PDA

View Full Version : FLYABLE BOMBERS.. and the lack of...



GAU-8
04-07-2004, 03:29 PM
this is not a whine, nor a bitsh.. just an observation

WE bombers are a joke to IL-2. we dont have ONE viable (FLYABLE)HEAVY bomber for the allied side. is this somthing that IL2 crew never has intentions on finishing? please dont take it the wrong way.( dont mention "TB3"..thats definitely not it)

many many hours are needed to get a bomber up and running, i completely understand that.my question is, are we never to officially be part of the IL-2 universe? maintaining a "fighter" only style of combat? the reason i ask is that, there are so many resources going elsewhere. FANTASY aircraft, JETS,other AI BOMBERS for pacific fighters ,another variant of SPITFIRE,109,YAK,LA,HURRICANE,ZERO,TB3,BF-110,.....

be honest. if the heavy bomber was serious here.. ONE viable HEAVY bomber.. would be flyable right?? from my understanding, even the NEW bombers for PF. wont be flyable. us bomber guys are looking for just ONE cockpit..to be modeled...no stations.just a cockpit, and maybe a bombsight.

i do in fact bomb from 8+K often.... and i strike VERY well from that hight using "external arcadey game view".... but were not allowed on full real servers.. EVEN THOUGH using this type of view IS HARDER than using a bombsite...using a bombsite is almost chaeating compared to "hand /eye bombing"..

just looking for an honest break for the other bombers out there. whats the word? is there a cockpit being modeled (by any heavy bomber).. or no?

dont take it the wrong way.. im happy with whatever the answer is.. i just cant find it anywhere.

GAU-8
04-07-2004, 03:29 PM
this is not a whine, nor a bitsh.. just an observation

WE bombers are a joke to IL-2. we dont have ONE viable (FLYABLE)HEAVY bomber for the allied side. is this somthing that IL2 crew never has intentions on finishing? please dont take it the wrong way.( dont mention "TB3"..thats definitely not it)

many many hours are needed to get a bomber up and running, i completely understand that.my question is, are we never to officially be part of the IL-2 universe? maintaining a "fighter" only style of combat? the reason i ask is that, there are so many resources going elsewhere. FANTASY aircraft, JETS,other AI BOMBERS for pacific fighters ,another variant of SPITFIRE,109,YAK,LA,HURRICANE,ZERO,TB3,BF-110,.....

be honest. if the heavy bomber was serious here.. ONE viable HEAVY bomber.. would be flyable right?? from my understanding, even the NEW bombers for PF. wont be flyable. us bomber guys are looking for just ONE cockpit..to be modeled...no stations.just a cockpit, and maybe a bombsight.

i do in fact bomb from 8+K often.... and i strike VERY well from that hight using "external arcadey game view".... but were not allowed on full real servers.. EVEN THOUGH using this type of view IS HARDER than using a bombsite...using a bombsite is almost chaeating compared to "hand /eye bombing"..

just looking for an honest break for the other bombers out there. whats the word? is there a cockpit being modeled (by any heavy bomber).. or no?

dont take it the wrong way.. im happy with whatever the answer is.. i just cant find it anywhere.

LEXX_Luthor
04-07-2004, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>no stations. just a cockpit,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Our flyable IL2 Field Mod is a good example of this.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

VW-IceFire
04-07-2004, 07:57 PM
A B-25 in 4 flyable versions I think will go a long way to alaying some worry over bomber types for the Allies. That and the possibility for a Pe-2 and a A-20 Boston/Havok. Not heavy bombers but very interesting, diverse, and capable aircraft.

Also remember that most of the what-ifs were made by third party modelers such as Gibbage who actually came through on making aircraft available while many reserved the more critical aircraft and then promptly disappeared. Eventually that was resolved and Gibbage made such greats as the Spitfire V/IX and the P-38 as well as the P-63C. So by not having the what-if aircraft would not mean more resources to bombers. This is a common belief but it doesn't entirely hold true...if all of those aircraft in question were Maddox Games designed then it'd be different.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Steaky_361st
04-07-2004, 08:11 PM
I agree 110%...

It seems it would even be easier to add a cockpit to an already FM'ed bomber than build a whole new plane that never saw combat or even came within sight of an enemy fighter in WWII *cough*YP80*cough*

With this said, FB is still the best thing to ever happen to a computer....Im just sayin


Steaky

mike_espo
04-07-2004, 08:24 PM
I just hope we get a flyable s.79!

http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu/bibl/mil/ww2/kepek/planes/pics/sm79_5.jpg
"Fatte vede che ridemo!"

Korolov
04-07-2004, 09:16 PM
You volunteerin' to start working on a B-29, Tu-2, A-26, B-26, G4M, and a Ju-188?

Would be great to have all of those in just two weeks flat. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

LLv34_Flanker
04-07-2004, 10:46 PM
S!

The lack of Russian medium bombers like Pe-2 should be corrected if possible. It would feel MUCH more authentic to attack a formation of human controlled bombers than these drones we have now. Maybe in the future...

---------------------------

Flanker
1.Lentue p√¬§√¬§llikk√¬∂ / TO
Lentolaivue 34

"Let Chaos entvine on defenseless soil!"
~Dimmu Borgir~

GAU-8
04-07-2004, 10:58 PM
but none the less, they were resources that could of "potentially" been used to make a cockpit, to an ALREADY FM aircraft.

and thats my question... why make SEVERAL A.I. bombers flyable, leave them without cockpits. spend time building MORE a.i. bombers.. and leave them without out em too..if its not going to be FULL FLYABLE.. why model them? really.
how would you guys feel if FB had full cockpit IL-2s... but only "flyable A.I. FW190s" for "online purposes.."....

id rather be 1 bomber STRONG.. than 10 bombers weak...

Future-
04-08-2004, 06:08 AM
I'm with Gau here. Though I really appreciate the upcoming medium bombers, at least ONE flyable HEAVY bomber would be great to have.

And to pick up Gau's Fw-190 example... seeing how much time went into the 109s and 190s over the YEARS since the original IL-2 game was created, one really has to wonder why there still are so many reservations about making a good heavy, such as the B-17G ("only" needs interiors; I hope AilantD gets the job done) for AEP or either the B-24 Liberator or the B-29 for PF.
Now, before you start saying that making a bomber takes a lot more time & work than making a fighter, I suggest you first take the original IL-2 game and count the numbers of both the 109s and 190s (flyable and AI)... then launch your current AEP game and count the 109s and 190s (again both flyable and AI) that are listed there.

There's a saying that the war would have lasted a good deal longer if the heavy bombers wouldn't have been there, doing there massive bombing attacks.
So factoring everything in, one really has to wonder about the true motives behind the "no-flyable-heavy-bomber" agenda... 'cause If you're motivated, you find a way to do it. Especially since there is a LOT of documentation available, as well as real aircraft to look at in person (Lancaster, Fortress, Liberator, Super Fortress... they are all out there, even today).
Seeing that a plane that NEVER existed (109Z) made it into the game, mainly put together with guesswork especially on it's FM, the "no-heavy" thingy gets more and more - sorry to say that - ridiculous.

@ Korolov: With all due respect - if you only want to mock Gau-8 or anyone in here, I strongly suggest you better DON'T post.
Gau has put up a valid, well-thought over request, in a respectful manner.
Your reply wasn't anywhere near such qualities.

S!

- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

GAU-8
04-08-2004, 01:00 PM
Future summed it up exactly!

LEXX_Luthor
04-08-2004, 01:22 PM
Fb109Z was easily made from existing Fb109 cockpit (the amateur flight simmers have never posted a response about this). It has been said that Fb109Z FM is "experiment" for future flight sim. If true, this has astonishing implications for future flight sims.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Seeing that a plane that NEVER existed (109Z) made it into the game, mainly put together with guesswork especially on it's FM, the "no-heavy" thingy gets more and more - sorry to say that - ridiculous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>109Z was a *brilliant* idea for FM coding experimentation--if that was the intent (??). Historically, it was the amatuer engineers who posted in their memos that computers were ridiculous for aircraft design. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Korolov
04-08-2004, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Future-:
I'm with Gau here. Though I really appreciate the upcoming medium bombers, at least ONE flyable HEAVY bomber would be great to have.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the TB-3 was a heavy bomber?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Now, before you start saying that making a bomber takes a lot more time & work than making a fighter, I suggest you first take the original IL-2 game and count the numbers of both the 109s and 190s (flyable and AI)... then launch your current AEP game and count the 109s and 190s (again both flyable and AI) that are listed there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you may have noticed that the Fw-190s and Bf-109 cockpits are all based upon one mesh... It's a lot less work to modify a exsisting mesh to spec for a different variant of it. A lot of these bombers require completely new meshes from scratch - you don't have a template to work from.

Remember, the case with modelers is that they do what they want. If you'd like a cockpit for various bombers, you should either do it yourself or hire someone to do it for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
There's a saying that the war would have lasted a good deal longer if the heavy bombers wouldn't have been there, doing there massive bombing attacks.
So factoring everything in, one really has to wonder about the true motives behind the "no-flyable-heavy-bomber" agenda... 'cause If you're motivated, you find a way to do it. Especially since there is a LOT of documentation available, as well as real aircraft to look at in person (Lancaster, Fortress, Liberator, Super Fortress... they are all out there, even today).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's the issue isn't it... The data is there, schematics, pics - but nobody with the will to do them. And it takes a VERY strong will to do a model for *any* project.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Seeing that a plane that NEVER existed (109Z) made it into the game, mainly put together with guesswork especially on it's FM, the "no-heavy" thingy gets more and more - sorry to say that - ridiculous.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That plane that "never" exsisted, did exsist, but just never flew. More so, the model was completed and met Oleg's standards. I'm sure 1C would gladly give the B-17 a cockpit, if somebody had a mesh for it that met his standards.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
@ Korolov: With all due respect - if you only want to mock Gau-8 or anyone in here, I strongly suggest you better DON'T post.
Gau has put up a valid, well-thought over request, in a respectful manner.
Your reply wasn't anywhere near such qualities.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"valid, well-thought over request"? He's barking up the wrong tree (no offense to GAU-8.) The place to go is head over to Netwings and find a modeler who is willing to do the models you want.

Remember, 1C doesn't do these models anymore - it's third party. 1C just programs it in.

So, again - you volunteering to do the work required for such meshes? Because I sure as hell wouldn't mind having a flyable B-29 to fly around.

Until then, I think that you're just whining about the hard work these modelers have done for planes that they *could* do at the time. Do I agree with their inclusion? Maybe. Do they have a place in this game? Probably not. Is there anything I can do about it? Nope.

You have no idea what it is like to make *any* kind of 3d model, and until you do, you will have no understanding of how this all works.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

GAU-8
04-08-2004, 06:53 PM
KOROLOV,

i see what your saying, and you are providing good objective reasoning .... but (maybe i misled you ??) you are missing the point of my/OUR statement.

... why have them modeled??? if its not going to be full flyable (thereby creating limitations on server settings) why even model them?we cant play them offline. if your going to spend the resource to make the aircraft, damage model it, flight model it, animate it, have it controlled by player.. then leave it without a cockpit is um.....ill bite my tongue.

also as stated in my FIRST post on this issue "dont say TB-3" why? yes it is a heavy bomber, but not in the same league as a "modern" WWII bomber. thats like someone offering an 1-16 as a high alt persuit/ intercept aircraft... when you have a YAK, but only for externals..how would you feel if your favorite aircraft was in this setting?

if IL-2, is expressly for fighters...then keep it flyable fighters ONLY. why take the time to make bombers flyable but leave us in limbo, and tease us... wouldnt it be better off to leave strictly AI only. and let us all player "fighter jockey"

IL-2 "BOMBER PILOTS" if we were in a musical band.. we'd be considered the drummer.....

GAU-8
04-08-2004, 07:09 PM
"He's barking up the wrong tree"

no, you missed the point.

"you volunteering to do the work required for such meshes? Because I sure as hell wouldn't mind having a flyable B-29 to fly around."

yes ill volunteer.

"You have no idea what it is like to make *any* kind of 3d model, and until you do, you will have no understanding of how this all works."

you jump to conclusions my friend. i do model. i do understand what goes on.