard to program and uses extreme amount of PC so you can have small numbers of them in air or ground compared to previous games, with no benefits as players still se AI behavior as main problem, and it cant be esay fixed as when you had them using simple FM like AI got fixed by TD in 1946 and is stil best behaving one i saw, and no need for it to use same complex FM like humans. 

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


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

Planning, flying to rendez-vous with other squadrons or bombers, escorting etc. are also the important part of the game.

 

If only that were true. It's simply a limitation of the sim, there is no planning involved, the route is planned for you. (Yes, PWCG allows you to alter your route.) It is an AI limitation that a rendezvous with bombers (for example) occurs over the fighters' airfield rather than down stream along the route of flight. At least that has always been my experience. And another AI limitation has escort fighters flying agonizingly slow (often out of formation) rather than perhaps flying large "S" curves back and forth while maintaining formation integrity. Likewise formation shape is problematic, typically all I see is an acute "right edge" (echelon) or trail formation. The AI programmer has a tough job.

 

1 hour ago, 77.CountZero said:

Older games had smart approach to things by not listening to SP players demands to have AI that uses same FM and control of airplane like human do, and have all gunners controlled by one brain, not every brain for every gunner. Now you have AI that is hard to program and uses extreme amount of PC so you can have small numbers of them in air or ground compared to previous games, with no benefits as players still see AI behavior as main problem, and it cant be easy fixed...

 

I suspect you are correct. :good:

 

Share this post


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

I hope that this very limited approach to the potential of the IL2 environment is true for a small minority.

 

It's a combat flight simulator. What do you expect most people are going to want to do other than to blow s--t up?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

It's a combat flight simulator. What do you expect most people are going to want to do other than to blow s--t up?

Indeed Luke!

 

mSMpmz.jpg

 

3k7NAG.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

It's a combat flight simulator. What do you expect most people are going to want to do other than to blow s--t up?

 

Love to blow shiznit up!............  most servers neuter the P-38, which is faster and carries a bigger bomb load than the A-20.  Can't wait to see what the Mosquito can do and how long it takes to neutralize that in MP.  As to gunner stations on medium bombers I always lock mine because breathers can't hit the broad side of a barn, or shoot your tail off. And I don't use them either because I couldn't hit a bull in the ass with a base fiddle with them. 

 

Merry Christmas ya'll, hope you and yours have a fantastic New Year

 

Cheers

Hoss

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope those AI bombers and C-47 will become flyable in future. I don't like the idea of AI only planes. Only for a relatively short period of time needed to finish work to make them flyable. If needed it would be better to ditch the tank module and allocate those resources to creating more aircraft and making AI ones flyable sooner. It's a flight simulator after all.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2019 at 8:29 AM, PatrickAWlson said:

Every heavy bomber simulation that I have seen did "warp to contact" or air starts.  I would not object to an AI only heavy that could be air started.  Flying allied escort you would be obliged to air start.  Flying Germans you could do whatever.

 

I would not say never on this.  The current reason why not is the difficulty of modeling the plane and AI performance.  I think interiors are harder than exteriors so AI only helps a lot .  Performance issues are solvable.  Attach a profiler and start knocking down the heavy consumers.  It is not easy work and takes dedicated resources over a span of time, but it can be done.  

 

As for mediums, we have several already so more would be nice.  I suspect that the interiors are very expensive and 80% or more of the people fly fighters anyway, so the ROI might not be there.  I would not mind AI only with 1C exploring the full versions as collector planes.  

B17 The Mighty 8th let you start up and take off.

They didnt model the hugely complex forming up that the 8th AF had to do but.. the game was great for its time. Shame I was a fullblown teenager by its release and sex was waaaay more important.

If theybhadnt tried to include the stupid fighters in that game they cohld have added more.

Seriously Im amazed that game wasnt modded or redone. It was reallyy good.  The atmosphere and briefings were done perfectly. The s1uad management pergect. The briefi gs recon info and perhaps recon vid etc. It was just a great game. Id fork a 120 over RIGHT NOW for ancompany to REDO THE GAME with modern graphics and physics etc leave out the fighters but leave the rest.

21 hours ago, 361st_Hoss said:

 

Love to blow shiznit up!............  most servers neuter the P-38, which is faster and carries a bigger bomb load than the A-20.  Can't wait to see what the Mosquito can do and how long it takes to neutralize that in MP.  As to gunner stations on medium bombers I always lock mine because breathers can't hit the broad side of a barn, or shoot your tail off. And I don't use them either because I couldn't hit a bull in the ass with a base fiddle with them. 

 

Merry Christmas ya'll, hope you and yours have a fantastic New Year

 

Cheers

Hoss

 

Hell I even found it odd they didnt have ai fw189s in the east. They were common and we have intercept recon plane missio s

Its a shame too

For normandy right I could care less for most the plabes

Spit? Cool but meh

Ar 234 cool but meh. I havent flown the 262 besides to test it.

Typhoon? Cool. P51 b and c are what I want rlly.  Otherwise I dont rllt care abt the p47s

Ill have ppl freak out butbthe Ju88c is meh to me. The mosquito Ill prolly like.more when. I fly but meh to me frankly. Me410.. i wanna be excited but I know ill be fighter bait.

@Gambit21 the 62tfs does training now and were an MTO p47 squad. My.dad was in them for wso training in f4s..lmk if u want a pic of their real unit patch ( a dog in boxing stance with boxing gloves with lightning bolts on em)

If they added more ai bombers or heavies id ve bumped and pay 160! 110 g2w useful me410s useful me262s useful

The a2a rockets useful.

Oh and im not excited about the fw 190 a6 (whats diff tween it and a5 or a8?) Nor the 109 g6 late. Im irritated at that move as i got tge collectors 109 g6 and now its an early model that u barely can fly when it was good and by 44 itll suck.  And everyone gets a g6 late thats non collectors. I dont like it. Frankly they shuda added new LW fighters.  Yes theyrw running out of them but theres a few planes they havent really tohched. Ta152s though numbers were tiny.  They have later 110 variants.

Im sorry but i just cant get excited wirbout the heavies. Bp is hard enoughnfor me without them.no joy in me262 missions.  Its just weird never seeing a 4 engined bomber when rhere were tens od thousands ocer europe.

Hell I even found it odd they didnt have ai fw189s in the east. They were common and we have intercept recon plane missio s

Its a shame too

For normandt right I could care less for most the plabes

Spit? Cool but meh

Ar 234 cool but meh. I havent flown the 262 besides to test it.

Edited by Sublime
Formatting isues copied several paragraphs
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d be very happy to see a flyable B-25 available. So looking forward to and very grateful for the Mosquito that is on the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting the Mosquito is really nice. Hope it comes as a bomber in one modification. If it does I am set. If not we really need late war medium bombers on allied side. 

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...