When will the B25 become flyable?

[[TWB]80hd]

Modeling a 4-engine bomber, absolutely, I get it, gonna take a lot of work...

 

The thing I don't understand though... if we're talking about modeling effort...

 

 

 

 

(This message brought to you by someone who will pre-order a B-26/B-17 pack right meow)

 

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by [TWB]80hd

[Gambit21]

[CountZero]

next project will probably have 3 engined B-29s so who needs B17s they are so 1930

[[TWB]80hd]

4 minutes ago, CountZero said:

next project will probably have 3 engined B-29s so who needs B17s they are so 1930

Ahhh, a REAL hot rod!

 

See if you can get them to make an He-177 as well (purely for the forum anger even mentioning it elicits)

[IckyATLAS]

20 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

So no nails nor coffins... not yet.

Maybe I was a little extreme. However how much I would have liked the devs to tell this to us with a regular post about how they are doing. Frankly after all a few lines in a post and two three pictures every Friday, that's all what it takes. Does not seem to me that this is an insurmountable feat to keep your community happy. Maybe here we touch cultural differences on marketing and communication.

[Lusekofte]

On 2/28/2023 at 5:22 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

On this we are in agreement.  I just don't see another developer out there that can,or will, deliver a new air combat sim experience that will have an enjoyable balance between rivet counting operational procedures and a fun to play experience.  I look forward to the next installment.

 

You do know dcs can be flown With same simplicity as Gb 

problem is a complete scenario. So I get what you say

I do agree Gb in its current form is adequate, but lack essential components to be very good. Like communication and more complex fuelmanagement. 
GB in its current state will still be here. You can fly it as is. 
I am all for a change, but I am sceptical this new thing will be of my liking. Because it has been a while since they made a level bomber. To add to the confusion they added a flyable transporter. I have no idea what they going to do. But I hope it’s level of complexity remain as is or better. 

[IckyATLAS]

1 hour ago, IckyATLAS said:

Maybe I was a little extreme. However how much I would have liked the devs to tell this to us with a regular post about how they are doing. Frankly after all a few lines in a post and two three pictures every Friday, that's all what it takes. Does not seem to me that this is an insurmountable feat to keep your community happy. Maybe here we touch cultural differences on marketing and communication.

I just saw the new DD 340 from Wardog. It seems that when I posted it it was a little after. So Thanks to Wardog and the Dev Team. Keep us excited and awake?, otherwise we fall asleep?.

[ACG_Bobo]

What we really need is a flyable B-52, not 25

[red-starbaltam65]

Dear All,

 

during the last months I could regcognize, that there were many videos about IL2, showing bombers and dog fights, especially with the North American B-25 "Mitchell". At this point I would like to get to know, if this B-25 is available to buy and to fly?!?!

Because I've never discovered it in any shop (Steam/IL2 Shop)....

 

Thanks many times in advance...

BR

 

[RedeyeStorm]

AI only.

[76IAP-Black]

I would expect it to become flyable at one point, there is no plane left as unflyable by the devs 

[red-starbaltam65]

On 2/25/2023 at 11:35 PM, MAJORgoonMADLOU said:

But this is the almighty developers of IL2.  They can do amazing things when they want to! Question is, will it sell?  There are supposed to be a couple of b17 sims coming out soon.  I bet those will be big hits.

I think so too - the 1st 4-mot-bomber - and I would like to prefer to buy it from IL2-Sturmovik-shop directly, in order to support the team and their work....

[ITAF_Rani]

Maybe in next project/DLC (2024 anouncement?)...we ll see the heavies and B 25 flyble...

[Art-J]

3 hours ago, 76IAP-Black said:

I would expect it to become flyable at one point, there is no plane left as unflyable by the devs 

They pretty much said they would not do it, but any 3rd party is free to assist. Same for B-26. So unless Ugra Media guys decide doing such thing is profitable for them, forget about Mitchell and Marauder in BoX

[red-starbaltam65]

I don't know, if it would be a possibility, but I think, that IL2 has got many fans now. I know IL2 also for about 20 years. 

 

If the question is money, maybe it would be a good possibility to start a fund-raising? It is an idea only, but it could be very interesting, - a new plane-project, initiated by fans...

 

What do you (all) think of that idea?

[Trooper117]

6 minutes ago, red-starbaltam65 said:

What do you (all) think of that idea?

 

No... to many of these types of schemes don't always bare fruit... I'll not risk money on something that may or may not happen.

[Chief_Mouser]

8 minutes ago, red-starbaltam65 said:

I don't know, if it would be a possibility, but I think, that IL2 has got many fans now. I know IL2 also for about 20 years. 

 

If the question is money, maybe it would be a good possibility to start a fund-raising? It is an idea only, but it could be very interesting, - a new plane-project, initiated by fans...

 

What do you (all) think of that idea?

 

Absolutely not. Il-2 is in limbo atm and things won't improve until the the devs actually say what they are doing about it. And, as Trooper says, you may just be throwing your money away.

[BMA_FlyingShark]

4 hours ago, red-starbaltam65 said:

If the question is money, maybe it would be a good possibility to start a fund-raising?

Me neither, as much as I would like to see the B25 (and B 26) in game one day, I'm not too keen on fund raising.

Like others have stated, you risk that it'll never happen and there goes your money.

I'd pay triple the price of the usual price for twin engine planes but I'm sceptical towards fund raising, crowd funding and stuff like that, not only for content related to this game series btw.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[kestrel79]

I would pay a higher price for a larger bomber for sure. But I still don't think the "juice is worth the squeeze" for the dev team.

[DragonDaddy]

Pigs will fly before the B25 does. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

15 minutes ago, DragonDaddy said:

Pigs will fly before the B25 does. 

 

 

 We do actually.  ?

Edited December 30, 2023 by BlitzPig_EL

[Avimimus]

On 3/2/2023 at 7:37 PM, [TWB]80hd said:

Modeling a 4-engine bomber, absolutely, I get it, gonna take a lot of work...

 

The thing I don't understand though... if we're talking about modeling effort...

 

 

 

(This message brought to you by someone who will pre-order a B-26/B-17 pack right meow)

 

I wasn't interested. I agreed with the arguments in favour of modelling low altitude tactical aviation (which I prefer to bomber intercepts anyway)... and, of course, there is the issue with having to model at least 32 B-17 in a single engagement (so at least fifty aircraft and at least two hundred gunners)... which is going to be taxing on the hardware no matter how optimised...

 

...and then I saw the options for the Fw-190A8 ...and yes, I became more open to the idea of getting an AI B-17.

 

(That said, I question the value of modelling all of the gunner positions, rather than giving use several single or two seat aircraft for the same effort ...and the fact that they have to air-spawn for Rhineland makes it even less appealing as a flyable).

 

  

21 minutes ago, DragonDaddy said:

Pigs will fly before the B25 does. 

 

The same is true historically... if you can find a higher resolution of my profile picture... you'll see that pigs beat the B-25 into the air by about twenty years ?

[DragonDaddy]

Pigs are flying before the B25! See, I was right. Crazy world!

[Blitzen]

I love GB, but I have to say about today's news I'm just not all that excited.If it turns out to be Korea than I'm hardly excited at all. It seems like there is still al ot to complete in the WW2 European theater ( heavies, allied medium bombers ,flyables for the B-25 and B-26, etc.,) or make a definite statement about The Pacific ( esp the first two years...) I had hoped for a big announcement about where GB goes from here with a major release like Normandy was last year- instead we get a new Russian Map and 3 late war aircraft . Even with the possibility of the B-29 ( AI? Flyable?) it's not ( to me,) much write home about .

Oh...and is there going to be a FC4?

[Lusekofte]

27 minutes ago, Blitzen said:

but I have to say about today's news I'm just not all that excited

You are not alone, you noticed I left out the love thing 

That was a thing for me too before bodenplatte. That expansion was a road with no return. Maybe sleek aerodynamic aluminium with cannons is what majority wants. But would they stay or would they go after a short while?  
The longest persistent flying community to date was hyperlobby IL 2 and clod with same people, because it left playability for all. To me , with rubbish engine dm like timers and dead sp missions due to ai buddies basically giving a damned about you. The last sandbox was closed for me. 
Now one have to wait for clod getting VR sorted, or combat pilot shows what they bring. But their offer for complete playability is still long way ahead. Meh, I got DCs choppers. 

[tvcasualty]

It does seem rather odd that they made the C-47 and Li-2 before the B-25 flyable. 

 

I was really hoping the next installment would have focused on high altitude intercepts with all the high altitude fighters coming out.

I would think that they would have to charge $50ish for a collector B-17 and the maps don't really support long range flights from England to the heart of Germany so there are technical problems there also.  But as air spawn AI aircraft ??  I mean SWOTL did it back in the day...
 

At least the B-29 will prove 4 engines are do able.  And you have to admit it would be something to sit in the nose of that thing in VR.

 

Again an Italy / Africa / Malta campaign would have really been something here with flyable B-25 missions.  Catch-22.  Seems like very low hanging fruit for sure.

[LukeFF]

35 minutes ago, tvcasualty said:

It does seem rather odd that they made the C-47 and Li-2 before the B-25 flyable. 

 

Again, it comes down to the time and resources needed to model a bomber. Essentially, each crew station in a bomber is a separate cockpit, so in essence, you are modeling with the B-25 the equivalent of 3 fighter cockpits. Compare that to a C-47, which has a straightforward, single cockpit to model, and when it comes to its Russian cousin, the weapon positions are much simpler than those found on a B-25. 

[Jaegermeister]

12 hours ago, tvcasualty said:

I was really hoping the next installment would have focused on high altitude intercepts with all the high altitude fighters coming out.

 

If it is B-29s over the Yalu, I would think 40,000 feet qualifies as high altitude, so yes me too.

 

12 hours ago, tvcasualty said:

At least the B-29 will prove 4 engines are do able.  And you have to admit it would be something to sit in the nose of that thing in VR.

 

Yes, hence the "new project" to include things that didn't work in the "old project"

[Gambit21]

12 hours ago, tvcasualty said:

It does seem rather odd that they made the C-47 and Li-2 before the B-25 flyable. 

 

Then again, not really.

As already pointed out, the B-25 will cost much more to make flyable. 

[[DBS]El_Marta]

They already had four engines in Rise of Flight.

[Gambit21]

23 minutes ago, [DBS]El_Marta said:

They already had four engines in Rise of Flight.

 

Again, number of engines isn't a thing.

Number of crew stations is.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2024 by Gambit21

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

I suggested this a while ago and it got some support from others who fly bombers.  Bomber crew positions are overrated.  The pilot didn't go running around throughout the aircraft to check each gunner position.  We don't need to either.  For bombers all we need is the pilot position, a navigation position if it gives a good forward view (such as the glass nose of the A-20, B-25) and the bombsite view.  That's it.  All the gunner positions can be AI only which I bet happens anyway when 95% of us do bombing.  No need to switch to gunner positions or to have other players man those positions if it makes it more feasible to have these aircraft flyable.  

[Gambit21]

7 hours ago, VBF-12_Stick-95 said:

I suggested this a while ago and it got some support from others who fly bombers.  Bomber crew positions are overrated.  The pilot didn't go running around throughout the aircraft to check each gunner position.  We don't need to either.  For bombers all we need is the pilot position, a navigation position if it gives a good forward view (such as the glass nose of the A-20, B-25) and the bombsite view.  That's it.  All the gunner positions can be AI only which I bet happens anyway when 95% of us do bombing.  No need to switch to gunner positions or to have other players man those positions if it makes it more feasible to have these aircraft flyable.  

 

That's a no-win for them. You feel that way, as I'm sure others do (I could go either way) but the complaints would be endless from users who can't use the gunner positions etc etc. 

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

7 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

That's a no-win for them. You feel that way, as I'm sure others do (I could go either way) but the complaints would be endless from users who can't use the gunner positions etc etc. 

I think your potential for endless complaints lacks a logical basis.  Would people rather not have a flyable aircraft they have been requesting endlessly simply because they can't be a gunner?  I don't think so.  I think pilots would love to fly those aircraft more than they want to hop around gunner positions.

[Gambit21]

6 hours ago, VBF-12_Stick-95 said:

I think your potential for endless complaints lacks a logical basis.  Would people rather not have an flyable aircraft they have been requesting endlessly simply because they can't be a gunner.  I don't think so.  I think pilots would love to fly those aircraft more than they want to hop around gunner positions.

 

My "logical basis" is observing behavior of the flight sim community since around 1998 or so.

So many 80 page whine threads would never have existed if your analysis was correct.

 

That said, I essentially agree in that I'd be OK just flying it. It would sting a bit not being able to at least man the tail and waist gunner positions though...but I'd live.

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

80 page whine threads do exist but are, in many cases, made up of a very small loud minority and aren't very representative of the silent majority of users.

 

The question remains, in your opinion, would treating all bomber gunner positions as AI eliminate the technical issues which is stopping the likes of a flyable B-25/B-26 from happening?  

[Gambit21]

6 hours ago, VBF-12_Stick-95 said:

The question remains, in your opinion, would treating all bomber gunner positions as AI eliminate the technical issues which is stopping the likes of a flyable B-25/B-26 from happening?  

 

I think it would by 90 - 95%% yes. The reason I say that is some of those cockpits, cabins are very complex compared to a fighter. (I'm thinking of the B-17, B-24, B-29.

All in all though, yes it would. 

[Avimimus]

Honestly, gunner positions I care about less (although a tail or dorsal/ventral gunners are nice to have), but what I'd like is a bombardier/navigator position for the A-20... Imagine an A-20G pack that also upgrades your A-20B to have a bombardier position!

[Hartsblade]

I can't speak for others in the community, but for me and the group I game with the whole point of adding larger multi crew aircraft would be the ability to co-operatably fly that aircraft as a crew, not to fly it solo and jump around trying to man all of the separate positions.  We as a group are eagerly waiting for Microprose to follow through with the upcoming B-17 titles just for this reason (fingers crossed it happens soon)

 

So adding the B-25 or any other large multi crew without multi-crew/multiplayer would be a huge mistake in my opinion.

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

22 minutes ago, Hartsblade said:

So adding the B-25 or any other large multi crew without multi-crew/multiplayer would be a huge mistake in my opinion.

I understand that you would like the gunner positions available.  I wouldn't miss them if eliminated however it wouldn't bother me having them either.  Having them would always  be the best option.  The issue however is the Devs have said that making the gunner positions available in the B-25 or B-26 is a no go, period.

So, if leaving out the gunner positions means the community could potentially have flyable B-25s/B-26s, wouldn't that be better than our current situation?  Flying in a squad with several B-25s/B-26s flying in formation on a bomb run would be awesome.