The Case for a Flyable B-29 in Korea. IL2 Series

[=KG76=flyus747]

Hey everyone,

 

I wanted to take a moment to share why I decided to make this video about the B-29 in IL-2 Korea. For those of us who love flying heavy bombers, the uncertainty surrounding whether the B-29 will be flyable hits hard.

 

This isn’t just any plane—it’s a game-changer, an aircraft that would bring depth, challenge, and variety to a plane set that otherwise leans heavily towards fighters.

 

To put this into perspective: imagine if iconic aircraft like the F-86 Sabre or MiG-15 BIS, were announced as AI-only. That’s the kind of disbelief bomber players feel when we hear the B-29 not being flyable.

 

It’s not just about losing access to a plane—it’s about losing an experience that only a fully flyable B-29 could deliver.

 

This video is my way of making the case for why the B-29 must be flyable in Korea. It’s more than a wish—it’s about ensuring that all players, not just fighter pilots, get to fully engage with this history and era.

 

I hope some of it will reasonate with you and encourage some thoughtful discussion.

 

Thank you for your time and support,
– flyus747

 

 

Edited January 12 by =KG76=flyus747
Spelling

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

The possible gameplay features part opened my mind to this, the B-29 does look like it could be interesting in the right scenarios.

[[CPT]Crunch]

And the average sortie length in hours was? 

 

There was a reason for this, and it will never fit in a two hour maximum play mission type of game.

Edited January 12 by [CPT]Crunch

[Avimimus]

5 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

And the average sortie length in hours was? 

 

There was a reason for this, and it will never fit in a two hour maximum play mission type of game.

 

Previous versions of Il-2 had long endurance aircraft (e.g. TB-3), the low speed of WWI aircraft means they often can have sorties over two hours.

 

I still agree that the long sortie length is an argument against inclusion though... sometimes I think aircraft like heavy bombers, airships, and submarines really deserve their own game engines with different optimisations and higher degrees of time compression as options.

 

P.S. The feature I miss most is the time-skip feature that existed in Red Baron, EF-2000 etc... breaking the mission into a number of stages and ensuring each segment was exciting.

[Avimimus]

12 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

I hope some of it will reasonate with you and encourage some thoughtful discussion.

I rather appreciate the quality of the effort in the video btw! 

 

Now what I disagree with: The definition of bomber.

 

It should be defined by doctrinal uses. If the airforce primarily acquired and operated a type primarily to deliver bombs to the enemy, then it is a bomber design. If doctrine changes so that a unit primarily delivers bombs to the enemy, then it is a bomber unit. You can make an argument that the Ar-234 was developed primarily as a reconnaissance aircraft, but the design as produced was used primarily as a bomber. The Lisunov Li-2 could be argued to be both a transport and a bomber (as most of the bomber variants retained a transport capacity.

 

However, making the argument that it should be defined based on range or payload is inadvisable. I'm actually slightly offended by it! Allow me to explain: WWI or Interwar types would not qualify. Aircraft like the Handley-Page O/400 or the Fairy Battle or the Do-17 are 'not bombers' according to your criteria. I suspect their crews and their commanders would strongly disagree (as well as anyone subject to a raid by them).

 

Arguing that the 'only bombers' are four engined types essentially ignores the experience of most nations at most times. It is like those people who insist on referring to the B-25/B-26 as 'light bombers' due to the fact that the Americans classified them that way post-war. It dismisses the understandings of everyone who isn't an American in 1955 by imposing one system of classification on all of history.

 

So, maybe use a definition that allows the Do-17 or Blenheim to be a bomber? My suggestion would be to simply decry the lack of 'four engine bombers', 'strategic bombers' or 'heavy bombers' rather than claiming that other types are not bombers because they don't achieve the range and payload of a few bombers developed by the United States and Great Britain in the 1940s.

 

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

@flyus747 - well presented video.

 

I've no skin in this particular game, as I'm unlikely to be buying Korea.

But what I'd say is, your polls are a very small sample size, and I would expect most of the participants were drawn there because they already have an interest in Bombers.

Because of the size of the plane, all the different stations, all its 'systems' and the complexities thereof - would it not have to be released effectively as a module in itself ?

And priced accordingly ?

Maybe that would be viable, but obviously the devs would have to try to determine that.

[Juri_JS]

I think a flyable A-26/B-26 would be the better choice for Korea.

[Avimimus]

I also see a stronger argument for the B-26/A-26 myself - more manoeuvrable, more varied approaches to ground attack - including strafing and rockets as well as level bombing - lots of weapon options.

 

2 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

But what I'd say is, your polls are a very small sample size, and I would expect most of the participants were drawn there because they already have an interest in Bombers.

 

I think such polls are interesting, but limited. For instance, some polls organised by online squadrons will show more than 70% of players fly primarily online. Polls on this forum asking about what theatre is most of interest have had the Spanish Civil War and the Mediterranean as the two top choices - areas of great interest for the historically inclined and for those of us who have been flying flight simulators for decades, but less likely among most of the audience.

 

There is also a bit of an issue with regard to asking if people would 'like' to have something, without putting it in the context of other choices. For instance, if people had a choice between a flyable B-29 and the addition of a flyable AD-4 Skyraider, F7-F, and F-82G... a lot of people would pick those three aircraft (especially as at least two of them could be modelled with the same effort it would require to model the B-29).

 

My own personal opinion is that:

- We shouldn't discourage each other from dreaming of new features - or from considering how new directions in flight simming (or the resurrecting of old features from past sims) could become viable in the present day.

- At the same time we shouldn't assume that other people want the same things as us or that our small/vocal online community is representative of most people who purchase the flight sim or use it.

 

A little humility in both directions goes a long way.

[BlitzPig_EL]

When speaking of "bombers" in the Korean context, it is really not a "black and white" distinction at all.  Let's look at the F 80 Shooting Star, for example.

Sure, the. USAF classification of it was a fighter.  However, it became apparent that the Mig 15 utterly outclassed it in the fighter role.  So it spent most of its time in Korea in the ground attack role, and they, along with the F 84 were organized into Fighter Bomber squadrons, and both types were very effective in that role.

 

Would I like to see it as a flyable? Sure, but in the context of the Korean War I personally would rather have the A/B 26 Invader and Tu 2 be flyable.

 

Save the heavy and mediums for the Pacific.  B17 and 25 for the Allies, and "Emily", and "Betty" for Imperial Japan.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

If the main issue seems to be time/money vs easier to model stuff, maybe identifying which stations, systems, etc. of the plane could be cut out, or simplified, and which need full-fidelity would help make making it flyable more attractive to 1C. I don't have the answer, just floating the idea.

[Avimimus]

At the risk of going a bit off-topic, many of the B-26 in Korea had their belly turret removed, and some B-26 also had the dorsal turret removed... so there is the option of removing them entirely (rather than not modelling those stations). The Tu-2 was still using hand-held defensive guns, so those stations would be fairly simple to model (but would still require considerable additional 3d modelling). I'd personally be happy to only have the pilot and bombardier positions modelled.

 

As for the B-29, I think the gunnery system is a major attraction (but also a significant expense to model). It will be interesting to see if the AI aircraft have such a system. I suspect that more than one turret may be operated by the same gunner (similar to the Me-410), but that the complexity of the rest of the system won't be modelled:

 

[=KG76=flyus747]

 

11 hours ago, Avimimus said:

It should be defined by doctrinal uses. If the airforce primarily acquired and operated a type primarily to deliver bombs to the enemy, then it is a bomber design. If doctrine changes so that a unit primarily delivers bombs to the enemy, then it is a bomber unit. You can make an argument that the Ar-234 was developed primarily as a reconnaissance aircraft, but the design as produced was used primarily as a bomber. The Lisunov Li-2 could be argued to be both a transport and a bomber (as most of the bomber variants retained a transport capacity.

Doctrine is one way to define a 'bomber', but definitely not the only way. I did not want to get into too much of the semantics. As you can see, it took you quite a while for you to explain it all and still it isn't conclusive. The P47 and Typhoon are both originally designed as fighters, but doctrinally, both served primarily as ground attackers. They changed so much over time eventually they had to come up with a brand new term for them, "fighter-bomber". Those are polar opposites. I just want to point out we haven't had "bomber" bombers, if you will. We've been getting lots of "fighter/dive/transport" bombers. So yeah, Range and Payload gets that point across.

 

11 hours ago, Avimimus said:

However, making the argument that it should be defined based on range or payload is inadvisable. I'm actually slightly offended by it! Allow me to explain: WWI or Interwar types would not qualify. Aircraft like the Handley-Page O/400 or the Fairy Battle or the Do-17 are 'not bombers' according to your criteria. I suspect their crews and their commanders would strongly disagree (as well as anyone subject to a raid by them).

Why would the Handley Page or Do17 not qualify? 

 

11 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Arguing that the 'only bombers' are four engined types essentially ignores the experience of most nations at most times.

 The term I used was 'true bombers', not 'only bombers'. That's not the same and I intentionally made sure I was clear on this, specifically to avoid this very misunderstanding (which I see a lot btw, you're not the first). My suggestion is to rewatch that part. The A-20 and He 111 were included in this list already and appear in the very beginning of that section. (Although the A20 is less true than He 111 but thats besides the point😀)

 

11 hours ago, Avimimus said:

So, maybe use a definition that allows the Do-17 or Blenheim to be a bomber? My suggestion would be to simply decry the lack of 'four engine bombers', 'strategic bombers' or 'heavy bombers' rather than claiming that other types are not bombers because they don't achieve the range and payload of a few bombers developed by the United States and Great Britain in the 1940s.

Refer to my earlier comments about the common occurrence of 'true bombers' being misconstrued as 'only bombers' in these discussions.

Edited January 12 by =KG76=flyus747

[Aapje]

11 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

They changed so much over time eventually they had to come up with a brand new term for them, "fighter-bomber". Those are polar opposites.

 

How so? The same planes have been doing both throughout the history of air warfare, from WW I to the modern day.

 

11 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

I just want to point out we haven't had "bomber" bombers, if you will. We've been getting lots of "fighter/dive/transport" bombers.

 

Don't the PE-2, A-20, He-111, Ju-88 and Me 410 count?

 

I just don't think that the GB engine is well suited for flying big, high altitude bombers. You can't fly in big formations and you can't skip time that much.

 

Also, in multiplayer we already see that there is a relative lack of interest in flying bombers: 

 

 

Everything seems to point to your desire being very niche.

[Avimimus]

14 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

 

Doctrine is one way to define a 'bomber', but definitely not the only way. I did not want to get into too much of the semantics. As you can see, it took you quite a while for you to explain it all and still it isn't conclusive. The P47 and Typhoon are both originally designed as fighters, but doctrinally, both served primarily as ground attackers. They changed so much over time eventually they had to come up with a brand new term for them, "fighter-bomber". Those are polar opposites. I just want to point out we haven't had "bomber" bombers, if you will. We've been getting lots of "fighter/dive/transport" bombers. So yeah, Range and Payload gets that point across.

 

Why would the Handley Page or Do17 not qualify? 

 

 The term I used was 'true bombers', not 'only bombers'. That's not the same and I intentionally made sure I was clear on this, specifically to avoid this very misunderstanding (which I see a lot btw, you're not the first). My suggestion is to rewatch that part. The A-20 and He 111 were included in this list already and appear in the very beginning of that section. (Although the A20 is less true than He 111 but thats besides the point😀)

 

Refer to my earlier comments about the common occurrence of 'true bombers' being misconstrued as 'only bombers' in these discussions.

 

Do-17Z-2

500kg of bombs at 1,010 km (1,000 kg at 660 km)

 

Compared to:

 

Ar-234B-2

500kg of bombs at 1500 km (1500kg in overload)

 

Lisunov Li-2

1000kg of bombs at approximately 1000 km (2600kg in overload)

 

We can see that the types you dismiss as not being 'true bombers' based on their payload and/or range both had two to three times the payload or range of the Do-17. According to your criteria these aircraft aren't 'true bombers'. Even the Pe-2 wouldn't make the cut (1000kg at 550 km)!

 

It is also worth noting that the Do-17Z-2 was a later model Do-17 with a heavier bomb-load than the original (twice the operational bombload)! The Do-17 isn't that unusual either - the Blenheim has 540 kg at approximately 1500 km, the Fairy Battle is 680km at less than 800 km.

 

You could say 'heavy bombers', 'strategic bombers', 'four engine bombers'... You have lots of options for describing in positive terms the type of bomber experience you want.

 

You don't need to dismiss several medium bombers and dive bombers as not being 'true bombers' or do so by claiming that the payload of the Ar-234 and Li-2 are reasons for not calling them 'true bombers'. There are lots of better ways to do this which are less dismissive of the entirety of WWII history that doesn't happen after 1942 and isn't focussed on the U.S. (as well as possibly the U.K.) and doesn't involve dismissing literally several dozen purpose designed bomber types as not being 'true bombers'...

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

5 hours ago, Aapje said:

I just don't think that the GB engine is well suited for flying big, high altitude bombers. You can't fly in big formations and you can't skip time that much.

 

Also, in multiplayer we already see that there is a relative lack of interest in flying bombers: 

Maybe the reason for the second paragraph, has a lot to do with the first paragraph. Korea will have large AI formations 1 or more human players could join and find protection in, and what got me open minded about the B-29s potential was its sexy turret system. I don't like its odds vs the Mig-15, but I think the B-29 specifically could have the potential to be fun in a prop only scenario.

[=KG76=flyus747]

6 hours ago, Aapje said:

How so? The same planes have been doing both throughout the history of air warfare, from WW I to the modern day.

I don't think I've heard the term fighter-bomber until WWII era. Early on, planes were very specialized. Today, not so much. WWII is when they started to change and you start hearing terms like 'multi-role' fighter etc...

 

 

6 hours ago, Aapje said:

Don't the PE-2, A-20, He-111, Ju-88 and Me 410 count?

Not sure what your point is here. Can you rephrase?

 

6 hours ago, Aapje said:

I just don't think that the GB engine is well suited for flying big, high altitude bombers. You can't fly in big formations and you can't skip time that much.

 

Also, in multiplayer we already see that there is a relative in flying bombers: 

It's more complex than simply just 'lack of interest'.

Two reasons:

1. Game mechanics do not facilitate bomber experience well. This is covered in the video already.
2. Multiplayer servers also do not make bombers viable. Combat Box is one example.

[=KG76=flyus747]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Do-17Z-2

500kg of bombs at 1,010 km (1,000 kg at 660 km)

 

Compared to:

 

Ar-234B-2

500kg of bombs at 1500 km (1500kg in overload)

 

Lisunov Li-2

1000kg of bombs at approximately 1000 km (2600kg in overload)

The F-4 Phantom carries the payload of a B-29.

The Stuka carries the payload of a Gotha IV.

This does not make the Stuka or Phantom a 'heavy bomber'.

Isn't comparing a 1940 Do17 to a 1942 Li-2 to a 1945 Ar 234, " imposing one system of classification on all of history"?

On 1/12/2025 at 2:26 AM, Avimimus said:

It is like those people who insist on referring to the B-25/B-26 as 'light bombers' due to the fact that the Americans classified them that way post-war. It dismisses the understandings of everyone who isn't an American in 1955 by imposing one system of classification on all of history.

 

 

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

You could say 'heavy bombers', 'strategic bombers', 'four engine bombers'... You have lots of options for describing in positive terms the type of bomber experience you want.

The term 'heavy bombers' does not include Tu-2 and B-26 (which players certainly would want). So I don't think that (or any of the other ones you mentioned) would be logical. Ideally, Korea should include a mix of B-29s, Tu-2s, and B-26s to have some bomber experience in the planeset. Simply using the term 'heavy bombers' risks narrowing the focus and leaving out those other aircraft. Again, semantics is a losing game here. The definitions themselves have been shown to be fluid with time and us online players are certainly not as qualified to define what those definitions are as we would like to think. So I try to stay away from that.

 

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

We can see that the types you dismiss as not being 'true bombers' based on their payload and/or range both had two to three times the payload or range of the Do-17. According to your criteria these aircraft aren't 'true bombers'. Even the Pe-2 wouldn't make the cut (1000kg at 550 km)!

It is also worth noting that the Do-17Z-2 was a later model Do-17 with a heavier bomb-load than the original (twice the operational bombload)! The Do-17 isn't that unusual either - the Blenheim has 540 kg at approximately 1500 km, the Fairy Battle is 680km at less than 800 km.

Criteria was intentionally kept vague. It's just 'tremendous' Range and Payload. How much precisely? Good luck with that. That is a losing game.

 

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

You don't need to dismiss several medium bombers and dive bombers as not being 'true bombers' or do so by claiming that the payload of the Ar-234 and Li-2 are reasons for not calling them 'true bombers'. There are lots of better ways to do this which are less dismissive of the entirety of WWII history that doesn't happen after 1942 and isn't focussed on the U.S. (as well as possibly the U.K.) and doesn't involve dismissing literally several dozen purpose designed bomber types as not being 'true bombers'...

For your sake, I would interpret 'true bombers' as 'level bombers.' While I’m not personally a fan of that term, I think it aligns with what I am describing in the video.

 

Regarding semantics, it’s important to consider the difference between IL2’s multiplayer experience and the historical realities. They are not often the same. In multiplayer, for example, the A-20 is flown as a hybrid between a bomber and a fighter—once its bombs are gone, it becomes a fighter. There are even videos and small communities that pride themselves on this style of play. The Ar 234 is typically flown as a fast Jabo, and the Li-2 is largely overlooked because the Pe-2 performs better in most roles (aside from transport). If someone unfamiliar with WWII were to observe how these planes are flown in multiplayer, they might form conclusions about their roles that differ significantly from their historical use. During the making of this video, I have to contend with that facet of the community as well as yours, historicity. It's not an easy line to walk I would say. As explained in the video, some think a plane slapped with a bomb is already a bomber...while others may know better, I am speaking to both sides of the aisle.

On 1/12/2025 at 3:10 AM, Zooropa_Fly said:

@flyus747 - well presented video.

 

I've no skin in this particular game, as I'm unlikely to be buying Korea.

But what I'd say is, your polls are a very small sample size, and I would expect most of the participants were drawn there because they already have an interest in Bombers.

Because of the size of the plane, all the different stations, all its 'systems' and the complexities thereof - would it not have to be released effectively as a module in itself ?

And priced accordingly ?

Maybe that would be viable, but obviously the devs would have to try to determine that.

The poll has options for both yes or no. 

It is not recommended to speculate on the reasons why people vote X or Y because it has more to say on ones own bias than anything. It is not based on any data other than ones own thoughts. Although I would say your speculation is not unreasonable. What would you say is a more effective way to raise the question?

 

[=KG76=flyus747]

On 1/12/2025 at 6:00 AM, Avimimus said:

There is also a bit of an issue with regard to asking if people would 'like' to have something, without putting it in the context of other choices. For instance, if people had a choice between a flyable B-29 and the addition of a flyable AD-4 Skyraider, F7-F, and F-82G... a lot of people would pick those three aircraft (especially as at least two of them could be modelled with the same effort it would require to model the B-29).

From your same post:

Quote

"we shouldn't assume that other people want the same things as us or that our small/vocal online community is representative of most people who purchase the flight sim or use it."

But anyways,

let us assume there was a poll asking for B-29 or F-82 or F7F or AD4 etc...

let us also assume the outcome is similar to your speculation. "a lot of people would pick those three aircraft"

Therefore a small percentage (let's say ~10%) vote for B-29.

 

What is your conclusion from this (hypothetical) poll?

[LukeFF]

19 minutes ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

The Ar 234 is typically flown as a fast Jabo

 

And it was in the real war as well - typically against vehicle convoys and troop columns. It's a good example of a plane designed for one thing - reconnaissance in this case - and being used for far more than that. Level bombing with it was extremely rare - most often, at least before March/April 1945, dive bombing was the primary tactic. 

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

The poll has options for both yes or no. 

 

And if you say no, you are forced to pick a bomber that you would want.

 

So the poll is hostile towards players that wouldn't fly any bomber and want flyable fighters (or fighter-bombers), not bombers.

 

Quote

For your sake, I would interpret 'true bombers' as 'level bombers.' While I’m not personally a fan of that term, I think it aligns with what I am describing in the video.

 

This is why I posted the list of bombers. AFAIK, each of those has a bomb sight that can be used for level bombing. So it seems that there are plenty of options in GB, and with planes that are probably a lot easier to produce. So expecting them to make a huge bomber seems like quite the ask.

 

If I were 1CGS, I would at most consider such a plane for a 2nd Pacific module, once Korea and the 1st Pacific module do well. Then a flyable B-29 could retroactively be used for Korea and the 1st Pacific module.

Edited January 13 by Aapje

[Trooper117]

4 minutes ago, Aapje said:

So expecting them to make a huge bomber seems like quite the ask.

 

Careful mate...

[Talon_]

3 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

Multiplayer servers also do not make bombers viable. Combat Box is one example.

 

Believe me we tried 😆 it's the players and their lack of desire for bomber gameplay that leaves them underutilised in multiplayer.

[Alonzo]

3 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

Multiplayer servers also do not make bombers viable. Combat Box is one example.

 

When your definition of "viable" is "equally effective as precision bombing objectives in all map conditions and with air spawns so bombers don't need to climb to altitude" you are right. For more reasonable definitions of "viable" I would argue bombers are completely viable on many of the multiplayer servers.

 

I won't be responding here again.

[MiGCap]

I am one of the guys who usually fly more often bomber or fighter-bomber missions than pure fighter missions on Combat Box and other MP servers. Like the Ar 234 and the Ju 88 as well. And sometimes I enjoy the Gotha in FC.

 

I am really looking forward to the F-80 in Korea IL-2 and would be happy to get an A-26 Invader. But I would never gave my spare time for a long endurance high-altitude mission in a B-29. It would be just too boring.

[JG27_Mainz]

9 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

1. Multiplayer servers also do not make bombers viable. Combat Box is one example.

I am curious what kind of objective layout would make bombers viable. Would you consider this a viable bomber target? If so, what makes it viable? If not, what needs to change?

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

I readily admit it has been a very long time since I, or any of the BlitzPigs have flown online, or sadly these days, fly at all.  But the problem is not viable targets, the problem is the amount of organization it takes to make level bombing of the type done by American or British heavy bombers in WW2, to work in an online environment.  Even if you could muster say, 5 or 6 heavies to fly in a proper formation for saturation bombing of a target as illustrated in the above screen shot, to make them effective you would need at least twice as many fighters to escort them.  Therein lies the issue.  Where are you going to get 10 fighter pilots to take on the mostly boring job of escorting bombers, when they could be off racking up kills on their own?  It just doesn't work like that online.  At least it didn't when I was flying a lot.   In a world where personal kill rates are what matter, bombers don't have a chance.

Edited January 14 by BlitzPig_EL

[Hanu]

10 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

Believe me we tried 😆 it's the players and their lack of desire for bomber gameplay that leaves them underutilised in multiplayer.

For me the lack of desire came from the change that nerfed the blast radius of bombs. Most notable in bigger ones, like 1000kg's. It took careful planning, luck, time and calculation to make an attack run you could also survive, just to be disappointed at the target you missed by 5-10 meters from high altitude without effect.

IL-2 Korea could change this however with it's better dynamic craters etc.

 

Some part of the change was understandable, but still the end result was that high altitude bombing was not rewarding any more. For me at least. Only CAS with smaller ones like 100kg's is ok, but they are suicide runs alone.

Just my 2c.

[Zooropa_Fly]

On 1/13/2025 at 9:20 AM, =KG76=flyus747 said:

The poll has options for both yes or no. 

It is not recommended to speculate on the reasons why people vote X or Y because it has more to say on ones own bias than anything. It is not based on any data other than ones own thoughts. Although I would say your speculation is not unreasonable. What would you say is a more effective way to raise the question?

 

Just the eternal problem problem with these kind of statistics - it's usually more about who you ask than the answers you get.

Yes there were answers in the positive and negative, but are existing bomber pilots more likely to participate ?

I certainly have no bias in this case, the problem I see is the small sample size. If there was 1000 participants, results would certainly be more credible.

Not that it is actually a problem, nothing wrong with what you've done.

You've stimulated discussion which is what a forum is all about, but I doubt there's anything thus which would make the Devs sit up and take notice at this point.

 

 

As to the question of what a bomber is or isn't, are there concrete definitions ?

Certainly you could identify heavy / medium / light bombers.

But is the basic term 'bomber' not really defining an aircrafts flight role rather than the aircraft itself ?

If I took a grenade in a EIII to drop on the trenches, I'd be on a bombing mission - so I be using the plane effectively as a bomber.

 

On the subject of 'fighter bomber', I'd classify the Bristol as the first one o' them !

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Remember the B-29 and what a beautiful party girl she is, let's run a train of thought on her.

 

 

[Avimimus]

21 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

But anyways,

let us assume there was a poll asking for B-29 or F-82 or F7F or AD4 etc...

let us also assume the outcome is similar to your speculation. "a lot of people would pick those three aircraft"

Therefore a small percentage (let's say ~10%) vote for B-29.

 

What is your conclusion from this (hypothetical) poll?

 

  Very little - the answer is that I would conclude very little.

 

Such a poll wouldn't tell me:

- what most forum members want (most forum members ignore polls).

- what other users want (>95% of users don't visit the forums).

- what people would want if the questions were worded differently (e.g. different options).

- what other features/aircraft people would be willing to give up to get the aircraft (unless the survey provided all competing options)

- what people would want if the options were better described (or if they had better concept art)

- what people who would be attracted by the product would want (e.g. if you release Korea instead of the Spanish Civil War, you might attract an audience that is more interested in jet aircraft than in interwar aircraft... a poll only tells you about your current audience, not about what future audiences could be created around different products in the future).

 

So, I might conclude that some of the more active forum members think it is worth communicating that they want an aircraft (possibly more than another aircraft)... but nothing more.

 

Now, if I had access to data about everyone purchasing flight simulators (not just forum users) so I could produce proper statistical weights. If I had multiple scales with multiple dimensions so that I could map that overall understandings and perceptions of the audience in a more multidimensional way, and if I could present a series of pitches for different products in a controlled environment, then I might have broader conclusions... but they'd still be pretty tentative.

 

So the answer is - if the poll told me exactly what I wanted to hear - I'd still conclude very little from it.

[Gambit21]

Juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

[MajorMagee]

NMUSAF B-29 Display in Dayton Ohio

[=KG76=flyus747]

On 1/13/2025 at 9:42 AM, LukeFF said:

 

And it was in the real war as well - typically against vehicle convoys and troop columns. It's a good example of a plane designed for one thing - reconnaissance in this case - and being used for far more than that. Level bombing with it was extremely rare - most often, at least before March/April 1945, dive bombing was the primary tactic. 

Not necessarily. There is a difference between dive bombing (low angle bombing in this context) and 'glide attack' with BZA. Players typically dive bomb. Dive bombing is much more familiar to the player when their options are primarily the Fw190s, the Typhoons etc... Real life 234 pilots primarily used BZA. 

 

Also, while players may use the 234 similarly (not really) to real life, the reasons are often very different.

1. Systems 
   • Online, players don't level bomb for a variety of reasons (time being chief among them), none of which emulate the real reasons why they weren't employed in combat—the integration between the autopilot and bombsight were problematic. In GB, the two are not integrated and work flawlessly.
2. Experience
   • In addition, real-life training emphasized BZA usage due to preferences of key instructors, limiting the use of the Lotfe. Players are not bound by such realities. They aim bombs like they would in a P38 (or any aircraft without a bomb aiming computer) because that is what is most familiar to them. 

Without these historical restrictions modeled, drawing the similarities between real life and player tactics is somewhat misleading.

 

That is the simple gist. I could talk for more but maybe not here. I don't want to sidetrack in a topic on the B-29. 

[=KG76=flyus747]

On 1/14/2025 at 9:22 AM, Avimimus said:

 

  Very little - the answer is that I would conclude very little.

 

Such a poll wouldn't tell me:

- what most forum members want (most forum members ignore polls).

- what other users want (>95% of users don't visit the forums).

- what people would want if the questions were worded differently (e.g. different options).

- what other features/aircraft people would be willing to give up to get the aircraft (unless the survey provided all competing options)

- what people would want if the options were better described (or if they had better concept art)

- what people who would be attracted by the product would want (e.g. if you release Korea instead of the Spanish Civil War, you might attract an audience that is more interested in jet aircraft than in interwar aircraft... a poll only tells you about your current audience, not about what future audiences could be created around different products in the future).

 

So, I might conclude that some of the more active forum members think it is worth communicating that they want an aircraft (possibly more than another aircraft)... but nothing more.

 

Now, if I had access to data about everyone purchasing flight simulators (not just forum users) so I could produce proper statistical weights. If I had multiple scales with multiple dimensions so that I could map that overall understandings and perceptions of the audience in a more multidimensional way, and if I could present a series of pitches for different products in a controlled environment, then I might have broader conclusions... but they'd still be pretty tentative.

 

So the answer is - if the poll told me exactly what I wanted to hear - I'd still conclude very little from it.

Given the limitations of polls and that "very little" can be concluded, as you say, suggesting rephrasing is redundant from the outset.

 

Your suggestion, which essentially asks that we attain near-perfect knowledge of all perspectives, sounds agreeable in theory but is likely neither realistic nor feasible. This feedback could be more valuable if it provided practical solutions rather than indulging in exercises of futility.

 

P.s.

In the interest of speculation, a few more questions you can add to your list:

- How many left Great Battles due to lack of bombers?

- How many more would be present if more bomber options were present?

 

These questions would undoubtedly face their own biases not unlike the ones you have already provided but as you point out "very little" can be gained in the first place. I personally would not hold such extreme ideals when you take into account the scope of what needs to be done, but perhaps you can show us how it's done. 

Edited January 16 by =KG76=flyus747
Wording

[Avimimus]

I essentially agree with you!

 

This is one reason why I don't think people should 'rain on another person's parade' - as we can't know for sure that we're right to dismiss another's preferences. I think it is better for us to have our grand ideas, to explore things which might be good, and to share these ideas (as you have done in an unusually well produced video).

 

It is better to be open and enthusiastic about what might be possible. Life is better that way.

 

Of course, we shouldn't assume that everyone agrees with us or that we are entitled to demand the developers change their priorities for the development of the game in the direction we want... but that is different from "being open and enthusiastic about what might be possible", isn't it?

 

So go for it! Also, don't let pedantic people like me (debating the definition of a 'bomber') get in the way of sharing your dreams.

 

P.S. I think polls can be fun. I suppose I also found it useful when I was running a bunch of polls in the Rise of Flight days - at least in the sense that I came away with a vague impression that most people have better judgment than me and are nowhere near as keen on the B.E.12 as a result! So, it encouraged me to be open to the fact that I might be eccentric. 😄But maybe that poll was wrong as well?! Maybe I shouldn't dismiss the possibility that there is a massive B.E.12 crowd out there. I've certainly been surprised in recent years how many people seem to like the AGO C.II!

[Aapje]

Apparently you can't use DCS as an example, outside of the DCS section, due to policy, so here you can find my comment that really belongs in this thread:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

This is one reason why I don't think people should 'rain on another person's parade' - as we can't know for sure that we're right to dismiss another's preferences.

 

Of course everyone has the right to their preferences, but the reality of the situation is that you need a critical mass of people with similar preferences before you can expect a business to spend a lot of money to cater to this preference.

[Flyhighzz]

I would rather have more medium bombers than a user-controlled B-29. Heavy bombers don't really fit in IL-2 since the maps are too small. As an AI though, it is fine because they can just spawn in the air at the rear of the map 

[Dagwoodyt]

A flyable heli would add more to gameplay options than a flyable B-29.

[TempestV]

Try a heli in XPlane. You'll be throwing your HOTAS at the wall 🤣

[Dagwoodyt]

1 hour ago, TempestV said:

Try a heli in XPlane. You'll be throwing your HOTAS at the wall 🤣

Haven't bought XPlane since Version 8. Huey and AH-64D great fun in DCS using a VPforce Rhino😊