Il-2 Battle of Normandy - Planes Visualized

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

10 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Are they flying straight and level in formation at night over flak guns?  If not, then it’s not relevant.

 

Whoosh.

[BraveSirRobin]

2 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

Whoosh.

 

Right back at ya...

[BlitzPig_EL]

All I will say about flying the C47 is based on the modded versions of IL2 '46.  It's a slow, long, boring ride, that only was exciting for a few minutes, just before the flight ended... in a smoking hole in the ground.

Edited December 19, 2019 by BlitzPig_EL

[Lusekofte]

17 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

“excitement” of flying an aircraft where your survival depends completely on the blind luck of not being seen (pun intended).

So I guess you fly only hotrods without bombs. 

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

So I guess you fly only hotrods without bombs. 

 

You guess wrong.  I frequently fly strike missions.  AI gunners on a fast bomber flown at low altitude can be very effective.  Being spotted does not mean sure death.  Being spotted in a C-47 means certain death.

[Gambit21]

3 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

All I will say about flying the C47 is based on the modded versions of IL2 '46.  It's a slow, long, boring ride, that only was exciting for a few minutes, just before the flight ended... in a smoking hole in the ground.

 

Yep

It's good scenery...Jason made the right call.

[Lusekofte]

15 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

You guess wrong.  I frequently fly strike missions.  AI gunners on a fast bomber flown at low altitude can be very effective.  Being spotted does not mean sure death.  Being spotted in a C-47 means certain death.

In bobp any slower plane lower than attacker is dead.

I do like transport missions and even if I am far from being part of the majority I am a bit tired about being “teached” by people whats boring or not. 
It is like saying if you do not fly 109’s , piss off. 
And bring a general idea that all else than whats have been is doomed. 
In my opinion not evolving and bring in new ideas is prescription of doom for a company. 
Thing is perspective of boredom is different. 
I can’t myself understand whats funny about flying for hours at 7 k waiting for a bomber might come just to spend two second blast it to smithereens. 
But I know some do, and I have to respect that. I guess they want to relive a fighter ace expirience. While I have read all there is about transport duty and its pilots I came over and like to experience that. 
You are not in a possession to deem anything as boring as long as there are more than just you in it, none of us got that right. Only the devs are, after all they pay for it and take the risk

[Gambit21]

I would fly re-supply missions if I had the time for such things.

Not extremely long ones though...from the Bodney area to Calais and back maybe.

But that's just fantasy....I'd get bored and don't have time for that...but I could understand someone else doing it no doubt.

[BraveSirRobin]

36 minutes ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

 

You are not in a possession to deem anything as boring as long as there are more than just you in it, none of us got that right. Only the devs are, after all they pay for it and take the risk

 

If others have the possession to deem things fun, then I certainly have the possession to deem those same things as boring.

[OrLoK]

I sometimes simply like to fly.

 

The c47 would satisfy my immediate need for an allied ju52.

[Missionbug]

9 hours ago, OrLoK said:

I sometimes simply like to fly.

 

The c47 would satisfy my immediate need for an allied ju52.

 

Exactly that, for such a major theater it is odd that we do not yet have a flyable allied equivalent, even for Russia the Ju-52 could have been allocated to that side as they did actually use them, in small numbers yes, however, transport is essential for the invasion et al and even if some consider it boring others among us here feel it important enough to be represented in a simulation of this kind and any other for that matter.

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[OrLoK]

I hope that BoN and other sales are profitable enough for the guys and gals in development to be able to justify giving us a flyable C47 at some point, however, as life just isnt that simple, i wont berate them if we dont get it due to reason X or Y.

 

I just would love it:)

[ShamrockOneFive]

There would be considerable mileage you could get out of the C-47. The same essential configuration was used by all of the Allies, the Japanese had their own license built version, and the Russians had both their own Li-2 license build and used plenty of C-47's themselves. Though I know transport aircraft are kind of a niche within a niche, I do think if they were to do just one more... it'd be the C-47.

[CountZero]

Out of 3 AI only airplanes C-47 is probably on 5th place to make, B-25 and B-26 are mutch better options to do flyable for humans 

C-47 as AI is more then enought, time and money they would have to spend so few ppl can play with it once or twice every leap year is not worth making it, and it will probably be posible to have big numbers of them in air as AI because they dont look like performance heavy airplane, so you get what you need from AI only version.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

A flyable C-47 would be nice for the TAW server, as an alternative to the Ju 52 that's often used to resupply bases and drop paratroopers. Also the Soviet Li-2 would bring more gameplay possibilities since it had gunners and could carry bombs, iirc up to 1500 Kg overloaded, higher bombload than the Pe-2 so I can see people taking it for that use.

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[CountZero]

13 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

A flyable C-47 would be nice for the TAW server, as an alternative to the Ju 52 that's often used to resupply bases and drop paratroopers. Also the Soviet Li-2 would bring more gameplay possibilities since it had gunners and could carry bombs, iirc up to 1500 Kg overloaded, higher bombload than the Pe-2 so I can see people taking it for that use.

 

let me chanel my iner Bernie here, thats like catering to 1% of 1%, just so they can not use ju-52 in vvs skin for same thing, and pe-2 is mutch faster and better protected and more gunners so 500kg+ is not worth it for players or devs for few ~100ppl that maybe use it few times. If there is not other options ok make it, but when your limited in what you can make then its pointles to make it insted other more usefule stuff.

Edited December 20, 2019 by 77.CountZero

[OrLoK]

once or twice a leap year? oh ye of little faith!

[sevenless]

On 12/20/2019 at 2:46 PM, ShamrockOneFive said:

Though I know transport aircraft are kind of a niche within a niche, I do think if they were to do just one more... it'd be the C-47.

 

Absolutely. They should handle it like they handled the Ju 52. And IMHO they won´t gain any more commercial benefit from it than they gained from the Ju 52. Some like it and for some it is just another target drone. Classical collector stuff IMHO.

[Feathered_IV]

2 hours ago, sevenless said:

Absolutely. They should handle it like they handled the Ju 52

 

Better than that I hope.  Depth of gameplay around the Ju-52 is a swing and a miss really.  

[senseispcc]

On 12/13/2019 at 5:39 AM, Lemsip said:

I doubt the Typhoon will be the early type with car doors, as it will be used in post-Bodenplatte scenarios which saw the Mk. Ib/late as the most common variant.

 

I think also, the version for DDay was the bubble canopy even if some where still car door versions. But rare and replaced quickly.

But the addition of the rockets shall be a nice one. 

Plus, all the planes in this additional game can be used in Bodenplatte even if for some in a secondary role. (p51b)

And, Yes, the C47 or Li4 should be a nice addition to the game even if like the Ju52 not a primordial one.

Thanks to all how in so many Years have given us these games and have the most enjoyable end of year festivities. 

[Motherbrain]

I enjoy flying the Ju-52 from airfield to airfield, or even just doing patterns and touch-and-go's. 

 

I made some short missions with it just doing some cargo and staff relocation flights. Its nice just flying from time to time.

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

 

27 minutes ago, Motherbrain said:

....... Its nice just flying from time to time.

what you can do with every plane in game ?

 

honestly, i realy would like to see that the team would put its limited resources in making the B-25 or -26 cockpit - without thinking to make the bombardier and gunner stations.

C-47, waste of time IMHO

Edited December 23, 2019 by III/JG53Frankyboy

[Lusekofte]

On 12/22/2019 at 5:54 AM, Feathered_IV said:

 

Better than that I hope.  Depth of gameplay around the Ju-52 is a swing and a miss really.  

I agree, if no logistical apparatus around a new plane type is not there. Then I find it adequate as a ai. 
But how cool wiuld it not be with a real recon feature, paratroopers that actually have a purpose. Importance of medevac  and such things. It would be the first

[danielprates]

On 12/22/2019 at 1:54 AM, Feathered_IV said:

 

Better than that I hope.  Depth of gameplay around the Ju-52 is a swing and a miss really.  

 

This is right I think. Hmmm.. I never thought of it that way, but the underuse of the ju52 (in SP that is) has more to blame on the career dynamic than the plane itself. That being the case, all the negativity I am reading above regarding the C47 and it's alledged uselessness is provably very unfair - its all about putting it to good use. (Edit: like, say, paradrops and cargo drops or pickups under flak, night drops for a bit of navigation challenge etc.).

 

Edited December 26, 2019 by danielprates

[jollyjack]

Appetizer for a flyable c47 ??:

 

 

[QB.Gregor-]

I can't be the only one that thinks the Typhoon looks a hundred times better than the Tempest. Something about the thick wings and cannons sticking out just makes it look much more complete and well proportioned.

[Bremspropeller]

On 12/23/2019 at 8:49 PM, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

honestly, i realy would like to see that the team would put its limited resources in making the B-25 or -26 cockpit - without thinking to make the bombardier and gunner stations.

C-47, waste of time IMHO

 

I agree on making a B-25 and B-26 (without the gunner-positions) would be of a higher priority.

 

I don't think that building a C-47 pit is a complete waste of time, though. There's a nice transport-mission on Combat Box and with some tweaking (like doing it during the twilight hours and slipping into a short frontal airfield, newly cut out of the bocage) it could be massive fun, doing something similar in Normandy.

[jollyjack]

Most IL2 planes are fun, good looking and well worked out in Il2. But i IMO there are enough fighters and bombers there etc. already.

In fact i am looking now into some less warloving stuff like Deadstick Bushflight etc. (Alas Steam puts me off for that for now).

 

Normandy without some added transport and reconnaissance flyable (water?) planes, ships and train stuff to me feels like only more of the same. I enjoy Saldy's efforts with the Budffel Ju52 campaign a lot.

 

Cliffs has already some 'Normandy" covered. And the area in Rise of Flight.

 

Indeed, a flyable C47 (maybe some gliders added for Normandy?) would draw quite a bit of interest from less war loving flight simmers.

Especially when brought in the quality of IL2 BoX.

 

For some inspiration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_reconnaissance_aircraft

Or some UFOs maybe?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_UFOs

Edited June 15, 2020 by jollyjack

[PatrickAWlson]

PWCG: There are transport missions close to the front, para and cargo drops. and some night missions.  Flew a Ju52 mission and was attacked by a Russian fighter that leaked through the escort.  Evaded until I made it home with him making passes and one of my escorts following him for about 10 minutes  

 

Then I flew a P39 mission in the Kuban and came across a large flight of Ju52s.  Shot one down and continued with the mission.

 

They can be used in a career mode and the definitely add value, both as targets and as planes to fly.  Not sure I want to do 600 missions in a first to last campaign in Ju52s but they do make a nice change of pace.  I imagine the C47 would do the same.

 

 

[Avimimus]

On 12/19/2019 at 3:23 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

All I will say about flying the C47 is based on the modded versions of IL2 '46.  It's a slow, long, boring ride, that only was exciting for a few minutes, just before the flight ended... in a smoking hole in the ground.

 

I don't know about that... trying to land it in the mountains on unprepared strips was really quite interesting.

 

Also, flying the Lisunov Li-2 would be quite different... you'd typically have one or two gunners and a variety of bombs. Trying to take out searchlights using RS-82 rockets is fun... as is shooting them up using the single fixed-forward firing ShKAS 7.62mm machine gun...

 

I'm sure it'd benefit from having an ability for AI anti-aircraft guns codded in that makes them easier to suppress though...

 

P.S. That is also leaving out the stranger prototypes with internal or with a pair of NS-45 45mm automatic cannons fixed to fire forwards! Apparently a bounty was actually placed on the latter aircraft by the Germans after several trains encountered it at night.

[Nekhebu]

Does anyone know how many versions of Bf 109 are out there that are not included in the game? We already have a ton, would be nice to get something different for a change.

[40plus]

4 minutes ago, Nekhebu said:

Does anyone know how many versions of Bf 109 are out there that are not included in the game? We already have a ton, would be nice to get something different for a change.

Not many, but every one is an absolute treasure ?

[Lusekofte]

8 minutes ago, pfrances said:

Not many, but every one is an absolute treasure ?

Each on their own. I bloody hate using it. No charm at all. 

[Legioneod]

27 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Each on their own. I bloody hate using it. No charm at all. 

Agree to some degree, good to fly if you don't feel like putting much effort in?. Give me an E-3 and I'd fly it all day.

[Lusekofte]

On 6/18/2020 at 12:05 AM, Legioneod said:

Agree to some degree, good to fly if you don't feel like putting much effort in?. Give me an E-3 and I'd fly it all day.

I do like the E 7.  But the rest just give me a feeling driving a electric car. Just sit in and push the throttle

[PatrickAWlson]

On 6/17/2020 at 5:19 PM, Nekhebu said:

Does anyone know how many versions of Bf 109 are out there that are not included in the game? We already have a ton, would be nice to get something different for a change.

 

Let's see:

E7, F2, F4, G2, G4, G6 (early), G6 (late - coming with BoN), G14, and K4.  So 8, soon to be 9.  Still missing the G10.

 

We have a ton because the Germans had a ton.  109 and 190 from 1939 to 1945.  1C has given us plenty of other planes but in the end 109s and 190s is what the Germans flew.  Missing a major 109 revision in favor of something odd (I have no idea what else one would even include) would leave a pretty big hole.

 

But here's hoping for some collector planes.

[MarderIV]

On 6/15/2020 at 10:36 AM, jollyjack said:

draw quite a bit of interest from less war loving flight simmers

 

The key challenge here is that non combat planes, potentially even bombers if you look at it, relies too much on pilotage and its attendant systems or navigational workload to deliver an authentic and robust experience. I've long held the belief that Il-2 is extremely adept at delivering combat experiences relevant to fighters and ground attack aircraft. But when you have planes where the key expectation of the experience is more directed at navigation or pilotage instead of combat maneuvers and dogfighting, Il-2 really falls flat. 

 

When a C-47 in XP11 delivers a more authentic pilot's experience than its potential counterpart in Il-2, you start running into issues regardless of the lack of an air/ground threat. The combat side of this sim is an absolutely authentic experience and there is a lot to have in that regard. But when you're in the seat of a bomber or transport plane, where your key concern is navigation and the management of your aircraft; there just aren't enough interactive systems to fully realize an authentic experience: We're not engaging with fighters, we're engaging with the plane.

 

This is largely the reason why I'm against more bombers or transport planes, despite the fact that I adore them and their history, until improvements to their core experience is either planned or realized. 

 

Being in command of an A-26, a B-25, or even a C-47 and its Junkers counterpart is so much more than hand-flying from point A to point B. There is a distinct workload that exists for these planes and the sim has difficulty delivering said experience in a believable and authentic manner.

 

My only hope is that this side of the sim gets fleshed out down the line, because I'm certain there is interest for these types of aircraft - even from those who might have in passing. I'm confident even the latter would be engaged in them had the experience been there to meet them and show them just how involved flying these aircraft really were.

 

 

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, MarderIV said:

 

...

 

Being in command of an A-26, a B-25, or even a C-47 and its Junkers counterpart is so much more than hand-flying from point A to point B. There is a distinct workload that exists for these planes and the sim has difficulty delivering said experience in a believable and authentic manner.

 

 

Curious as to details.  What do you think it would take to make things better?  For me, one simple thing is automatically engage autopilot if no human is flying. 

 

I find flying bombers is a fairly steep learning curve as is.  Taking off is often more challenging, not burning out the engines, never mind actually trying to hit something.  I will be the first to concede that I have not put in the necessary time, but it seems to me I have enough to do.  Would like to know what more dedicated bomber pilots think would enhance the experience.

 

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Would like to know what more dedicated bomber pilots think would enhance the experience.

 

I'd like to see an AI navigator that actually gives out course corrections instead of just being a guy who mans a gun turret, for one.

 

More detailed bomb release intervals would also be good. The current ones are essentially just the settings found in the Pe-2. 

 

Finally, having a recon photo of the target to consult would also be very helpful. 

[Lusekofte]

The simplified bombaim interphase needs to improve. Fact is the directional autopilot. Make it possible to bomb a ship from 6 K   
There should be a navigational help and more historical correct autopilot. 
Crew aid on navigation over clouds and in darkness and a bit more difficult realistic way to settle the bomber in bomb run. 
in order to bullseye a target things must be perfect