PDA

View Full Version : Man, Am I Pushing It By Asking For More Or What?!



LuckyBoy1
08-03-2004, 02:50 AM
I was just thrilled to hear that we will be able to buy a version of this Pacific thingy with all the IL-2 FB stuff included. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif So, I feel kinda like I'm pushing it by asking for more. After all, I threw such a fit when they first proposed making it a stand alone only option that I should just keep my (insert colorfull language here) mouth shut. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif Hey, but you guys know me by now! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif Actually, what I'm going to ask for again I truly believe will be in the best interest of the developers of the game.

Yes, this is my long winded way of getting around to asking again about the FLYABLE bombers! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif After all, to make it a total and truly complete game, we need the four engine bombers. Yes, I know they are like 10 times more work, but man, I really don't need, want or care about just so many obscure single prop planes. Also, how can you really go sub hunting without a FLYABLE Catalina Flying Boat? I would rather have the quality of the major players of the war than a big list of what is in my opinion, nothing but fluff!

Ok guys... flame away! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/smileys-gun2.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/354.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

Now with an actual index & more fiber! It is newer & and even more improved! It's Luckyboy's Guide For Complete Users!...

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/luckyboy/LuckyboysGuide2.htm

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

LuckyBoy1
08-03-2004, 02:50 AM
I was just thrilled to hear that we will be able to buy a version of this Pacific thingy with all the IL-2 FB stuff included. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif So, I feel kinda like I'm pushing it by asking for more. After all, I threw such a fit when they first proposed making it a stand alone only option that I should just keep my (insert colorfull language here) mouth shut. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif Hey, but you guys know me by now! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif Actually, what I'm going to ask for again I truly believe will be in the best interest of the developers of the game.

Yes, this is my long winded way of getting around to asking again about the FLYABLE bombers! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif After all, to make it a total and truly complete game, we need the four engine bombers. Yes, I know they are like 10 times more work, but man, I really don't need, want or care about just so many obscure single prop planes. Also, how can you really go sub hunting without a FLYABLE Catalina Flying Boat? I would rather have the quality of the major players of the war than a big list of what is in my opinion, nothing but fluff!

Ok guys... flame away! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/smileys-gun2.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/354.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

Now with an actual index & more fiber! It is newer & and even more improved! It's Luckyboy's Guide For Complete Users!...

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/luckyboy/LuckyboysGuide2.htm

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

Yellonet
08-03-2004, 03:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> we will be able to buy a version of this Pacific thingy with all the IL-2 FB stuff included <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No we wont.
But we can install PF onto the FB installation and thus get the FB stuff in PF.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, how can you really go sub hunting without a FLYABLE Catalina Flying Boat? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought Gibbage were modelling that one... isn't he?


- Yellonet

LuckyBoy1
08-03-2004, 05:08 AM
I dunnow! That's why I'm asking! I lost track of the Pacific thing after they announced it would be a stand alone product. Now that they've got...

"No we wont.
But we can install PF onto the FB installation and thus get the FB stuff in PF."

or whatever, it all amounts to the same thing I guess.

I've even heard they are working on a B-29, but then I see some thread saying some stuff about it not making the cut. So, what is the deal on the bombers anyways?

Now with an actual index & more fiber! It is newer & and even more improved! It's Luckyboy's Guide For Complete Users!...

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/luckyboy/LuckyboysGuide2.htm

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

Yellonet
08-03-2004, 05:34 AM
Personally I haven't heard anything about any flyble 4-engine bombers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif But there will be a few 2-engined ones, B-25, A-20 and G4M are the ones I know of http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


- Yellonet

TgD Thunderbolt56
08-03-2004, 05:40 AM
I have to agree with LB here. The presence of long-range bombers (i.e. Primarily B-24's and B-29's) were more crucial to the outcome of hostilities in the PTO than anything save the US Navy.

I hope and realize we will get the B-25 (WOOT! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ), but this thing would be sent over the top with the addition of even ONE of these heavies.

For that matter, I'm still waiting for the flyable B-25 to be added to AEP...so don't hold your breath. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

.


Our FB server info: http://www.greatergreen.com/il2

Future-
08-03-2004, 07:19 AM
Flyable B-25 is a must, as well as the presence of the B-29, flyable or ai, I don't care much, as long as it's in.

B-24 is also highly important, and although I'm not a float plane fan, I also give my vote for the Catalina.


The lack of medium bombers will be adressed soon enough I hope, both for AEP and PF. However, the almost total absence of heavy 4-engine bombers is almost a crime.

Right now we have the TB-3 flyable, and the Pe-8 and B-17 as AIs. Wow, 3 heavies. And exactly how many single engined planes are in FB/AEP? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Now with PF, there's a damn good opportunity and a good reason to throw in more heavies.

Keep us bombing!

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

Red_Russian13
08-03-2004, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thunderbolt56:
...The presence of long-range bombers (i.e. Primarily B-24's and B-29's) were more crucial to the outcome of hostilities in the PTO than anything save the US Navy.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the Marine Corps? They helped secure islands which served to launch those bombers...I'm not contesting the importance of the bombers role, but I'm a Marine, I've been to Okinawa and have Iwo Jima sand sitting on my desk, so I just needed to ask.

Unless of course, you're bunching us in with the US Navy. After all, we weren't a separate branch until the National Security Act of 1947. If that's the case, then my point is moot.

But...I would like to see more bombers flyable!

Thanks for listening.

Red Russian

Ak9779
08-03-2004, 01:03 PM
Hmm..Well from what I've read, it was the horrendous damage caused to the japanese mainland by bombers running firebombing missions (I forget the total number of casualties, but it was huge) that was the main factor in the Japanese capitulation.

Of course, as you said, without those islands being captured, a lot of those bombers couldn't have gotten there... So I'll call it a draw http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Marines made it so the bombers could get to Japan, and the bombers made it so the Marines didn't have to go to Japan http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have incredible respect for the men who slogged through those horrible places to get their job done, though.

Later,
Ak

----------------
MACHINE GUN : JAMMED
FUEL TANK: LEAK
ENGINE: ON FIRE
PILOT: WOUNDED
...Yeah, it's gonna be one of those days...

Red_Russian13
08-03-2004, 01:12 PM
Ak9779;

Well put. Very well put. Like I said, I'm not discounting what the bombers did one bit. I just had to give the Marines a shout, you know. And like you alluded to, I'm glad that the Marines (or anyone else) didn't have to storm the mainland...

But I like your words better than my own. Again, well put.

Red Russian

Hoarmurath
08-03-2004, 01:40 PM
Well, after having seen many posts asking for a faster time compression option, i wonder at you asking for flyable heavy bombers... Do you think they will really see much use?

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Future-
08-03-2004, 01:59 PM
But of course! Bombers are relatively popular, both being used by some pilots, and being escorted / attacked by many others.

Often enough have I witnessed a change in the overall gameplay, especially on scripted servers, as soon as some heavy bombers were engaged in battle.

While some pilots immediately turn to intercept them, trying to stop them before they reach their target zone, other pilots eagerly fly cover or enter formation with the heavies.

And getting a flyable heavy would also allow the creation of even more interesting co-ops.
As well as their integration into online wars.

To put this in short, the air-to-ground war certainly wasn't won by fighters and fighter-bombers alone.
And the only logical conclusion to this is that a good WW2 flight sim should have flyable heavies.

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

AA_Trouble4u
08-03-2004, 07:32 PM
And let's not forget the Navy's long range heavy bomber. http://broadcast.illuminatedtech.com/pages/aircraft_p/Privateer002.jpg Of course they didn't start seeing them till late 44. For this reason it will be acceptable if you hold off including till the 1st or second patch http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (joke) but maybe some day? please http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Future-
08-03-2004, 07:58 PM
Ah yes, the Privateer. I read somewhere around here a rumor that the Privateer will be in PF too.

- 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

RAAF_Edin
08-03-2004, 08:50 PM
I do not agree with you when you say you want well known aircraft in this sim. IL-2 started off with IL-2 itself, which almost none of us never even hurd off before the sim came out. LaGG-3 and La-5 etc are more then enough to make this sim a very interesting, satisfying and different one.

I do not wish to see only well known american aircraft being worked on now... there are plenty of other less known aircraft which deserve more to be included.

And by the way, I think bombers are not much without air dominance being achieved by fighters.

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
Edin "Kuky" Kulelija
No76 Squadron RAAF

Tater-SW-
08-03-2004, 10:32 PM
Let me start by saying the more flyable planes the better. I'd love to play with the B-29.

That said, I think that it is sensible to devote resources for flyable bombers primarily on the types used tactically rather than strategically. This pretty much means the B-29 in the strategic pile, and all the other heavies in a tactical role. I single out the B-29 because daylight raids were tough due to high winds over Japan (not sure if that is modeled at all) at high altitude (how is AEP at 30,000ft FM wise?). The fire bombing raids were medium altitude at night so that's a different story.

The smaller bombers have so many uses, and at the altitudes where the IL-2 FM seems to work best they make the most sense, IMHO. If they were to make 1 flyable heavy I'd have to say I'd prefer the B-24 since it got used in high, medium, and even mast-height attacks---even though the B-29 is sexier and contributed more to the strategic air war.

tater

LuckyBoy1
08-03-2004, 10:51 PM
I didn't say anything about air power, or especially bombers in of themselves single handedly winning the war.

Yes, there are lots of people who would love to fly the 4 engine bombers. In fact, most of them currently struggle with inferior quality games and that segment of the market could be easily taken by Oleg and UBI. Adding this segment of gamers to online play will only increase interest by fighter jock fans, so the cycle would feed on itself. That is what I meant by it being in the developers own best interest to get them flyable.

Please re-read my original post. It says nothing about the 4 engine bombers being necessarily "well known", but they were major players in not just WWI in general, but the Pacific theatre of operations specifically. Just in case you wondered, the firebombing of Tokyo took far more lives than both atom bomb attacks combined. So you see, when it absolutely, positively, must be blown up over night, nothing but the 4 engine bombers will do! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Now with an actual index & more fiber! It is newer & and even more improved! It's Luckyboy's Guide For Complete Users!...

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/luckyboy/LuckyboysGuide2.htm

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

Future-
08-04-2004, 07:10 AM
There's one thing that still keeps bothering me:

Everytime guys like me make a call for the heavy bombers, some people jump in and question their usefulness. Often one can read that FB/AEP and possibly PF too is not suited for strategic bomber missions.

This implies that those bombers are only meant to be used the same way they were used back in WW2. For strategic long range attacks only, from high alt.

And here's the problem: a strange double-standard is played on the bombers here.

Because everytime I join a game online, I hardly ever see people following procedure and the "mission profile" of their plane to the letter.
Criss-Cross take-offs, high-alt fighters battleing at low or medium altitudes... there's much more.

Get the point?

Why claiming the heavies might be obsolete because their mission profile doesn't fit in the game, where as many other planes definitely aren't used according to their intended role?

Heavy bombers can easily be used for tactical raids.

And everybody who has at least once seen a B-17 coming up over a hill for a low level surprise attack on an airbase with some newly respawned players on it knows what I'm talking about. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Now, picture this: while those with... let's call it "limited creativity" search for the incoming B-29 / B-17 / B-24 on medium to high alt levels, they don't expect that probably not all too far away, the expected bomber comes in low, hiding and blending in the landscape.

So, long story short: saying heavies have no use in the game because they hardly can be used in a "traditional" way isn't quite a good point.
Unless of course you belong to the VERY few people that most of the time use their plane of choice "by the book".

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

- 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

LuckyBoy1
08-04-2004, 08:50 AM
Also, these supposedly "historic" and "full real" types rarely show the missions play out the way they did in real life. The Germans mostly used a zone type defense against bombers using radar to guide individual plnaes and at best, small groups of planes towards the bombers. The German fighters were stuck operating in their one grid of operational area and they rarely used anything approaching "big wing" tactics.

Then of course the whiners got Oleg and the gang to dummy down the AI gunners for the bombers. This hasn't helped either and has kept some bomber enthusiests away.

However, if they can get the 4 engine bombers flyable, then you'd see entire groups of people who play other, inferior games now for their bomber missions come into the game. They would bring with them their friends who like to fly along as gunners. I have news for the world, I've flown a few missions where we went up against 4 HE-111's with full crews of live gunners and I can tell you for sure they slaughtered us! Like I say, the 4 engine bombers would bring this game up a whole new level. I just think some folks in this community know this and don't want to face the challenge.

Now with an actual index & more fiber! It is newer & and even more improved! It's Luckyboy's Guide For Complete Users!...

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/luckyboy/LuckyboysGuide2.htm

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

Yellonet
08-04-2004, 09:14 AM
In order to fly a somewhat realistic mission with a "heavy" we would need much bigger maps than we currently have in FB. Taking off and flying for 10-15 minutes and then dropping your ordnance doesn't seem a very realistic mission for a bomber, at least not for a "heavy".
But... if 99.5% of the map is water, they could make some BIG maps in 1:1 scale without it being such a performance hog... right? No downscaled maps please.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v332/yellonet/Yellonet_sig.jpg

Tooz_69GIAP
08-04-2004, 11:05 AM
I love the big planes, bigger the better!!

And I am longing for a decent allied bomber to blow stuff up with!!

However, there are limitations in the game for the heavies, in that the maps are rather small, changes in the air are not modelled above 10,000m, so realistic missions for the heavies aren't really possible right now.

What we really need is a huuuuuuge map that you can really utilise the range of some of these aircraft we may be getting. But I don't think that's feasible at the moment. But of course, the heavies are great for tactical missions as well!! Have any of you ever flown a B-17 at tree top height towards an enemy airfield, and all of those .50 cals open up on the various sqpawners on the ground?? The best vulching aircraft around!!

To address people's idea that there is no real place for them here either, well, again, in a dogfight I almost always take an IL-2 or even a TB-3, or a Heinkel, and go bomb something. I can virtually guarantee that if a fighter or two spawn as I am taxiing they will say "we'll escort you", and these are guys who have just spawned, and never flown with me before. They just like the idea of escorting a bomber, and conducting a mission. And the best is when we get maybe 3 or 4 IL-2s, or Heinkels, and we all go off and blow stuff up, and we have 2 or 3 fighters escorting!! And of course, we get bounced by very eager enemy aircraft trying to down us!! It's great!!!

Now, also, consider the work that those russian guys are doing with trying to make multiplayer with upwards of 64 players stable, imagine the massive bomber waves we can simulate in coops, and the massive amount of escorts and intercepting fighters. Massive dogfights and very immersive missions.

Bombers have a place, and they are a helluva lotta fun, and the bigger the bombload the better!!!!

whit ye looking at, ya big jessie?!?!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_tooz.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)
Executive Officer, 69th GIAP
Za Rodinu!
Petition to stop the M3 motorway through the Tara-Skryne Valley in Co. Meath, Ireland (http://www.petitiononline.com/hilltara/petition.html)

LuckyBoy1
08-04-2004, 11:50 AM
I really don't think you guys are thinking the "big map" thing through here. Yes, it would be more realistic, but what do the defending fighters do while they are for the coop to progress to where the bombers arrive? Yes, a large map would be nice, but how many people would have the RAM to run it well? Still, the flyable 4 engine bombers would add so much to this game that is missing. Anything that could be done to bring this about would be the single biggest improvement they could make in this game.

Now with an actual index & more fiber! It is newer & and even more improved! It's Luckyboy's Guide For Complete Users!...

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/luckyboy/LuckyboysGuide2.htm

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

Yellonet
08-04-2004, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
To address people's idea that there is no real place for them here either, well, again, in a dogfight I almost always take an IL-2 or even a TB-3, or a Heinkel, and go bomb something. I can virtually guarantee that if a fighter or two spawn as I am taxiing they will say "we'll escort you", and these are guys who have just spawned, and never flown with me before. They just like the idea of escorting a bomber, and conducting a mission. And the best is when we get maybe 3 or 4 IL-2s, or Heinkels, and we all go off and blow stuff up, and we have 2 or 3 fighters escorting!! And of course, we get bounced by very eager enemy aircraft trying to down us!! It's great!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I love flying bombers... although I have yet to master any bomb-sight http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Unfortunately I have found that escorts are rare and bombers often find themselves alone and soon-to-be bounced by three or four enemies.

One thing that would be Really Great would be if they could Implement the ability to have Human Gunners/Bombardiers in MP (Yes, I know it's possible in COOP).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v332/yellonet/Yellonet_sig.jpg

icrash
08-04-2004, 02:49 PM
Flying a monster bomber on the deck would be fun. I have more luck at staying in one piece (offline) there than I do at altitude. Reminds me of a "don't mess with Texas" anti-litter campaign. It showed a guy cresting a hill & throwing a bottle or something out the window. Then you hear some radio chatter and a B-17 comes real low over the same hill on an attack run. Pretty funny to watch.

http://img38.photobucket.com/albums/v117/icrash/txraidersig.bmp

Esckey666
08-04-2004, 10:21 PM
Okay now I almost always fly a hurri, a p40 or a la-5fn or a -7, but the one thing I can't get enough of is flying 2 engine planes at less then tree top level, especially the B-25(can't wait till it's flyable, same with the Ju-88)

If this has plenty of Flyable Bombers, in IL2/AEP, out of 130 planes and their varients, there's only 13 flyable 2 or more engine bombers and their varients for us. So if there's less then 30 flyable multi engine bombers I won't be too pleased with this. I'll still buy it though just to fly the Corsair.


My dream PF game would have a PV-1 and a Lanc in it.

heywooood
08-04-2004, 10:57 PM
B29's will be pretty to look at - but I doubt they will come with a saddle. Still - should be a challenge to get close to them in one of the Japanese kites.




http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"Check your guns"

LuckyBoy1
08-09-2004, 10:03 AM
Shameless bumpage! I call again for the heavy bombers to be made flyable, even if we lose 8-10 obscure single engine planes to get it!

Now with an actual index & more fiber! It is newer & and even more improved! It's Luckyboy's Guide For Complete Users!...

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/luckyboy/LuckyboysGuide2.htm

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

Snootles
08-09-2004, 02:52 PM
I thought I heard something at least semi-official about a flyable B-29 somewhere along the line. At the very least one of the press sites does talk about an increased emphasis on flyable bombers. Would be wicked, especially with some of the high-tech Norden sights. It was claimed one could "drop a bomb into a pickle barrel" with those things.

Maybe.

On a clear day.

Regardless, those things were so top-secret that they weren't even part of the B-17's permanent eqipment. Seriously, B-17's were stored without their bombsights, and they would be quickly and quietly installed right before a mission and taken out right after.

And about having huge strategic-scale maps? Wouldn't be too hard, considering that the PTO is largely made up of, well, water.

Jason Bourne
08-09-2004, 06:08 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snootles:
Would be wicked, especially with some of the high-tech Norden sights. It was claimed one could "drop a bomb into a pickle barrel" with those things.

Maybe.

On a clear day.

Regardless, those things were so top-secret that they weren't even part of the B-17's permanent eqipment. Seriously, B-17's were stored without their bombsights, and they would be quickly and quietly installed right before a mission and taken out right after.QUOTE]

lol, dont forget to add that the wind cant be blowing at all, and that you need to move the barrel to catch the bomb. but seriously, toward mid war, Germany actually had better bomb sites then the americans did.

Snootles
08-09-2004, 08:04 PM
Yeah, and that you better not deviate from your course one bit. Though seriously, the B-36 bomber had a sight that would automatically compensate not only for wind and gusts, but also any and all evasive maneuvers made by the plane.

GT182
08-09-2004, 08:14 PM
If you want a taste of the 4 engine bombers Yellow net, try B17 Flying Fortress "The Mighty 8th". That will get the juices flowing. Hop on over to bombs-away.net's v8th Ops and see what my guys have done. Yes, screen shots are included in their posted results. I've flown most of our 1st Campaign and a good deal of the 2nd Campaign until I burnt out. B17 will give you the chance to bomb a target and fend off the Lw sent to greet you over vEurope.

I know , I know, there's no Multiplayer but at least you get an idea of what's involved with the "Heavies". Boredom, followed by intense fighting off of attacks of the Lw, followed by a hair-raising bombrun with flak and then the long flight home tending wounded. Only to find out you got a TD or Miss, and mortally wounded crewmates along with the survivors. A 2 to 3 hours "game" flight is nothing(including Time Skips), but it sure can raise the hairs on the back of your neck. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"GT182" / "Stab/JG51_vonSpinmeister"
www.bombs-away.net/forums (http://www.bombs-away.net/forums)
"Fly to Survive, Survive to Fly"

Nimits
08-10-2004, 08:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAAF_Edin:
I do not wish to see only well known american aircraft being worked on now... there are plenty of other less known aircraft which deserve more to be included.
--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
Edin "Kuky" Kulelija
No76 Squadron RAAF<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except it will be a bloody silly offline campaign if we exclude "well known" American planes such as the B-24 and P-40 so we can add some obscure IJN latewar superfighter that flew three times before the end of the war.

For the sake of historical accuarcy, we need the well known planes (and what is wrong with them being American?) as much (actually more) than the lesser known ones.

Tater-SW-
08-10-2004, 09:18 PM
I agree completely. It would be far better (IMNSHO) to have a Japanese Sally or Mavis than an F8F, or Ki-93 for example. If I were picking planes, I'd take the total production numbers for a given type in theater, and highest productions would be 1st priority, important lower production types second, everything else third.

tater

Future-
08-11-2004, 12:49 PM
More BUMPage! Power to the heavies!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/sonar.gif

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

Snootles
08-11-2004, 01:08 PM
Speaking of high production numbers, has anyone heard anything about whether there will be an SB2C Helldiver in PF?

Sakai9745
08-11-2004, 01:40 PM
The heavies have my vote! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Both for challenge of strategic bombing and trying to prevent strategic bombing. Hail to the heavies!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Al - SF, Calif

"Defense Dept regrets to inform you that your sons are dead cause they were stupid."

Yellonet
08-11-2004, 02:37 PM
Yep... we want "heavy on heavy" dogfights http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif Although I'm not sure that the japanese had any 4-engined bombers in decent numbers. Enlight me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But Mitchell vs. Betty should be good... can't wait http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v332/yellonet/Yellonet_sig.jpg

Baco-ECV56
08-11-2004, 04:13 PM
Totally OT, but..

Try a TB3 vs TB3 (in coop mode - Force on force that is http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) fill all the slots with humans and go get each other....

When I tryed it, I couldnāĀ“t stop laughin for a week, Honest! Weirdest and funniest combat I have ever flown http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Anyway, Power to the Heavies!
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BBB_Lionman
08-12-2004, 11:25 AM
Hey Oleg & Luthier PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE pay attention to this thread. Especially the following quotes (all in one place here for emphasis chaps)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "Yes, there are lots of people who would love to fly the 4 engine bombers. In fact, most of them currently struggle with inferior quality games and that segment of the market could be easily taken by Oleg and UBI. Adding this segment of gamers to online play will only increase interest by fighter jock fans, so the cycle would feed on itself. That is what I meant by it being in the developers own best interest to get them flyable. "

"However, if they can get the 4 engine bombers flyable, then you'd see entire groups of people who play other, inferior games now for their bomber missions come into the game. They would bring with them their friends who like to fly along as gunners. I have news for the world, I've flown a few missions where we went up against 4 HE-111's with full crews of live gunners and I can tell you for sure they slaughtered us! Like I say, the 4 engine bombers would bring this game up a whole new level."

"To address people's idea that there is no real place for them here either, well, again, in a dogfight I almost always take an IL-2 or even a TB-3, or a Heinkel, and go bomb something. I can virtually guarantee that if a fighter or two spawn as I am taxiing they will say "we'll escort you", and these are guys who have just spawned, and never flown with me before. They just like the idea of escorting a bomber, and conducting a mission. And the best is when we get maybe 3 or 4 IL-2s, or Heinkels, and we all go off and blow stuff up, and we have 2 or 3 fighters escorting!! And of course, we get bounced by very eager enemy aircraft trying to down us!! It's great!!!"

"Still, the flyable 4 engine bombers would add so much to this game that is missing. Anything that could be done to bring this about would be the single biggest improvement they could make in this game."

"One thing that would be Really Great would be if they could Implement the ability to have Human Gunners/Bombardiers in MP"

"Shameless bumpage! I call again for the heavy bombers to be made flyable, even if we lose 8-10 obscure single engine planes to get it!"

B-17 II "Boredom, followed by intense fighting off of attacks of the Lw, followed by a hair-raising bombrun with flak and then the long flight home tending wounded. Only to find out you got a TD or Miss, and mortally wounded crewmates along with the survivors. A 2 to 3 hours "game" flight is nothing(including Time Skips), but it sure can raise the hairs on the back of your neck." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am on my 7th computer, have been online gaming for at least 10 years and have at one time or another bought and played virtually every flight simulator made (first for the Amiga and then)for the PC. IMHO the all time best PC Combat Flight sims before Oleg's team blew them all away, were Red Baron 3D, Falcon 4 and B-17 The Mighty Eighth. Please note than one of these is the best 4 engined bomber sim ever. I have played once and then binned scores of fighter sims both WW1, WW2 and Jet.

Multi-crewed bombers online are only really now becoming feasible, as they require massive bandwidth and broadband connections. That was why B-17 II never had a multiplay mode, as so few gamers at that time had the hardware, graphics cards, RAM, connection speed or bandwidth.

Oleg has single-handedly revolutionised what was seen by some (dumb) PC journalists as a moribund category of gaming, by the sheer quality and immersive realism of his exceptional simulators and his anal attention to historical accuracy, realistic flight models and technical detail. He has also, almost incidentally, knocked Microsoft's ageing Combat Flight Sim series right out of the ball park, permanently. (Like many of us I bought CFS3 and only played it twice because after IL2 it was just a beta tester's joke.)

So Oleg and Luthier PLEASE recognise that you alone have the chance to make a ground breaking change in the market by making multiplay multi-crewed bombers a MAJOR FEATURE of your combat sims from now on. (e.g. You need to be ALREADY working on Lancaster's, Bostons, and Wellingtons for the Battle of Britain Sim - even if we get them as patches or expansions later.)

You will attract a FAR greater range of people to your market and to buying your products. Why? Because the biggest thing that prevents most gamers, children and women from getting into combat flight sims is laziness and boredom with the steep learning curve. But being a gunner takes almost no time to learn, yet the game play from that perspective is extremely immersive and you really feel like a member of a team. I can imagine whole families and gangs of buddies playing as bomber crews! Dad can be the pilot, the kids man the guns and the family (or virtual squadron) genius/ubergeek can become totally lost in the challenge of being the bombadier! High altitude bombing requires great skill and focus. But that could also be handled by AI as an option, just as one can move among the various gun positions while AI handles the others.

This really is a far bigger and simpler issue than all the geekish debate about tactical vs strategic roles. It is simply MORE FUN for MORE PEOPLE!

I might add that after Oleg's sims, B-17 The Mighty Eight remains my second favourite sim and I play it every so often. Indeed I once played a whole mission on it in real time and after many hours returned to base with dead and dying crew, shot to hell and with one wheel hung up. The sheer relief of getting the plane down in a pancake landing without fire or explosion was incredible. Do it Oleg, PLEASE and do it as only YOU can - exceptionally well.

Hell even the "United Offensive" expansion pack for the record breaking FPS "Call of Duty" has a whole mission fought from inside a B-17 as a major feature! That program isn't even a flight sim and yet they have added a whole dimension to the game engine because they KNOW this will be a huge crowd puller in their market. So don't miss the boat guys as YOU are the market leaders in your field and get to set the pace.

[This message was edited by BBB_Lionman on Thu August 12 2004 at 10:36 AM.]