PDA

View Full Version : Why Kill The (Hypothetical) 'Flyable' B-29?



Sakai9745
06-18-2004, 09:05 PM
I can already hear the 1st set of posts: We know nothing at this point as to the final complement of flyable aircraft... I know http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - hence the throw in of the word 'hypothetical'. Still, I just have to know why a good percentage of people would rather not have a flyable Superfortress in PF. Many posts refer to the desire to have more medium bombers rather than heavies. Just curious.

Al - SF, Calif

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

Sakai9745
06-18-2004, 09:05 PM
I can already hear the 1st set of posts: We know nothing at this point as to the final complement of flyable aircraft... I know http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - hence the throw in of the word 'hypothetical'. Still, I just have to know why a good percentage of people would rather not have a flyable Superfortress in PF. Many posts refer to the desire to have more medium bombers rather than heavies. Just curious.

Al - SF, Calif

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

Tater-SW-
06-18-2004, 09:17 PM
I'll take a crack at it, there are a lot of reasons (though I'd love to see the inside of an flyable one (been on the walk-through of "FIFI" though---next time i pay for the hop <G&gthttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

1. The B-29 is a late war plane, and by the time it's in game, the war is nearly over.

2. Many of the interesting (from a player standpoint) missions of the war were fought by medium bombers...

3. importantly, many of these interesting missions were flown by mediums ON BOTH SIDES (since the japanese lacked heavy bombers---a balance issue).

4. During the most interesting period of the war in the PTO from the standpoint of evenly match sides for gameplay, medium bombers, with the odd B-17 raid thrown in, dominated.

I think that's the top reasons. Regardless, I'm all for a flyable B-29 <BEG>

tater

owlwatcher
06-18-2004, 09:23 PM
Most people do not know of the deployment in China. Maybe if they knew of this there would be less complains.

WUAF_Badsight
06-19-2004, 01:01 AM
id like a flyable B29

a hell of a lot of work

but the B29 is the heaviest of the heavy

having all all the positions filled on that plane and getting them home again ..... too much fun

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
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

xTHRUDx
06-19-2004, 01:07 AM
would you guys be ok with just having the pilot and bombadiers postion made and the gunners be AI?

Ruy Horta
06-19-2004, 01:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sakai9745:
I can already hear the 1st set of posts: We know nothing at this point as to the final complement of flyable aircraft... I know http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - hence the throw in of the word 'hypothetical'. Still, I just have to know why a good percentage of people would rather not have a flyable Superfortress in PF.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My main objection would be workload.

At the current level of quality a flyable B-29 would equal at least two flyable medium or light bombers, a at least three to four flyable fighters.

Since the reasons to bomb strategic targets are very limited in this game it makes the B-29 more of a target class a/c than anything else. Multi-player its even an a/c that might be abused as the ultimate flying AAA station (what we in Warbirds called "Death Stars").

So my main objection would not be against the plane itself, but the resources it will take and the somewhat limited use once available.

Note that we will (probably) not have the kind of map that would justify the use of these super fortresses, the scale would be like nothing we've seen before in the current series, and I somehow doubt its is doable at scale. Of course you can operate at any range on any target, but that would be "gaming the game".

Again, nothing against the plane, more a concern about the cost and final yield.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

PS. about the model shown, I personally wasn't that impressed, the poly count being high because of the size of a/c and its many parts, but at a more detailed level its quite "blocky", the engine detail etc. Sure at a distance it looks great, but certainly not superior to what we have today in FB.

You might even consider upping the size of skin for these birds, 1024x1024 might not be enough for good detail.

[This message was edited by rhorta on Sat June 19 2004 at 12:35 AM.]

Droopsnoot
06-19-2004, 02:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by owlwatcher:
Most people do not know of the deployment in China. Maybe if they knew of this there would be less complains.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was originally stationed in India in B-29s. I made several hump trips to China to leave gas there for staging missions out of China.

B29's flew missions as far North as Mukden; as far South as Singapore and also bombed the Yawata steel works in Japan before any of the Mariannas islands were available.

reisen52
06-19-2004, 02:10 AM
Tater-SW

Said

"1. The B-29 is a late war plane, and by the time it's in game, the war is nearly over."

Not really.

The war in the Pacific for the US started 7 Dec 1941 & the first B-29 arrived in the Pacific on 2 Apr 1944 a month BEFORE D-Day.

The war ended on 14 Aug 1945 with the formal surrender taking place on 2 Sep 1945. On 28 Aug 1945 American troops began a mass and unopposed landing of Japan, occupying all strategic centers. The first landing was at Atsugi Air Base - near Yokohama. Many of the forces landing were paratroopers from the air.

The headquarters of the XX Bomber Command was established at Kharagpur, India on March 28, 1944 under the command of General Wolfe.

The first action by the B-29 took place on April 26, 1944. Major Charles Hansen was flying a load of fuel to China when his plane was attacked by six Ki 43 Hayabusa fighters. The attack was beaten off, but one crew member was injured.

The first B-29 bombing raid took place on June 5, 1944. Led by General Saunders, 98 B-29s took off from bases in eastern India to attack the Makasan railroad yards at Bangkok, Thailand.

Reisen

[This message was edited by reisen52 on Sat June 19 2004 at 01:33 AM.]

Sakai9745
06-19-2004, 02:47 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
id like a flyable B29

a hell of a lot of work

but the B29 is the heaviest of the heavy

having all all the positions filled on that plane and getting them home again ..... too much fun

QUOTE]

I'm pretty much here with the workload. Could be nightmarish, but herein lies the challenge. Much as with previous B-17 sims, it's pretty satisfying to accomplish a mission with a heavy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And it is so much the heavy of the WW2 heavies! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Getting unbiased here (and REALLY trying), I can imagine that resources to pull her off might be prohibitive. Not a developer here, but I can easily see one 29 taking the place of multiple other aircraft. And even if the 29 did make the cut as a flyable machine, it would be a safe bet that missions would be WAY scaled back distance-wise.

If it would save a few important additions, or if uber-defenses are the concern as per rhorta's post, I personally would entertain xTHRUDx's suggestion of having pilot & bombardiers only positions if I could have a sim that would allow us Superfort-fans the opportunity to fly her and bomb with her. I don't remember any other sim that allowed for this luxury, at least not in the detail that PF will can provide.

***Disclaimer: I said I'd would be willing to entertain the notion, but I (and I'm certain there are others) wouldn't be entirely thrilled with it. I'm with Badsight on the all-access pass to all stations... especially the ones with the remotely controlled .50 cal turrets http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif***

Al - SF, Calif

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

Ruy Horta
06-19-2004, 03:39 AM
Before I get a crowd on my neck that thinks I am against the B-29, think again, however I would be hard pressed to exchange a single flyable heavy bomber for potentially 2-3 medium or light bombers or 3-4 fighters (not talking variants, but full types).

But if Luthier has the means to create a flyable B-29 without it being a resource drain, than by all means, the greater the final product.

However if a flyable B-29 presents a true resource drain there is one simple alternative that will provide both the funding and the required depth - a separate add-on dedicated to the flyable Superfortress.

EDIT, maybe expand on the idea, develop an add on based on resource heavy types.

Flyable B-17s, 24s, 29s and for the Japanese H6K & H8K (give or take another bomber type).

Call it Pacific Fighters: Bomber Pack

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

All roads lead to Rome...

[This message was edited by rhorta on Sat June 19 2004 at 05:29 AM.]

Tater-SW-
06-19-2004, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by reisen52:
Tater-SW

Said

"1. The B-29 is a late war plane, and by the time it's in game, the war is nearly over."

Not really.

The war in the Pacific for the US started 7 Dec 1941 & the first B-29 arrived in the Pacific on 2 Apr 1944 a month BEFORE D-Day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

D-Day doesn't matter in the least. How many offensive actions did the japanese wage in 1944? How many carrier battle groups did they have ready to fight at any reasonable quality?

Regardless, of the ~3.75 years of war, spring '44 to the end is the last 30% of the war. What % are you suggesting "late" be called? The last 20% only? The last 10%? The final week? Seems 'early', 'middle' and 'late' would divide the war into thirds. More generally, you could say beginning war was japanese advance, middle war was US advance, late war was attacking the home islands. Either way, B-29 is late war.

I'm not saying the B-29 didn't play a big role in the late war, but by the time we're bombing the japanese homeland, Japan is finished, it's just a matter of how bombed out they get before they do the right thing and quit (which took rather a lot of bombing, plus the A-bombs).

tater

Copperhead310th
06-19-2004, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Droopsnoot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by owlwatcher:
Most people do not know of the deployment in China. Maybe if they knew of this there would be less complains.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was originally stationed in India in B-29s. I made several hump trips to China to leave gas there for staging missions out of China.

B29's flew missions as far North as Mukden; as far South as Singapore and also bombed the Yawata steel works in Japan before any of the Mariannas islands were available.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Droopsnoot was that in the 20th AF by any chance? my granpa was a flight engenier on a modified Libby in the CBI. they used to fly fuel runs to supply you b-29 boys.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

GT182
06-19-2004, 09:49 AM
Tater-SW-, did you happen to get any inside photos of FiFi when you were at the show?

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

Tater-SW-
06-19-2004, 10:50 AM
It was ages ago, actually, I didn't have my camera with me (was long enough ago it was a film camera). I took a digital SLR on my hop in Aluminum Overcast though &lt;G&gt;.

I've decided I'm gonna take rides in whatever comes through town now.

tater

[This message was edited by Tater-SW- on Sat June 19 2004 at 11:05 AM.]

Yellonet
06-19-2004, 11:06 AM
It would take the whole maps length to get up to the optimum cruise altitude http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


- Yellonet

Droopsnoot
06-19-2004, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Droopsnoot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by owlwatcher:
Most people do not know of the deployment in China. Maybe if they knew of this there would be less complains.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was originally stationed in India in B-29s. I made several hump trips to China to leave gas there for staging missions out of China.

B29's flew missions as far North as Mukden; as far South as Singapore and also bombed the Yawata steel works in Japan before any of the Mariannas islands were available.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Droopsnoot was that in the 20th AF by any chance? my granpa was a flight engenier on a modified Libby in the CBI. they used to fly fuel runs to supply you b-29 boys.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
_http://www.310thVFS.com
_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Indeed it was! 768th Bomb Squadron
462Bomb Group (VHB)
58th Bomb Wing,20th Air Force

I am well acquainted with the job the B24 Tankers did. Without them we couldn't have flown a mission out of China!

We had a saying,,, The only way a B29 could leave any gas in China, and have enough to fly back over the hump to our base in India, was to fill our canteens with gas before we left home! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Droopsnoot
06-19-2004, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yellonet:
It would take the whole maps length to get up to the optimum cruise altitude http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


- Yellonet<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably true except for one small item... Your best cruise altitude is low until you burn off some gas. We climbed to altitude in stages,as the plane burned off weight.

It's not like a jet.

Also the winds are lighter at lower altitude.

reisen52
06-19-2004, 02:52 PM
Tater-SW-

D-Day is relevant as it sets a time frame for the guys in Europe who may not be all that familiar with the chronology of the Pacific war.

You stated very clearly ""the war is nearly over"".

Well in the spring of 1944 the war in the Pacific was no where "nearly over". By any measure the hardest fighting was yet to come.

The US had not yet suffered 50% of the total causalities it would suffer in the Pacific.

The Japanese launched a major attack against Honan province in China on the 25th of April.

New Guinea just 520 miles from Australia was still in Japanese hands.

The battle of the Philippine Sea in which Japan had 9 Carriers, 5 Battleships, 13 Cruisers, 27 Destroyers & 24 Submarines was 3 months away.

The start of the Leyte campaign to free the Philippian Islands which includes six major naval battles had not yet occurred.

#1 = Ambush in the Palawan Passage, October 23, 1944 in which Japan had 4 Battleships, 12 Cruisers, 15 Destroyers

#2 = Battle of Sibuyan Sea, October 24, 1944 in which Japan had 4 Battleships 9 Cruisers, 15 Destroyers

#3 = Battle of Surigao Strait, October 24-25, 1944 in which Japan had 2 Battleships, 4 Cruisers, 11 Destroyers

#4 = Battle off Samar, October 25, 1944 in which Japan had 4 Battleships, 8 Cruisers, 11 Destroyers

#5 = Battle of Cape Engano, October 25, 1944 in which Japan had 4 Carriers, 2 Battleships, 3 Cruisers, 8 Destroyers

#6 = Battle of Ormoc Bay, November 11, 1944 in which Japan had 7 Destroyers, 5 transports 1 Minesweeper, 1 ASW was 6 months away.

BTW the Battle of Leyte Gulf was the largest navel battle in all of WWII

Additionally, US casualties were rapidly increasing as the result in changes of Japanese tactics after the Spring of 1944 - Leyte 17,000, Luzon 31,000 (which was not even over when Japan surrendered), Iwo Jima 28,000 March 1945, Okinawa 42,000 July 1945.

Ship loses at Okinawa were about 30 U.S. vessels sunk and 368 damaged including 10 battleships and 13 aircraft carriers.

By comparison at Pearl Harbor only 21 sunk were or damaged.

Reisen

Trigger_88
06-19-2004, 03:46 PM
if the b29 is flyable i want to drop fat man and or little boy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

Sakai9745
06-19-2004, 06:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Before I get a crowd on my neck that thinks I am against the B-29, think again, however I would be hard pressed to exchange a single flyable heavy bomber for potentially 2-3 medium or light bombers or 3-4 fighters (not talking variants, but full types).

But if Luthier has the means to create a flyable B-29 without it being a resource drain, than by all means, the greater the final product.

However if a flyable B-29 presents a true resource drain there is one simple alternative that will provide both the funding and the required depth - a separate add-on dedicated to the flyable Superfortress.

EDIT, maybe expand on the idea, develop an add on based on resource heavy types.

Flyable B-17s, 24s, 29s and for the Japanese H6K & H8K (give or take another bomber type).

Call it _Pacific Fighters: Bomber Pack_

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

All roads lead to Rome...

[This message was edited by rhorta on Sat June 19 2004 at 05:29 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can definitely empathize on that point, Ruy. Just so everyone knows that I am not totally one-sided on this point, I can understand the dread of the "29's fun, but not if I lose my *insert favorite aircraft here*" crowd. The 29 could very well be a resource hog, and the loss of wanted aircraft because of her would surely sting. Hopefully, it is other issues that might be holding her back, and not limited resources.

My one sticking point has not changed; the TB3 has been the ONLY heavy bomber available to the "heavies-crowd" and it's showing it's age (then again. it was showing it's age the moment we loaded her up in the 1st place http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) Disappointment ruled amongst us when the 17 proved to be unflyable... the absence of a flyable-29 would be a cryin-shame.

I will say this. If the 29 is still on the scales of decision, I would be willing to see her off the boards IF Ruy's suggestion of a pure heavies expansion _17s, 29s, the works!) blossomed into reality.

BTW - For GT182. If you can tell me how to post pics, I'll put up my shots of FIFI. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Al - SF, Calif

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

[This message was edited by Sakai9745 on Sat June 19 2004 at 06:19 PM.]

[This message was edited by Sakai9745 on Sat June 19 2004 at 06:24 PM.]

WOLFMondo
06-20-2004, 05:47 AM
While a flyable B29 is great what about the B24?

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

DarthBane_
06-20-2004, 05:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
would you guys be ok with just having the pilot and bombadiers postion made and the gunners be AI?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GT182
06-20-2004, 08:42 AM
I'm by no means a developer or all that computer savy, but I don't understand why things can't be done in PF or IL2 FB when they can be accomplished by other gaming companies.

If their gaming engines can handle flyable, hands-on for all stations in the Heavies, why is it 1Cs game engine is having so much trouble and things are so difficult to put into their games? Why not use a different and better game engine? As an example take a look at what GMax and Shockwave have done for CFS3 with Fire Power.

Don't jump down my throat as I think this is a vital question that all of us need to understand. I have no problems with the way FB is and love it. But why not change for the better for PF? PF shouldn't have to depend on FB to be just as great, IMHO.

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