Developer blog #358: Ta 152 Development News

[danielprates]

Interiors and etc for a flyable B26 would have been more or less work than the TA152?

[[CPT]milopugdog]

3 hours ago, danielprates said:

Interiors and etc for a flyable B26 would have been more or less work than the TA152?

With the amount of people wanting a flyable B-25 and/or B-26, I really wonder why they don't just make one of them. At least on this forum, I see way more demand for the flyable bombers than I did for the Ta-152, or planes they suggested making like the late Yaks, Las, or Ju-87.

 

I mean, other pilots and I would be more than happy to pay $35,$45, or whatever because I know the quality this team puts out is worth that amount.

[Gambit21]

15 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

You know as well as I do that PBR isn't any strict rendering technique but just a "design philosophy" for shaders. Depending on how the "PBR" shaders are programmed, you can do with just a couple of maps without too much quality loss (ideally Albedo, Normal, Metallic/Specular, Roughness and AO). Anything beyond that can either be done through separate shaders (e.g. Opacity for glass etc., Emission for lights) or brings little to no gain for a huge cost (Normal is just the derivative of Height; having a separate heightmap for e.g. parallax mapping will give a large performance impact for little visual gain. Refraction and SSS are much too costly.)

 

They already have Albedo, Specular (stored in the Albedo alpha channel), AO (baked into Albedo but they have the separate source files) and Normal maps. Meaning they'd just need to create the Roughness map and they have enough for a so-called "PBR" shader. If they create their textures in 8k (for example) and then downscale them to 4k for the current IL2, they wouldn't even need to re-create higher-res textures for the new game.* Sounds hardly like an investment they wouldn't make if they wanted to port the Ta-152 to the new engine.

 

I don't think it's likely we'll see the Ta-152 in the new game, but the switch to "PBR" has little to do with it.

 

* With some smart re-ordering of channels they could even do it with just 2 texture files, the same amount as the current engine uses. Albedo is 3 channels, Normals 2 (blue can be reconstructed from red and green), Metallic, Roughness and AO each 1. That's 8 channels in total, or 2 RGBA textures.

I kept my post deliberately brief - PBR is not the primary issue. Texture real-estate on the other hand is a bigger issue and even that is secondary to other things that hopefully will be much improved thus making the current ecosystem and any asset created for it (hopefully, if they do as we hope and expect) obsolete by comparison.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Does it come with the promised scripted campaign, Ta-152: Dude, Where’s My Fuel?

[Sobilak]

23 hours ago, JG7_RudeRaptor said:

 

Not sure about the 51s but I know the Ta's had some run-in's with some Tempests, Spits and Yak 9s very late in the war.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frNfaX04Ses&t=17s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vz2gB0FM6U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1jrlvaBLuE

In parts two and three, the author presents the most frequently described Ta152 fights at low altitudes. Especially in the second one, the fight with Tempests. What was described as a domination, turned out to be a draw.

 

[CountZero]

3 hours ago, [CPT]milopugdog said:

With the amount of people wanting a flyable B-25 and/or B-26, I really wonder why they don't just make one of them. At least on this forum, I see way more demand for the flyable bombers than I did for the Ta-152, or planes they suggested making like the late Yaks, Las, or Ju-87.

 

I mean, other pilots and I would be more than happy to pay $35,$45, or whatever because I know the quality this team puts out is worth that amount.

in last dev videos they were realy clear about what it takes for them to consider making bomber insted fighter, fighters are 3 times less resorces to make and earn 3 time more then bomber.

 

so if bomber player buys 6 insted 1 , they would be making them i guess

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, Sobilak said:

altitudes. Especially in the second one, the fight with Tempests. What was described as a domination, turned out to be a draw

I thought they lost 1 each, and the Tempest was being flown by a very new pilot facing an unfamiliar aircraft and that he ultimately stalled in a turn. Sounds pretty even as things go.

[Lusekofte]

3 hours ago, CountZero said:

in last dev videos they were realy clear about what it takes for them to consider making bomber insted fighter, fighters are 3 times less resorces to make and earn 3 time more then bomber.

 

so if bomber player buys 6 insted 1 , they would be making them i guess

Well that is last nail in the coffin for me. But what made me abandon multiplayer all together is the general agreement players have with this policy. It is totally ok the B 26 is flying fuel tanks with no real defence. If they plan to copy Bodenplatte all over again. All game engines in the world would not make me interested. 
If you can’t afford to make a complete combat flight sim with the cost it takes that means we are not in business 

Edited March 3, 2024 by Lusekofte

[Avimimus]

I do somewhat regret the lack of a Finland or '45 east scenario (as that could have given us the Ju-188, Do-217E, Tu-2, or Il-4). Sales of entire modules were used to fund new maps and AI objects, as well as the more expensive aircraft to develop - and with aircraft released as individual Collector Planes, it becomes less likely.

 

However, I wouldn't say that hope is completely lost. If the bomber doesn't have excessive complex systems, probably a large portion of the cost is the 3d modelling and research - and if a 3rd party can do that... it is still quite possible that the developers might choose to implement it. This might be especially true for variants of existing aircraft (e.g. A-20G-1 or Pe-3).

[sevenless]

8 hours ago, [CPT]milopugdog said:

With the amount of people wanting a flyable B-25 and/or B-26, I really wonder why they don't just make one of them. At least on this forum, I see way more demand for the flyable bombers than I did for the Ta-152, or planes they suggested making like the late Yaks, Las, or Ju-87.

 

I guess the reason is simple. The demand on this forum for flyable bombers isn´t representing sales figures for 2/3 engined collector planes (Ju 52, DC-3, Li-2). Which isn´t surprising since only few people of all customers bother to read forums. Additionally they can track how many single player customers decide to fly bomber careers. I guess from a business point of view it just doesn´t make any sense to invest into developing flyable bombers if they, at the same time, can use their ressources to release 2-3 flyable fighter planes with a good prospect to generate sales.

[BraveSirRobin]

13 hours ago, danielprates said:

Interiors and etc for a flyable B26 would have been more or less work than the TA152?

I’m relatively certain that if they thought they could generate more revenue with a B26 then they would have made a flyable B26.

[Flyhighzz]

22 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

Meteor please, as long as we are adding aircraft that barely did anything during the time of the conflict.

It did do enough to fit well into the GB series. We have the Spitfire XIVe and the Ta 152 is coming. 

 

[FliegerAD]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

However, I wouldn't say that hope is completely lost. If the bomber doesn't have excessive complex systems, probably a large portion of the cost is the 3d modelling and research - and if a 3rd party can do that... it is still quite possible that the developers might choose to implement it. This might be especially true for variants of existing aircraft (e.g. A-20G-1 or Pe-3).

 

I have little hope for even that to happen. The Pe-3 in particular is my second most wanted aircraft right now (no 1 is the Ju 88 R-2), but even I have to admit a Ta 152 or P-47 M would sell better. Much better.

 

It is a curious thing that some of the mid-war workhorses like the P-38, P-39, and P-40 have very little mass appeal. Missing variants of them could be easily made and given proper missions in game.

It is all about the late-war super planes, and even then the super high performance units. Talking about a late-war Kurt Tank aircraft? Ta 152, Fw 190 D-11 or D-13? I'd disregard them all for an A-9. But I fear the D-13 would sell much better.

 

Yet, some glimpses of hope remain: the IAR-80, the I-153, the Li-2... Who knows? Maybe the effort of creating a Pe-3 is low enough to justify less sales compared to a, say, Yak-3.

[sevenless]

9 minutes ago, FliegerAD said:

Fw 190 D-11 or D-13? I'd disregard them all for an A-9. But I fear the D-13 would sell much better.

 

All would sell well. IIRC they announced in one of their vids, that they consider releasing an A9. We´ll see.

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I’m relatively certain that if they thought they could generate more revenue with a B26 then they would have made a flyable B26.

I think if they made cockpit for pilot and bombardier and left the turrets to ai. Improved ai gunnery they would benefit more than a TA. But like you we all are highly subjective. 

[[CPT]milopugdog]

3 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

I guess the reason is simple. The demand on this forum for flyable bombers isn´t representing sales figures for 2/3 engined collector planes (Ju 52, DC-3, Li-2). Which isn´t surprising since only few people of all customers bother to read forums. Additionally they can track how many single player customers decide to fly bomber careers. I guess from a business point of view it just doesn´t make any sense to invest into developing flyable bombers if they, at the same time, can use their ressources to release 2-3 flyable fighter planes with a good prospect to generate sales.

 

8 hours ago, CountZero said:

in last dev videos they were realy clear about what it takes for them to consider making bomber insted fighter, fighters are 3 times less resorces to make and earn 3 time more then bomber.

 

so if bomber player buys 6 insted 1 , they would be making them i guess

Yeah, I'm also aware of all these, I just wish they weren't true.

I always figured that bombers were included in the full expansions because the rest of the planeset would subsidize the cost. But at the end of the day, you're both right. Even though I would buy the plane, I've also bought literally everything except for some scripted campaigns. But at the end of the day, the majority aren't interested in bomber gameplay. I mean, even just yesterday, I flew a Me-410 for an hour to a target only for my bomb to not explode... then I flew home. Very engaging lol.

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, Lusekofte said:

I think if they made cockpit for pilot and bombardier and left the turrets to ai. Improved ai gunnery they would benefit more than a TA. But like you we all are highly subjective. 

Almost everyone thinks that if the devs give them what they want then it will be a huge success and make lots of money.

[Lusekofte]

4 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Almost everyone thinks that if the devs give them what they want then it will be a huge success and make lots of money.

Not my thinking. But a lot of people here do want B 26 or 25. 
I do not think they bite, almost everything happened has not gone my way. So I have no illusion. 
But a complete combat flight sim is not complete if only fighters are present. And it got to be a consideration about playability 

It is only my opinion. 
If you mean only hotrods is fine, you probably among majority here , and I respect that. But I too have a right of a opinion

[354thFG_Leifr]

If 1C think a Waco glider will sell, I'm sure they could push for some form of twin engine medium bomber like the B-26 or 25.

[ww2fighter20]

In the last Q&A video they did mention they wanted to make the Tu-2 (along with IL-10, Yak3 and La7) so there is atleast 1 new bomber that might appear in the future.

[Ironman7789]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I do somewhat regret the lack of a Finland or '45 east scenario (as that could have given us the Ju-188, Do-217E, Tu-2, or Il-4). Sales of entire modules were used to fund new maps and AI objects, as well as the more expensive aircraft to develop - and with aircraft released as individual Collector Planes, it becomes less likely.

 

However, I wouldn't say that hope is completely lost. If the bomber doesn't have excessive complex systems, probably a large portion of the cost is the 3d modelling and research - and if a 3rd party can do that... it is still quite possible that the developers might choose to implement it. This might be especially true for variants of existing aircraft (e.g. A-20G-1 or Pe-3).

I’d say the Pe-3 and A-20G (or H) variants would be great additions to round out certain timelines. Also a dedicated RAF variant of the Boston instead of just reskinning the A-20B for the RAF but still dropping FABs. ?  And as others also mentioned previously, though not very likely for 1C to do this, but map dlcs along with collector planes could keep providing good content for a while. Just depends on their willingness to invest time into it all.

If the were serious enough about it, a late war Eastern Front would be great (arguably not for some players), and a mid-war Western/Mediterranean. Not to mention the Karelia front, I miss the good old 1946 campaigns. 

[Lusekofte]

17 minutes ago, ww2fighter20 said:

In the last Q&A video they did mention they wanted to make the Tu-2 (along with IL-10, Yak3 and La7) so there is atleast 1 new bomber that might appear in the future.

I see absolutely no reasoning in why they want to make a Tu-2 instead of B25/26. 
That is if they are serious about PTO after Korea. 
But I guess a B 25/26 in old game will not help either. 

Edited March 3, 2024 by Lusekofte

[FeuerFliegen]

9 hours ago, CountZero said:

in last dev videos they were realy clear about what it takes for them to consider making bomber insted fighter, fighters are 3 times less resorces to make and earn 3 time more then bomber.

 

so if bomber player buys 6 insted 1 , they would be making them i guess

 

How can they know that it will earn 3x more than bomber?  They have never sold a collector's bomber to compare it to.

 

I understand why they might make more collector's fighters than bombers, but I also suspect if they invested the time into a B-25, B-26, or another bomber for once, (which given the fact that much of the work has already been done, I suspect it wouldn't cost 3x as much in resources as a brand new fighter) it might just sell 3x as many as a fighter such as a Hurricane, IAR 80, or Yak-9 and they would make just as much as they would for a fighter that takes one-third of the resources.

[Youtch]

I just watched one of the video shared in this thread, and it is said that Ta-152 could run MW50 for 30 minutes compared to 5min WEP. That is impressive!!!

Edited March 3, 2024 by Youtch

[FeuerFliegen]

1 hour ago, [CPT]milopugdog said:

I flew a Me-410 for an hour to a target only for my bomb to not explode... then I flew home.

 

Can you give details on this hour long flight to target?  At the Me-410's speed, you can make it from one corner of any map, to the opposite corner in less than an hour.

1 minute ago, Youtch said:

I just watched one of the video shared in this thread, and it is said that Ta-152 could run MW50 for 30 minutes!!!

 

Damn!!  Can you share the video?

 

Also, is this 30 minutes at a time without resting?  or 30 minutes throughout the sortie; because current MW50 German fighters have enough MW50 mixture for about 35 minutes of boost.

What about GM-1 nitrous?  How much does it contain total and how long can it go without resting?

I'm hoping that this means we can maybe get GM-1 in other planes now; maybe the Bf109 F-4/Z?

[Youtch]

5 minutes ago, FeuerFliegen said:

Damn!!  Can you share the video?

 

Also, is this 30 minutes at a time without resting?  or 30 minutes throughout the sortie; because current MW50 German fighters have enough MW50 mixture for about 35 minutes of boost.

 

30min continuous

 

[Airborne2001]

I'd like to challenge the arguments being made that the Ta-152 doesn't fit in at low altitude. Many German pilots went on to prove this wrong.

 

Here is a historical tidbit of when a Ta-152 bested a Tempest, which was one of the top low altitude fighters of WWII:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CsYtHysukKk/?igsh=azluY3NqaGo5eWhy

 

(Courtesy of worldwar2jets on Instagram.)

[FeuerFliegen]

Are we specifically getting the H-1 variant?  I assumed so but wasn't positive as the only statement I saw regarding it in the dev blog was

"they were produced in very small numbers (about 25 H-1s)"

[Avimimus]

33 minutes ago, ww2fighter20 said:

In the last Q&A video they did mention they wanted to make the Tu-2 (along with IL-10, Yak3 and La7) so there is atleast 1 new bomber that might appear in the future.

 

In the last video they said that fans wanted them to make a Tu-2 and Pe-3, but that bombers were expensive to develop in time and resources (i.e. that twin engined aircraft are unlikely). They did not say they had plans for these aircraft.

 

17 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

I see absolutely no reasoning in why they want to make a Tu-2 instead of B25/26. 

 

Well, let's see:

- Both aircraft would have maps in which they could be used.

- Both aircraft have similar defensive armaments.

- The Tu-2 has simpler systems/turrets/bomb-sights (so cheaper to develop).

- The Tu-2 is much easier for them to research.

- The Tu-2 flies faster, has a larger bomb load, and a stronger armament for the pilot.

 

So, I could see an argument for preferring the Tu-2. Not that it is very likely to matter.

 

 

  

5 minutes ago, FeuerFliegen said:

Are we specifically getting the H-1 variant?  I assumed so but wasn't positive as the only statement I saw regarding it in the dev blog was

"they were produced in very small numbers (about 25 H-1s)"

 

Yes, I believe it was stated twice (in older dev updates or forum comments)

 

 

  

21 minutes ago, FeuerFliegen said:

 

How can they know that it will earn 3x more than bomber?  They have never sold a collector's bomber to compare it to.

 

 

Possibly sales data from the Rise of Flight days? Several twin engined bomber aircraft were sold as individual Collector Planes during that era.

 

  

3 hours ago, FliegerAD said:

 

I have little hope for even that to happen. The Pe-3 in particular is my second most wanted aircraft right now (no 1 is the Ju 88 R-2), but even I have to admit a Ta 152 or P-47 M would sell better. Much better.

 

It is a curious thing that some of the mid-war workhorses like the P-38, P-39, and P-40 have very little mass appeal. Missing variants of them could be easily made and given proper missions in game.

 

 

Yes, I agree (although I'd go with a 188 over the R-2). I'd add that the Fw-189 or Fi-156 would be pretty cool with the new artillery spotting gameplay.

 

Still, the I wouldn't turn down a He-162 if it was on offer ? Such a weird mix of desperate economy and ambitious aerodynamics... a lot of interesting contradictions in the design. Plus, it's pretty (to me anyway).

[EAF19_Marsh]

13 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

and ambitious aerodynamics

i think you misspelt ‘rubbish’ ?

 

Still, at least they kind of sorted out the glue issue…

[ww2fighter20]

18 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

In the last video they said that fans wanted them to make a Tu-2 and Pe-3, but that bombers were expensive to develop in time and resources (i.e. that twin engined aircraft are unlikely). They did not say they had plans for these aircraft.

I just looked back at the video (Brief Room Episode 3: Questions and Answers session) and that was mentioned starting at 10:05 except not about the Tu-2 and Pe3 but the IL-4 and Pe3, also interesting they mentioned interest in bombers is greater but to an small extend compared to fighters

 

An bit further at the video starting at 15:26 minute there is an question 'Do you plan on adding soviet planes from 1944/1945?' and they respond they would like to get the Yak 3/La 7/IL-10 and Tu-2 in, but also mention they aren't sure if they have the opportunity to do so.

 

 

Maybe the Tu-2 is being considered for Korea as flyable, and if that happens it likely easier to make the ww2 version.

Thinking about it same might end up happening if the B26 (A26) is made for korea.

[migmadmarine]

Hah, that would be a funny outcome, the forum clambers for a flyable B-26 for ages, only to get the invader.

[Gambit21]

18 hours ago, danielprates said:

Interiors and etc for a flyable B26 would have been more or less work than the TA152?

 

Since you ask...more, significantly more.

That said, as BSR indicated it's also a return on investment issue. So even if it was the same, or even less, it might not pencil out in their favor compared to the Ta-152.

 

[Rjel]

43 minutes ago, migmadmarine said:

Hah, that would be a funny outcome, the forum clambers for a flyable B-26 for ages, only to get the invader.

Not a bad trade off IMHO. Still valid for late WWII and then onto Korea and Vietnam.

Edited March 3, 2024 by Rjel
Spelling

[FeuerFliegen]

59 minutes ago, ww2fighter20 said:

Maybe the Tu-2 is being considered for Korea as flyable, and if that happens it likely easier to make the ww2 version.

Thinking about it same might end up happening if the B26 (A26) is made for korea.

 

It's somewhat confusing but the B-26 from the early '40s is not the same plane at all as the B-26 from the late '40s

[Avimimus]

Yeah, I still have to remind myself of that sometimes - how they renamed the A-26 the B-26 after the war...

[FliegerAD]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Yes, I agree (although I'd go with a 188 over the R-2). I'd add that the Fw-189 or Fi-156 would be pretty cool with the new artillery spotting gameplay.

 

Still, the I wouldn't turn down a He-162 if it was on offer

 

I would not either, because I have a large number of German documents on the He 162 at home (in copy, of course), and I like the bird. So misunderstood... But even I have to admit it is not a good for Il-2 as of now.

 

Regarding the Ju 88 R-2: it is a heavy fighter hence it has a different role than the 188, and it can be done with relatively low effort as all the graphic assets needed are present in game already.

It is basically an upgrade of the C-6 and fits perfectly on the Normandy map. Better than the C-6, actually, but I know the latter was chosen because you can use it in the east. So no complaints here. I just want the R-2.

 

Artillery spotters would be nice indeed. The Fw 189 in particular is such an underrated aircraft, but again I must admit the fun in game would be limited... Let's face it: we want frontal guns to shoot at stuff.

[Yogiflight]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

2 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

I see absolutely no reasoning in why they want to make a Tu-2 instead of B25/26. 

 

Well, let's see:

- Both aircraft would have maps in which they could be used.

- Both aircraft have similar defensive armaments.

- The Tu-2 has simpler systems/turrets/bomb-sights (so cheaper to develop).

- The Tu-2 is much easier for them to research.

- The Tu-2 flies faster, has a larger bomb load, and a stronger armament for the pilot.

 

So, I could see an argument for preferring the Tu-2. Not that it is very likely to matter.

Tu-2 has to be built from scratch, while B-25 and B-26 are already flying in game, so there are the 3d models and FM and DM already made. And if they make only the pilot and bombardier playable, there is no defensive armament to develope anymore.

 

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

2 hours ago, FeuerFliegen said:

 

How can they know that it will earn 3x more than bomber?  They have never sold a collector's bomber to compare it to.

 

 

Possibly sales data from the Rise of Flight days? Several twin engined bomber aircraft were sold as individual Collector Planes during that era.

Quite some days between Rise of Flights and now. And the customers might be quite different as well. There might be a pretty big surprise possible, how many would buy a flyable B-25 or B-26. And from the career stand point, they would make much more sense than an Allied glider, which, historically correct would have about two missions.

[Avimimus]

14 minutes ago, FliegerAD said:

Artillery spotters would be nice indeed. The Fw 189 in particular is such an underrated aircraft, but again I must admit the fun in game would be limited... Let's face it: we want frontal guns to shoot at stuff.

 

Well, the Fw-189 has those...  same forward firing armament as the Ju-87 in fact (and twice the gunners)! I do get your point though, especially with regard to the Fi-156... although I think the extreme STOLL capability would still cause many people to purchase it.

 

That said - hear me out - what aircraft had the largest gun armament (both number of guns and calibre of guns) during WWII?

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, FeuerFliegen said:

Are we specifically getting the H-1 variant?  I assumed so but wasn't positive as the only statement I saw regarding it in the dev blog was

"they were produced in very small numbers (about 25 H-1s)"

 

Yes