Heavy Bombers

[Feldgrun]

Which heavy bomber would you like to see first in future versions of this game?

 

Jason says they can make anything, so for those of you ready to say that we'll never see heavy bombers in IL-2 GB, don't be so sure. Like the Pacific, I think we'll have to wait, but hopefully we'll see these in the future.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Feldgrun

[Trooper117]

B-25's were rather super... but?

[Feldgrun]

3 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

B-25's were rather super... but?

Fixed - B-29A.

[Yogiflight]

To be honest, the one I would be interested the most, is the missing one. The He 177.

From the list, either the FW 200 Condor or the legend, B 17. I chose the Condor to fly some low level attacks on merchant ships.

[Alexmarine]

Hand's down the B-17: even if it isn't my favourite bomber from that list the fact that the mainstay bomber of the 8th Air Force is missing even just as an AI is courtailing a lot of scenarios that we could have given both Bodenplatte and Normandy modules we already got (of course if the game engine and the average user PC was able to run those kind of scenarios in the first place )

[Feldgrun]

3 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

To be honest, the one I would be interested the most, is the missing one. The He 177.

 

I'd love to see it, but the He 177 Greif is not a four engine heavy bomber.

 

2 hours ago, Alexmarine said:

Hand's down the B-17: even if it isn't my favourite bomber from that list the fact that the mainstay bomber of the 8th Air Force is missing even just as an AI is courtailing a lot of scenarios that we could have given both Bodenplatte and Normandy modules we already got (of course if the game engine and the average user PC was able to run those kind of scenarios in the first place )

 

I think an AI B-17 formation would add a lot to this game, and think its addition would make for a lot of interesting missions for fighter escorts and attackers. Defeating heavy bomber formations was never something the Luftwaffe was able to achieve with any real success.

[Yogiflight]

6 hours ago, Feldgrun said:

I'd love to see it, but the He 177 Greif is not a four engine heavy bomber.

It is. It was classified as heavy bomber, and according to its bombload it definitely was. Only difference to the other heavy bombers is, that the He 177 coul dive bomb, too. And it also has four engines, as two engines were coupled to one propeller.

[Alexmarine]

Tbh, before any He-177 or RAF Bomber Command plane I would like to see some proper implementation for night operations, at least for the single player side of things.

[CountZero]

12 hours ago, Feldgrun said:

 

I'd love to see it, but the He 177 Greif is not a four engine heavy bomber.

 

 

I think an AI B-17 formation would add a lot to this game, and think its addition would make for a lot of interesting missions for fighter escorts and attackers. Defeating heavy bomber formations was never something the Luftwaffe was able to achieve with any real success.

Ah yes thouse big bomber formations this game is so great at, cant wait for B-25 and 3x3 formations lol just imagine B-17s. One 262 gets whole formation in 3 passes. I would not expect any heavy bombers untill game gets some good old optimazatione to make it playable with any big formations of bombers.

[DD_Crash]

Jason will be along shortly.......

[AndyJWest]

[Mtnbiker1998]

6 hours ago, DD_Crash said:

Jason will be along shortly.......

We all know he's voting for the Stratofortress!!

[sevenless]

Well before they go to the heavy bomber topic they rather should focus on number of planes available without starting time dilation. I´d rather see 2 waves of 12 plane medium bomber squadrons defended by 12 escorts and attacked by 12 interceptors, before I´d like to see a single 4 engine bomber in the game. Until that happens it makes more sense to stay focussed on tactical air war. For strategic bombers there is still Il2-1946, until they can´t reproduce that, they are better off to leave the stuff out alltogether.

[Pict]

Looks like the B-17 is way out in front for some reason, but I bet people aren't voting fo the E version and the majority will be eyeballing a G.

 

I would trade you either of the two aircraft below for anything in your list...not such a massive task for the developer as one 4 engined bomber.

 

A pair of either of these could carry the same maximum bomb-load as a B-17 and the distance we can fly in IL2 BOX maps removes the question of range. Or in the case of the Mosquito B MK.XVI on it's own with one bomb, not that I'm a big fan of that particular Mosquito, as with its fat belly it looks ugly and wouldn't stand in for photo recon or PAMPA missions.

 

P-38L "Droopsnoot" would expand on the bomber capabilites of a formation of P-38L's and make for some on-line fun.

 

Mosquito B MK.IV

 

 

P-38L "Droopsnoot"

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Pict

[Feathered_IV]

The game is already challenged enough if one full squadron of fighters were to meet another in combat.  I don’t really see how even a small daylight bombing raid of thirty or so heavies could hope to be viable.  Let alone a realistically sized formation of 300.  

[LukeFF]

26 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

The game is already challenged enough if one full squadron of fighters were to meet another in combat.

 

Not so at all.

[Feathered_IV]

5 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Not so at all.

 

More than 12 vs 12 or more specifically 16 vs 16 in SP was what I was referring to. 

[LukeFF]

9 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

More than 12 vs 12 or more specifically 16 vs 16 in SP was what I was referring to. 

 

Yes, and still that's not a problem. I regularly run missions on the Rhineland map with 16 per each side, and there are no issues. 

[Feathered_IV]

That's good if it is working for you.  Your CPU must be significantly better than mine.  I see a tendency towards slow motion somewhere around 25 aircraft engaging one another and things get increasingly slower towards 30.  I cant imagine what it would be like if a further 30 heavy bombers were added to that.  Can you estimate how many aircraft your machine could handle and still keep time?

[sevenless]

12 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

That's good if it is working for you.  Your CPU must be significantly better than mine.  I see a tendency towards slow motion somewhere around 25 aircraft engaging one another and things get increasingly slower towards 30.  I cant imagine what it would be like if a further 30 heavy bombers were added to that.  Can you estimate how many aircraft your machine could handle and still keep time?

 

Yep it is a CPU issue. Before I switched to my I9-9900K last year I had an i7-2700K. With that old CPU I had hard times to run the game at medium density in SP career and frequently got time dilation. The i9 however can handle everything on dense settings. Check out what your machine can handle using SYN-Vanders Easy Mission Generator. Start with red and blue flight on both sides set to maximum (20 planes per side) and ambient planes set to maximum also (24 planes). That is a total of 64 planes in the scenario. An i9-9900K can handle that. Slower CPUs might suffer, though.

[Jade_Monkey]

Liberator and then Lancaster.

[Traffic]

I'd vote for a B25J. Solid nose with 8 .50s, and those 4 gun packs on the sides. Thats a wicked weed whacker. 

 

AB17G or B24J would be cool, since those were in the thousands on hand in Europe. 

 

Im still waiting for a later P40 variant, like the P40N/M or L. 

[W_Braun]

If four engine bombers were incorporated a big mass of the pilots would upgrade their PCs. 

 

Best Regards 

Nostradamus/Braun

[Trooper117]

17 hours ago, IV./JG51-W_Braun said:

If four engine bombers were incorporated a big mass of the pilots would upgrade their PCs. 

 

Best Regards 

Nostradamus/Braun

 

Really?... perhaps an even bigger mass of pilots are like me and can't afford to upgrade.

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Really?... perhaps an even bigger mass of pilots are like me and can't afford to upgrade.

 

Very much likely to be the case. I suspect this sim actually does well to keep its system requirements manageable (e.g. relative to DCS).

 

However, it would be pretty neat if they developed a scalability option - i.e. formations are smaller for people with older computers, larger for people with more processing power. That could be one solution at some point. They'd still have to be pretty efficient though (and maybe put in some R&D regarding simplifying some types of calculations).

 

Of course, none of this is an issue if they were to give us a Lancaster... much more spread out formations (or smaller ones), and only three gunners - it'd have one engine more than a Ju-52 and two gunners less than a He-111.

[W_Braun]

I just remember IL2 1946 with like 10 B29 bombers in formation. Even more B17's. Always wondered why they don't bother doing that in this version of IL2. IL2 1946 was also a single core/thread game. Maybe thats the problem. This game has way more tasks but still on a single core/thread. Load up more cores and all the problems with more objects will be smaller. Run like a Synchronous or asynchronus function parallel model type of game engine. Parallel tasking. Its been done and still done today. 

[Feldgrun]

Adding heavy bombers would add a new dynamic to this game, allowing the Allies to operate fighters at high altitudes (where they perform best), and Germans to use weapons (already in the game) meant to destroy bomber formations. No low altitude turn fighting.

[CountZero]

3 hours ago, Feldgrun said:

Adding heavy bombers would add a new dynamic to this game, allowing the Allies to operate fighters at high altitudes (where they perform best), and Germans to use weapons (already in the game) meant to destroy bomber formations. No low altitude turn fighting.

There is already missions in MP on Combat Box using AI B-25s to fly up high and being objective for both sides defend/destroy, so no need for B-17s AIs for this we can already do this. Also ACG runs missions with high alt flying B-25s. B-17s would just make it so you can have even less airplanes in formation to shoot at.

 

Only way to get B-17 is if it gets included as AI only in some DLC so its development can be payed by most ppl, as if its collectable not many would buy it, you can shoot at it even if you dont have it and as most just wont to shoot at it and not fly it up high with formations of players it would be failed to start it as collectable.

Even if it is player controled you would see them in 1-2 max low alt precise bombing tanks or buildings/trenches/arty and so on... for sure not flying in 10+ player formations up high with players escorting them, that level of cooperation is nonexistant in todays MP enviroment.

 

So for ppl who wont to fantasys about escorting or shooting bomber formations up high we already have B-25 or B-26, they fit game mutch better then B-17 in state game is, and they are used in missions as AI to be high fllying targets.

 

I would not be suprised if in some future dlc they say they can maybe make B-17 as AI only as its iconic airplane ww2 aviation game need to have, but player controled i doubt it will be made ever. 

Edited June 18, 2022 by CountZero

[Feldgrun]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

I would not be suprised if in some future dlc they say they can maybe make B-17 as AI only as its iconic airplane ww2 aviation game need to have, but player controled i doubt it will be made ever. 

 

Yes, AI heavy bombers is what I'd suggest, just like the current B-26. However, the B-17/B-24s would/should be much harder to shoot down than the B-25/26s.

[Bars-]

29.11.2021 в 22:39, Feldgrun сказал:

Jason says they can make anything...

Of course they can make anything! The don't do airplanes properly. There is no proper bombsight in this game. So, what's the difference which heavy bomber they going to develop? Let's take B-17 for example. Do you realise how many new systems they gonna need to develop so we can call that B-17? Do you realy think that team is able of creating a proper ball turret with all its handling features? I doubt that. B-29 with its gun sight is out of question also. They can do some 3d model with some physics and some of us even gonna buy that. And that's that. Executive Producer's grandfather flew B-26 as a gunner. So they gonna do B-26 flyable instead of B-25. How cares B-26 was realy bad aircraft and B-25 was realy good? You not goona feel that difference in this game anyway.

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, Bars- said:

Of course they can make anything! The don't do airplanes properly. There is no proper bombsight in this game. So, what's the difference which heavy bomber they going to develop? Let's take B-17 for example. Do you realise how many new systems they gonna need to develop so we can call that B-17? Do you realy think that team is able of creating a proper ball turret with all its handling features? I doubt that. B-29 with its gun sight is out of question also. They can do some 3d model with some physics and some of us even gonna buy that. And that's that. Executive Producer's grandfather flew B-26 as a gunner. So they gonna do B-26 flyable instead of B-25. How cares B-26 was realy bad aircraft and B-25 was realy good? You not goona feel that difference in this game anyway.

I think they said they gona do B-25 flyable first, nothing still about B-26.

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, Bars- said:

How cares B-26 was realy bad aircraft and B-25 was realy good? You not goona feel that difference in this game anyway.

 

Early B-26s had handling problems. By 1944, it was an entirely reasonable plane to fly. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

It's very difficult to "simulate" Bombing missions online because its difficult to get large numbers of bombers coordinated and flying together. I know its a crazy dream but I seriously hope that we get some AI heavies in the future. What would be even better is if there was an easy way to integrate AI and human pilots to carry out bombing missions online. Whereby human pilots are flight leaders and AI follow orders. I'm not sure that is even possible with current technology but it would be fantastic to have 15 bombers flying a mission online with say four human pilots and the rest AI.     

[Docholiday]

I vote for B-24 because it could be used in anti-submarine role too !!

 

Cheers

 

Doc

[CountZero]

18 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

It's very difficult to "simulate" Bombing missions online because its difficult to get large numbers of bombers coordinated and flying together. I know its a crazy dream but I seriously hope that we get some AI heavies in the future. What would be even better is if there was an easy way to integrate AI and human pilots to carry out bombing missions online. Whereby human pilots are flight leaders and AI follow orders. I'm not sure that is even possible with current technology but it would be fantastic to have 15 bombers flying a mission online with say four human pilots and the rest AI.     

Thats thing i liked in clod MP, it was not finished or worked correctly like most things there, but it was good idea, you could make mission and alow player to spawn with his flight of AI in DF type mission. I also think this is what would help with big high alt formations in MP DF servers, it would help with tanks also. Onother thing was area you picked on map and it would track how mutch bombs hit it, this is mutch better type of objective for high alt bombing then, % of buildings you need to destroy. 

[sevenless]

Lancaster is the only one (AI-only) which would IMHO make sense for this iteration of the game.

 

- flew individual missions

- flew daylight/dusk/dawn missions

- no huge formations necessary

 

Game engine currently can´t cope with 50-60 B17s or B24s plus escorts and attacking fighters. Can´t even cope with 40 B-25s properly. You get time dilation. So unless some fundamental code rework is done, Combat-BOX-formations are out of the question for the near future. You can check that limit out yourselves with a test scen here:

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by sevenless

[357th_KW]

It’s not as if single engine aircraft fly in their historically large formations either.  You’ll never see a 48 plane US fighter group in the sky together in single player.  If you could get a 12-18 plane combat box with enough overhead for escorts and interceptors, that would still be a great gaming experience.  There’s plenty of room for optimization - does the radio room gunner or cheek gunner on a B-17G really need it’s own AI?  Does the bomber pilot AI need to be able to dogfight?

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, 357th_KW said:

It’s not as if single engine aircraft fly in their historically large formations either.  You’ll never see a 48 plane US fighter group in the sky together in single player.  If you could get a 12-18 plane combat box with enough overhead for escorts and interceptors, that would still be a great gaming experience.  There’s plenty of room for optimization - does the radio room gunner or cheek gunner on a B-17G really need it’s own AI?  Does the bomber pilot AI need to be able to dogfight?

I would say no , but just look at complains about mosquito and lack of AI info from copilot/observer... if they dont model every single position there would always be ppl who ask why its not modeled and ppl who dont care if its modeled or not.

[spreckair]

Weren't the B-17 and B-24 bombers flown in small formations in the Pacific, especially early in the war?  Maybe for starters this would be the best application for the heavies.  I know that it doesn't have the grandiosity of the mighty 8th and Memphis Belle, but I think there were some really daring small formation/large bomber raids in the Pacific that this game might be able to manage.

[Stonehouse]

Yes they did. USAAF raids of 15-30 B24s or 17s often hit places like Kahili on Bougainville at the NW end of the slot. Raids I've read of were in the time frame sort of early to late 1943. Apparently B17s were withdrawn from the PTO pretty much in Sep 1943 due to having too short a range. B24s and B25/26s were the main USAAF bombers after that I think. RAAF also had some B24s from 1944, about 6-7 squadrons worth operating out of bases in the far north of Australia. Mostly the RAAF B24s hit Japanese targets in Borneo or PNG or previously Dutch held areas.