PDA

View Full Version : B-17 Cockpit & sound



VF-152_HAWK
01-25-2007, 07:45 AM
Oleg please try to put in the B-17 Cockpit & sound take alook at this movie ....

THANK YOU SIR http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/wingsofpower/movies/

VF-152_HAWK
01-25-2007, 07:45 AM
Oleg please try to put in the B-17 Cockpit & sound take alook at this movie ....

THANK YOU SIR http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/wingsofpower/movies/

No601_prangster
01-25-2007, 02:47 PM
Why don't you just buy Wings of Power? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-25-2007, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No601_prangster:
Why don't you just buy Wings of Power? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL seriously. Sure these things would be great in IL2 but everyone keeps pointing to shockwave videos and stuff. Just buy the darn thing already and get your wish.

JG54_Lukas
01-26-2007, 12:44 AM
We've gotta have one of these B-17 cockpit threads at least once a month, you know...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

VF-152_HAWK
01-26-2007, 07:30 AM
I Have Wings of power shock wave B-17 i was just asking oleg we been asking for it for along time now and nobody has responded but it would be sweet to have it in this sim il-2

bogusheadbox
01-26-2007, 07:57 AM
I am not sure of all the negativity towards the original poster. For any member of the forum who has been around some time, will certainly know how much a flyable 4 engine heavy would be appreciated in this game.

Just the fact that one of you mentioned "We've gotta have one of these B-17 cockpit threads at least once a month, you know..." Is a tried testament to how much interest a flyable heavy would generate.

Just the fact we have no flyable heavy and yet the war has progressed to 1946 seems a little disjointed to me. Especially when heavies where the mainstay of the war.

It doesn't hurt to ask and the poster is in his right to ask. For if we don't ask, how will Oleg gauge how important it is for us in the community.

Negative and elitist replies such as those above only serve for one thing. Make you look foolish and takes away from the importance of this thread. For if you bash it, you won't get it. Then its you that looses out in the end.

If you want to reply then be constructive. Condescending and superfluous replies are not wanted nor warranted.

csThor
01-26-2007, 08:25 AM
"... especially when the heavies were the mainstay of the war ..."

One-sided viewpoint. There were more Il-2 Sturmoviks than all B-17s, B-24s and B-29s combined. They were a dominant factor in Western Europe, an important part in the later stages of the Mediterrean as well as the Pacific theaters, but they were just a part of the air war.

And since this game is at the end of its development life few folks understand why the same questions are being posted again and again. Especially when it comes to the heavies, which would be some of the worst choices gameplay wise - maps not big enough, no real targets (= no buildings or installations as targets), disadvantageous viewing distances ...

bogusheadbox
01-26-2007, 08:48 AM
One sided view point maybe. But ask most Westerners and they won't even know what an IL2 is. But i can sure as hell say that they know what a b-17 or a lancaster is.

I am not here to rebuke against you thor the can's and can'ts of adding heavies into the sim. By the same point feel free to say to your hearts content your feelings why they can't be. But i see no solace in your reply vindicating the brash replies to the original poster.

Perhaps you have even missed the points of my post.

The original writer asked for a heavy to be included. Simple.

The greater than thou attitudes of many here on UBIZOO forums didn't give valid responses, just flamed away. Nice way to encourage the community.... not!

Like i said. If you don't ask you don't get, and there is no problem with asking. There are many people who share the same views as yourself and many that are opposite. And those views are allowed to be posted without retribution.

Who is to say that someone won't take up the IL2 licence and continue development of the series. after Oleg has moved to BOB?

Maybe, just maybe, if enough people shout and want. A four engine heavy bomber maty turn up, if not in IL2 maybe in BOB.

So it isn't a stupid question from the origianl poster, nor did it deserve the replies it did. The only thing that is closed minded is those that speak ill of people who enjoy what they are playing and have the bravado to ask for what they want on such an inhospitable forum !!

Mysticpuma2003
01-26-2007, 01:14 PM
Dear bogus....I know how you feel, many, many times I have mentioned this, and it's been (for at least three-years) the same answer.

I would love the 17 or 24 to be flyable, but it's just not going to happen with the team that Oleg has at the moment.

That doesn't mean we can't express an interest, as when Shockwave created the Firepower add-on for CFS3 which included detailed B-17's and then B-24's, well if it wasn't financially viable, they wouldn't have made it!

I hope that in the future, Oleg sells the IL2 License, and some other developer comes on-board and creates these planes. I mean, they are already there, it's just the internals (some of which were done!), that need to be added.

If it were released as maybe IL2 1946: Bomber Expansion Pack and included the B-17,B-24, B-26 and Pe-8 (for example), I know I'd put my hand in my pocket to buy it.

Although a lot of the maps are small, the Battle over Europe expansion showed that it is easy to create Bomber Missions, it's just that at the moment you protect them rather than fly them!

Anyway, I agree, I'd love the heavies....it's just not going to happen with Oleg's team, and probably never will http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

TheGozr
01-26-2007, 01:25 PM
http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/fsx/B17fsx.jpg

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/fsx/B17fsx2.jpg

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/fsx/B17landing.jpg

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/fsx/axisjet.jpg

Defenitly worth it. Right now Shockwave is the new standard bar to beat. It's just a pleasure to fly

FritzGryphon
01-26-2007, 02:06 PM
Keep in mind, to make a full featured heavy for BoB would be a few orders of magnitude harder than a civi sim.

When a modeler is done a FS2004 plane, they've hardly even begun a IL-2 plane. Damage models, full set of internal stations, LODs (as many as 6 for -every- level of damage)... much, much, more work. Not to mention the new internal structure that's being modeled in SoW.

From what I see in the BoB planelist (medium bombers, right out of the box), I'm cautiously optomistic that we might see some heavies in the future. But it'll be a massive investment of man hours and reference collection for them to be complete, and look good.

I only hope that the interest in bombers is not overshadowed by the usual cries for the latest and greatest overboosted uberfighters.

Choctaw111
01-26-2007, 03:34 PM
Maybe if the first installment of SoW:BoB does very well Oleg will get a bigger team and can do more things for the second installment. It could happen. But Il2 has needed heavies from the beginning. I am very happy with what we have and the ability to fly things that were never done in any other sim. It would just be nice for some other significant AC to be included.

JG54_Lukas
01-26-2007, 06:09 PM
bogus, people have over and over and over and over and over again asked for the B-17 to be flyable, and the answer from Oleg (yes, he has replied to this inquiry before) is that it's way too much work to do right, and the series is simply at the end of its development life. If someone in the community was that insistent on having a flyable B-17, they should've petitioned for it long ago, when development resources from 1C were still available and third-party models were still being accepted. That time now has come and gone, at least from the official developer's standpoint.

As for these gems:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For any member of the forum who has been around some time, will certainly know how much a flyable 4 engine heavy would be appreciated in this game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just the fact we have no flyable heavy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have a flyable heavy bomber - it's called the TB-3, and there are 3 different versions of it at that. Oh, but I get it now - it's not American or British, so it doesn't count.

All in all, I think 1C has done pretty darn well with the flyable bombers. Every major nation, save Italy and the UK, has at least one either heavy or medium flyable bomber, and those at that took a long time to develop.

FritzGryphon
01-26-2007, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">to do right </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's the crux of the matter right there.

In other games, they just model it however is convenient. I notice that the Shockwave B-17 doesn't even have anything in the ball turret. I'm guessing it doesn't have an internal station for the ball turret, either.

Getting reference is a huge undertaking, especially for planes that don't exist anymore in a complete form. As common as the B-17s or B-24s were, I doubt that any exist in their original form, with all the vintage equipment inside. This info probably exists in many places, in bits and pieces, and would take much time and money to compile.

If there was a complete collection of reference for all the stations, there would have to be someone interested in making it. Until then, even the most skilled or motivated modelers can't do anything.

PBNA-Boosher
01-28-2007, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bogusheadbox:
One sided view point maybe. But ask most Westerners and they won't even know what an IL2 is. But i can sure as hell say that they know what a b-17 or a lancaster is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not a Western front sim. It's an Eastern Front Sim. The title of it is "IL-2." The Western front was added on as time went by, as was the Pacific, but this is still a Russian product made by a Russian developer who wanted to focus on the air war that Russia fought. Personally, it's great that we have the Western front, but screw it! I know enough about the Western front for now, I want to learn more about the Eastern front. Then, when I'm about as knowledgeable about both, I'll pick up some books on the Western front again.

ElAurens
01-28-2007, 05:59 PM
Have to "agree 100%" with FritzGryphon here.

I am tired of the constant references to Shockwave's add on aircraft for Microsoft's non combat flight procedure simulator. They have nothing in common with a model made for an aerial combat environment, other than their external appearance. No weapons modeling, no weapons effect modeling, in fact, no damage modeling at all as we understand it.

An utterly bogus comparison.

VF-152_HAWK
01-29-2007, 05:51 PM
Thanks guys for the replys like always there's always a negative reply towards a post but it don't matter long as somebody ask for it at less it's a try...GOZR tell me where u fly the B-17 and i'll fly the 17 with you send me the IP # ....nics pics

Mikhailove
01-31-2007, 10:05 PM
Honestly guys, we all love to see more planes, and cockpits, But Oleg and his team are busy, they know better then anyone else what everyone wants, because it's likely that they want to put them in too, It will happen in due time, just pull that wedgy out and enjoy il2 in the mean time.

JG54_Lukas
01-31-2007, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF-152_HAWK:
Thanks guys for the replys like always there's always a negative reply towards a post </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's called reality. Deal with it. If a flyable B-17 is that important to you, then start collecting information to send to 1C, instead of making yet another "can we have a flyable B-17?" thread.

TheGozr
02-01-2007, 01:00 AM
http://www.gozr.net/iocl/viewforum.php?f=38

Right here with some good oldies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VF-152_HAWK
02-01-2007, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG54_Lukas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF-152_HAWK:
Thanks guys for the replys like always there's always a negative reply towards a post </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's called reality. Deal with it. If a flyable B-17 is that important to you, then start collecting information to send to 1C, instead of making yet another "can we have a flyable B-17?" thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> It's funny i never said CAN WE HAVE u need to read it again.....

JG54_Lukas
02-01-2007, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF-152_HAWK:It's funny i never said CAN WE HAVE u need to read it again..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I guess the point of my thread went wayyyy over your head, then.