PDA

View Full Version : B-17 COCKPIT



VF-152_HAWK
11-13-2005, 07:20 PM
hey oleg the b-17 has been out for a long time now when do u think it will have the cockpit
thanks really looking forwrad to it .........

FritzGryphon
11-13-2005, 07:24 PM
No one is working on it. It will most likely not be in PF.

To those who'd want a flyable B-17, I'd suggest to collect reference material for it, or take up 3D modeling.

Then hopefully, it could be made flyable in the BoB engine. If 1C doesn't make it themselves.

ElAurens
11-13-2005, 09:22 PM
And remember you will have to also model the bombadier's station and at least 6 gunner's stations before it will be good enough to be accepted.

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 02:57 AM
I would rather have the B-29 flyable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif An artist completed work on the cockpit and gunner stations, but it was not accepted by Oleg.

masaker2005
11-14-2005, 07:00 AM
I'am preying every day for B-17 cockpit.

Chuck_Older
11-15-2005, 10:11 AM
I forget the actual reason that the B-17's stations weren't all done...surely it's not a lack of reference. Heck, I was on a B-17 a few months ago

rugame
11-15-2005, 02:29 PM
probably for the same reason the b29 got rejected....


What a horrible waste of good work that was..

polak5
11-16-2005, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I forget the actual reason that the B-17's stations weren't all done...surely it's not a lack of reference. Heck, I was on a B-17 a few months ago

Yea really, There is a b-17 40 mins from my house, I know a pilot there, im sure he would let me take 100 pics of the inside of it.

ElAurens
11-16-2005, 05:19 AM
Guys, it's a simple matter of time and money.

As I recall the B17 was reserved by Maddox Games, so only they could do the work on it. Remember you are talking about enough 3D work to implement 6 or 7 single seaters. Look at all the single seaters in the game. It's not too hard to figure out now is it?

I suspect it will show up in the new game engine in 2 or 3 years.

slo123
11-16-2005, 10:31 PM
with so many people requesting it you would think the ywould work on it and maybe people would be ok without the gunner positions ,i would be happy just to have cockpit so i could fly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

ElAurens
11-17-2005, 05:13 AM
If the developers worked on all of the requests by everyone we would never have gotten past IL2 version 1.0

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Bearcat99
11-17-2005, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
If the developers worked on all of the requests by everyone we would never have gotten past IL2 version 1.0

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Actually... a lot of the requests from IL2 are FB 4.xx... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Think about it....

p1ngu666
11-17-2005, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I forget the actual reason that the B-17's stations weren't all done...surely it's not a lack of reference. Heck, I was on a B-17 a few months ago

alot of work for one or a couple of guys todo.

in BOB we will find ourselves flyin british bombers, and the forgotten german bombers, and some italian ones.

onwhine fighter jocks will point out the no long range maps for bombers, cos bombers HAVETO fly long missions, while half of those who say that fly p47,p38,and p51... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

arjisme
11-17-2005, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by slo123:
with so many people requesting it you would think the ywould work on it and maybe people would be ok without the gunner positions ,i would be happy just to have cockpit so i could fly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif You would be kidding yourself to think people (generalization) would be happy with just the cockpit. Sure as they released that, folks would howl about the inability to move to the gunner positions.

slo123
11-17-2005, 10:22 PM
eh
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif i would be perfectly happy cause people always talking bout full imersion full emersion but is jumpin around between gunners and pilot realy , real? hmm im thinkin not realy so ...

csThor
11-17-2005, 11:08 PM
The main reason why it wasn't made is most probably the sheer amount of work that has to be put into such a project. Take a look at the "small" Ju-88 (small in comparison to the B-17) and then how long it takes to get it into the game. Alone collecting suitable documentation took Dietger and Jippo over a year.

And lastly - I somehow thing it wasn't too popular with MG since none of the big bombers (B-17, B-24 and especially B-29) can be flown accurately since the maps are way too small for take-off, climb, cruise to target area, attack, flight back and landing on one map without rounding it three times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

polak5
11-18-2005, 02:57 AM
Maybe we will see B-17's in a release after BOB...Sigh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Flakwalker
11-18-2005, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by polak5:
Maybe we will see B-17's in a release after BOB...Sigh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Yep, in fact the Royal Navy used early B-17

p1ngu666
11-18-2005, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
The main reason why it wasn't made is most probably the sheer amount of work that has to be put into such a project. Take a look at the "small" Ju-88 (small in comparison to the B-17) and then how long it takes to get it into the game. Alone collecting suitable documentation took Dietger and Jippo over a year.

And lastly - I somehow thing it wasn't too popular with MG since none of the big bombers (B-17, B-24 and especially B-29) can be flown accurately since the maps are way too small for take-off, climb, cruise to target area, attack, flight back and landing on one map without rounding it three times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

yes bomber pilots must be forced into long missions, while fighter jocks can just do short range missions, even in there long range fighters. made famous and fapped over endlessly about there range and ability to escort bombers.

besides just use a medium bomber cos there faster... oh wait, there not..

p1ngu666
11-18-2005, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Flakwalker:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by polak5:
Maybe we will see B-17's in a release after BOB...Sigh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Yep, in fact the Royal Navy used early B-17 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

RAF where first to use the b17 in action actully http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

slo123
11-18-2005, 07:50 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif


<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">dont eat the clowns they taste funny</span>

slo123
11-30-2005, 10:38 PM
if you consider how many people would like to see heavy bombers in this if even just one there are alot of them including me.

im goin to make a bomber poll and see what the results are

msalama
12-01-2005, 04:00 AM
Flyable heavies? TBH I wouldn't bother if I was Oleg (even if I had the time, that is).

Why? Because we've got FAR too many pish-headed Air-Quakers around here - as can be seen right here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2611081573/r/6581071673#6581071673) - who just don't have a FRIGGIN' clue of how to handle even a _lightish_ bomber w/out direct steering either because A) they cannot be ar$ed to learn the basics, or B) they are completely hopeless and thus _unable_ to learn the basics. So can you gents just _imagine_ how high would the whining stink if you gave them something REALLY heavy & hard like the Superfortress w/ its free-castoring nosewheel???

Sorry if I sound a bit harsh here, but I sometimes really and truly pity the developers. Those guys _work_ to give us add-ons for FREE, and what do they get for thank-yous? A bunch of brainless bozos whining about this or that being "impossible" to handle when in reality it's _them_ who don't have a fXXXing clue about anything!

So no heavies, please, unless we want to see a flood of BS insulting the intelligence of all decent - or even half-brained - folks around here...

SaQSoN
12-01-2005, 04:18 AM
Flyable heavies? TBH I wouldn't bother if I was Oleg (even if I had the time, that is).

If I was Oleg and I had time and resources for something FB/PF-related, I'd rather build more flyable and AI-only light/medium and carrier-based bombers/assault planes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Like, for instance, B5N, D4Y, TBD, TBF, Ki-30, Ki-55, Ki-48, B-26, more B-25, Ju-88 and He-111 versions, SB2C, Hs-123, Hs-129, IL-4, SB, etc.
Instead of doing something completely unfitting into this game format, like B-17 or B-24. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

However, I am not Oleg and he doesn't have neither time or resourses to do that, anyway.

slo123
12-01-2005, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
Flyable heavies? TBH I wouldn't bother if I was Oleg (even if I had the time, that is).

Why? Because we've got FAR too many pish-headed Air-Quakers around here - as can be seen right here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2611081573/r/6581071673#6581071673) - who just don't have a FRIGGIN' clue of how to handle even a _lightish_ bomber w/out direct steering either because A) they cannot be ar$ed to learn the basics, or B) they are completely hopeless and thus _unable_ to learn the basics. So can you gents just _imagine_ how high would the whining stink if you gave them something REALLY heavy & hard like the Superfortress w/ its free-castoring nosewheel???

Sorry if I sound a bit harsh here, but I sometimes really and truly pity the developers. Those guys _work_ to give us add-ons for FREE, and what do they get for thank-yous? A bunch of brainless bozos whining about this or that being "impossible" to handle when in reality it's _them_ who don't have a fXXXing clue about anything!

So no heavies, please, unless we want to see a flood of BS insulting the intelligence of all decent - or even half-brained - folks around here...


ouch! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
12-01-2005, 10:45 PM
What Msalama and Saqson said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

p1ngu666
12-01-2005, 10:50 PM
he111 is barely controlable on the ground for me, dont have much of a problem with other aircraft.

the best "heavy" to make would be a late mossie.

wouldnt be popular tho, lw crying over a bomber of all things being quicker (at some heights) than there planes.

americans wouldnt like it cos its not a b17 or 24, and its completely devoid of 50cals

only europeans and bomber jocks will like it

p1ngu666
12-01-2005, 10:59 PM
oh, just to point out, b17 and b25 have similer performance actully, its mearly scale is bigger on the b17

heavy bombers where used on short distance ops, theres a prevalient double standard tho

long range fighters (ie p51,p38,p47) can do short ops, that is absolotly fine. NO ISSUE AT ALL, cmon get on warclouds and fly our american planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

lets proclaim our planes better because of range, then fly sorties that a 109 or spit or any other shortish range aircraft could do aswell.

ofcourse if us bomber jocks wanna saddle up in a heavy, to wreck a target, we are told that we cant because our aircraft has long range, and that short range missions, are quite simply impossible, sorry. now excuse me while i go do a sortie on warclouds in a p51 that wont last longer than 30mins, i feel ive made my point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
12-02-2005, 01:10 AM
Just to clarify, the B-24 could carry more bombs, and carry them farther than the B-17, as far as I can recall. Just the B-17 got more publicity.

I suppose you might compare it to the Hurricane and Spitfire during BoB, with the Hurri doing the bulk of the work (around 53% of ALL enemy aircraft desroyed in BoB?), but the Spit catching the public's attention.

p1ngu666
12-02-2005, 03:55 AM
yep

ElAurens
12-02-2005, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
only europeans and bomber jocks will like it

My vote for generalization of the decade.

Be sure.

p1ngu666
12-02-2005, 05:44 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sturm_Williger
12-02-2005, 06:27 AM
What SaQSoN said ... particularly when he mentioned Hs123.

Battle of Poland, France ... mmmmmmm ( if only )

Copperhead310th
12-02-2005, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
he111 is barely controlable on the ground for me, dont have much of a problem with other aircraft.

the best "heavy" to make would be a late mossie.

wouldnt be popular tho, lw crying over a bomber of all things being quicker (at some heights) than there planes.

americans wouldnt like it cos its not a b17 or 24, and its completely devoid of 50cals

only europeans and bomber jocks will like it

I like the " Mossie" & look forward to it. & i'm about as American as you can get. ;-)
The beu was a little disapointing. Hopefully the Mossie will be better.
And i agree to a point with Vladimir. Medium Bombers are the way to go. Especially the B-25/26. While i'd Give anything for a flyable Libby.....it's really just not practical in this sim.
Besides we're really lacking in Pacicifc Content. Maps are nowhere near where they should be. many key planes are missing on both sides.
And there are other things that could be done with a lot less effort than a new flayble from scratch.
Example: Take the P-40B cockpit and slap it in the P-36 Airframe. It's the SAME EXACT COCKPIT!
and there's a tone more.
the Regimental System needs a MAJOR overhaul.
Which we've (Dizz & I) tried to help Oleg with....but three patches ago he said " these are good works, will try to get them in if there is time."
Still waiting on that one Sir. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IcarusXP
12-03-2005, 05:43 AM
Is 10 stations even do-able?

I wish Oleg would give us a little cheat code or somthing so we can fly the b-17 (as-is) with the wonder women view. I'd settle for that.

polak5
12-03-2005, 11:35 AM
u can fly it without the cockpit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

polak5
12-03-2005, 11:36 AM
Battle of Poland, France ... mmmmmmm ( if only )
that would be awesome http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

slo123
12-07-2005, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by IcarusXP:
Is 10 stations even do-able?

I wish Oleg would give us a little cheat code or somthing so we can fly the b-17 (as-is) with the wonder women view. I'd settle for that.
like ive been syin id be happy with that or just pilots view

NAFP_supah
12-08-2005, 03:39 AM
When ever I hear someone say "he is giving us addons for freeeeee" I laugh. Do you really think Oleg gives you "free" addons from which he gains nothing? Don't be an idiot. The addons serve to keep you hooked and paying attention. If addons hadn't been released this community would have started dying off quick and I don't think BoB would sell as good as it hopefully will. Nothing in this life is for free.

Sharkey888
12-08-2005, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
Do you really think Oleg gives you "free" addons from which he gains nothing?


Wow someone actually got this correct. The fanboys forget this is OM's job-not his hobby http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif