PDA

View Full Version : Why were B17s, B24s not added in 4.08m?



BlackMill
04-18-2007, 09:22 PM
Why were B17s, B24s and B29s not added as flyable aircraft in 4.08m. I bought the 4.07 DVD and yes they have added new aircraft but I was truly looking forward to flying heavy bombers. What I have seen with initial perusing is some new variations of the same aircraft and a couple new jets. The A20C is a nice addition and I will enjoy that.

I question that the upgrade was worth the $45.00 CDN. I hope that as I delve deeper into the new mod I will find that I am incorrect in my current impression of it.

I would love to be corrected here.

Waldo.Pepper
04-18-2007, 09:28 PM
Search the forum for your answer. No one can be bothered to answer this for the umpteenth time.

Stackhouse25th
04-18-2007, 09:34 PM
theyre slow as hell

Skycat_2
04-18-2007, 11:57 PM
The B-25 won the war.

ImpStarDuece
04-19-2007, 12:04 AM
The work required to add flyable B-17s, B-24s and B-29s would be the equivalent to adding approximately 20-25 single engined fighters, possibly more, to the game.

Each bomber needs a position for pilot, bombardier and the plethora of gunners (between 5-8). Bomber internals, being significantly larger and more complex than fighters, require much more work than a fighter cockpit, which is essentially a fixed position. All those movable turret positions would be very difficult to model.

Personally, I feel that given the limitations of the sim environment (small maps, most engagements conducted at low-medium altitudes, insufficient target types for strategic bombing) more light/medium bombers, such as additional B-25, Ju-88 and Mosquito variants, would be more appropriate than heavy bombers.

Treetop64
04-19-2007, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by BlackMill:
Why were B17s, B24s and B29s not added as flyable aircraft in 4.08m. I bought the 4.07 DVD and yes they have added new aircraft but I was truly looking forward to flying heavy bombers. What I have seen with initial perusing is some new variations of the same aircraft and a couple new jets. The A20C is a nice addition and I will enjoy that.

I question that the upgrade was worth the $45.00 CDN. I hope that as I delve deeper into the new mod I will find that I am incorrect in my current impression of it.

I would love to be corrected here.

> The IL-2 series has never been, nor will it ever be, about strategic warfare. It has always been about relatively short range tactical air warfare. The choices of flyable aircraft in the already massive list reflects this.

> Don't know what gave you the impression that the player would be flying heavy bombers in this sim. Again, that is not what this sim is about. Fighters of all sorts and short range tactical ground-pounders is the way here.

> The maps in the sim render the point of flying heavy bombers moot anyway, so why bother.

> IL-2 1946 isn't a "mod", it's an expansion. There's a difference.

> Many who already have all of the older versions of the sim up to v4.05m (myself included) have purchased 1946, and are quite happy with it. Personally I got it because it put an end to the somewhat convoluted process of installing and patching steps needed for a proper intall up to 4.05m. Everything I need is neatly packed onto one DVD. All I need to do now is to install one simple patch. Secondly, the list of addtional flyables in 1946 was always a welcome addition. Thirdly, there are still further refinements to the already high-fidelity flight model, and that was welcome as well.

gdfo
04-19-2007, 04:48 AM
Last reply is a good answer to a good question.

At the same time it is regretful that there is no Avenger in the game.

flyingloon
04-19-2007, 06:30 AM
more of a dead horse than a good question though...

Breeze147
04-19-2007, 06:32 AM
There should be a B-26, if nothing else. This aircraft was the epitome of the quick strike, tactical aircraft.

ImpStarDuece
04-19-2007, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
There should be a B-26, if nothing else. This aircraft was the epitome of the quick strike, tactical aircraft.

Contentious statment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'd say that the Mosquito, Pe-2 and A-26 were all superior tactical strike aircraft to the B-26, and epitomise the class better.

Smaller, lighter, faster and more manouverable, they also put less crewmen in harms way at a lower cost for similar bombloads.

The B-26 was your classic medium bomber: moderate bombload, moderate speed and a relatively heavy defensive armament.

In the ETO, B-26 loss rates were the lowest of any USAAF bomber, but that was more the environment they were operaiting in: short-medium range with heavy escorts against moderately defended targets in France and the low countries.

XyZspineZyX
04-19-2007, 07:28 AM
All right....In my B-29 and I take off from Iwo Jima map. Ah the pleasure of taking off in this beast of a bomber. Climb out is smooth and relatively fast. Armed to the teeth, I have my bomb bays full of nice little babies ready for delivery on the Japanese home islands. Climb to 30 000 feet. Ah, sure is nice this thing...then I get a call from my navigator over the intercom:

"Sir, uh...we've reached the end of the map, sir." **RECORD SCRATCHING NOISE**

WWSpinDry
04-19-2007, 07:30 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

BOA_Allmenroder
04-19-2007, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by BlackMill:
Why were B17s, B24s and B29s not added as flyable aircraft in 4.08m.

Because it was proven they could shoot down the beloved Bf 109.

Breeze147
04-19-2007, 08:38 AM
Apologies. I did mean to type A-26.

WWSpinDry
04-19-2007, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
Apologies. I did mean to type A-26.
Hell, for a brief period they actually did call the Invader a B-26. It was quite confusing.

Waldo.Pepper
04-19-2007, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
Apologies. I did mean to type A-26.

What would an added A-26 bring to the game that would differentiate it from a B-25?

Answer = not bloody much.

How would you justify all the work of adding the A-26 to the game?

Kind of tough to justify it imho.

Dead horse indeed! I think people should learn to use the search feature. It has been covered over and over and over again.

horseback
04-19-2007, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by flyingloon:
more of a dead horse than a good question though... I object to the abuse of any horse, living or dead!

cheers

horseback

WWSpinDry
04-19-2007, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
What would an added A-26 bring to the game that would differentiate it from a B-25?
Um, some eight or so more .50 cals for your strafing pleasure?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Dead horse or no, I miss ol' 'Vader. *sniff* http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

BlackMill
04-19-2007, 12:18 PM
Thanks for the answer for those who responded in kind.

To the others who so elequently put down the original question the release of 1946 was on March 13th in the US, I was only just able to find it on disk up here this week. In searching for forums there were only two hits that were post Mar. 13. not "umpteen", and excellent statistical comment btw.

Waldo.Pepper
04-19-2007, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by BlackMill:
Thanks for the answer for those who responded in kind.

To the others who so elequently put down the original question the release of 1946 was on March 13th in the US, I was only just able to find it on disk up here this week. In searching for forums there were only two hits that were post Mar. 13. not "umpteen", and excellent statistical comment btw.

Ok Noob you're on! Why don't you tell me HOW you did your search that got you only two hits!?

I'll go first shall I?

I search for flyable b-17 Here are the screenshots of how I did it and what result I got.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/search/search1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/search/search2.jpg

Can you see, that I got 23 PAGES of hits with that. Also please note that I restricted my search to THIS single forum ONLY. Not the sister Pacific Fighters forum, and not the Oleg's Ready Room forum (which may be the most appropriate forum for this question in the first place. It may not also that point is debatable I suppose).

OK your turn what search did you do? Or perhaps your massive level of experience has given you a differing view of what umpteen is.

I can't wait to see your clever search criteria you used.

Holding my breath -

Yours Truly Waldo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bearcat99
04-19-2007, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Search the forum for your answer. No one can be bothered to answer this for the umpteenth time.

Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
What would an added A-26 bring to the game that would differentiate it from a B-25?
Answer = not bloody much.
How would you justify all the work of adding the A-26 to the game?
Kind of tough to justify it imho.
Dead horse indeed! I think people should learn to use the search feature. It has been covered over and over and over again.

Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Ok Noob you're on! Why don't you tell me HOW you did your search that got you only two hits!?
I'll go first shall I?
I search for flyable b-17 Here are the screenshots of how I did it and what result I got.
Can you see, that I got 23 PAGES of hits with that. Also please note that I restricted my search to THIS single forum ONLY. Not the sister Pacific Fighters forum, and not the Oleg's Ready Room forum (which may be the most appropriate forum for this question in the first place. It may not also that point is debatable I suppose).
OK your turn what search did you do? Or perhaps your massive level of experience has given you a differing view of what umpteen is.
I can't wait to see your clever search criteria you used.
Holding my breath -
Yours Truly Waldo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Lighten up Waldo.... he may have registered a year ago but the guy has 3 friggin posts for crying out loud.. stop acting like a jerk. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

No need for the name calling. Take that attitude and stow it. It brings nothing but trouble with it. I will not have new members being treated like that by forum members who should know better. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

gdfo
04-19-2007, 02:37 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif


Well said! New players and some older ones need encouragement.

Waldo.Pepper
04-19-2007, 02:45 PM
Bearcat please check PM.

BlackMill
04-19-2007, 03:01 PM
You and I are finished.

You win, feel better?

WOLFMondo
04-19-2007, 03:04 PM
Don't take it so hard blackmill. Its a question that gets asked allot round here.

na85
04-19-2007, 05:52 PM
Wow... my first impression of these boards was one of maturity. Waldo seems to be chipping away at it.

Waldo.Pepper
04-19-2007, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by BlackMill:
You and I are finished.

You win, feel better?

Honestly, no I don't feel better - not a bit.

I think it would be better if all of our first reflex's were to do/be able to stand on our own two feet and be able to do a search on this or any forum. Teach a man to fish kind of thing.

I think THAT should be all out goals.

My goal is not, was not to win. My goal is for us BOTH to win!

I apologize if I have hurt your feelings. that was not my intention.

SlowBurn68
04-19-2007, 06:07 PM
Hey Pepper why didn't you just ignore this post then if it offends you so much that a question gets repeated. I have friends that I tried to turn on to this game only to be turned off by board members here like you.

BlackMill - There are more people on theses boards that will be happy to help than not.

p-11.cAce
04-19-2007, 06:44 PM
This forum can get strange...but most are very helpful!

EURO_Snoopy
04-20-2007, 02:52 AM
A useful enough question to be added to the FAQ
using quotes from ImpStarDuece & Treetop64
FAQ (http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&cat=9#376)

PFflyer
04-20-2007, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by BlackMill:
Why were B17s, B24s and B29s not added as flyable aircraft in 4.08m.
.

The standard answer to questions like this should be:

Because you did not put in the work modeling the plane and submit it on schedule like so many other valuable members of this community did on other planes you ignorant twit.

Bearcat99
04-20-2007, 07:37 AM
Look let's face it.... a lot of new folks around here either aren't aware of the search feature (after all it says find not search... and we dont know who is a first time forum user.. I had no idea forums even existed until I came here after getting IL2).. or may not be aware that it is now working again.. as some of you may know it has been down sporadically over the past few months..... IMO considering BM's post count and time registered.. it is a legitimate question and one that certainly deserves a reasonably less condescending answer. Im not ragging anyone just stating a fact.. there is no reason why we cant be civil here with each other unless a person just flat out deserves a tongue lashing.... things like RTFM and Do a search NOOB, because you didnt do it etc, etc, etc when someone asks a legitimate question albeit an often asked and debated one... just don't have a place here.. I am not trying to dog anyone or rip anyone .. it is just a fact. I for one am glad that we have new people coming here asking some of the same old questions that many of us have been seeing over the years... it means that the community is growing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

notamuppet
04-20-2007, 08:02 AM
Greetz http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif How many new menbers have we had in the past couple of months ?

Bewolf
04-20-2007, 08:20 AM
Legitimate or not, I have to say the effort and time some members invested here to prove the original posters shortcomings would have much better and more effectivly spent by just answering the question.

Just my two cents.

Old_Canuck
04-20-2007, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
This forum can get strange...but most are very helpful!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Right you are p-11.cAce. I think everyone on this forum is strange except for you and me ... and sometimes I wonder about you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

bengal
04-20-2007, 08:35 AM
Hi Guys,

I have to agree with Bearcat99.

I try to spread the word about Il2 1946 as much as possible, amongst freinds, relatives and people in general discussion.

Knowing those people well, most would be turned off by a "to negative" reaction to their query on a forum.

It is actually difficult enough convincing people that the game is more than just a Russian centred game, and that it is such a good flight sim, that you can almost feel like you are flying a real Aircraft.

Just getting them to give it a go is not easy.

My 2 Bob's worth.

Have fun everyone.

Bengal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS. I do believe it would be terrific to have the opportunity to fly the four engined heavy's even if they weren't particularly involved in the combat of the game. Lancaster and Sunderland...oh dream on Bengal....... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

jarink
04-20-2007, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by BlackMill:
Why were B17s, B24s and B29s not added as flyable aircraft in 4.08m.

Because secretly, Oleg likes to torture us. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
(Well, some of us, at least.)

I think (hope, pray) we will see flyable heavies in IL2 if 3rd party addons are someday allowed like has been hinted at in some of Oleg's interviews.