PDA

View Full Version : B-17G



nick_tenor
04-14-2006, 11:13 AM
I know that this guestion maybe has been answer in the past..But i would like to ask once more..(Just in case i missed something)...
Why till now a B-17G or B-29 it's not still flyable like B-25?? Thanks in advance...

TC_Stele
04-14-2006, 12:26 PM
Questions been asked a million times, so I'll give it to you straight.

-this isn't a heavy bomber simulation
-there are too many positions to model, which takes up time and resources that could be better spent on other planes

-i'm sure there are some other arguments but those are the better known.

PS: please use the search feature on the forum; it's labeled as "Find."

MrMoonlight
04-14-2006, 01:23 PM
You can answer this question yourself if you just take a look at the maps. There aren't any maps that facilitate taking off from an allied airbase, flying to your target and returning (in a historical sense).

Historically speaking, in Europe, B-17s flew primarily out of bases in England and bombed targets deep in Europe. In the Pacific, B-29s flew out of Saipan or Iwo Jima to strike Japan.

Now, try to find a map in this sim that would allow you to do the above.

That, together with what TC_Stele mentioned above, pretty much sums it up.

Hopefully, BOB will offer much larger maps that will eventually allow heavy bomber operations to be implemented at some point.

ElAurens
04-14-2006, 04:27 PM
Personally I think the B29, with it's speed and bomb load would be the cat's meow in the low level tactical role.

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

HotelBushranger
04-14-2006, 10:23 PM
Good to hear from you again Moonlight, its certainly been a while http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

faelas
04-15-2006, 03:56 AM
There was almost a flyable B29 in Pacific Fighters. A fully completed (or nearly so) interior with all positions. Check this out:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4511020924/p/1

MrMoonlight
04-15-2006, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
Good to hear from you again Moonlight, its certainly been a while http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

G'day, HB! Yeah, long time, no see.

I was out of the loop for a while. Way too much work with lotsa traveling. Hope to stick around for a while now that things have settled down a bit.

I ushered in my return to the forums with a new screenshot in the PF screenshot thread. Go check it out mate...if ya haven't already http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

GAU-8
04-17-2006, 01:04 AM
i rode in kicking a dead horse,, and ill be kicking it all the way out... i make no excuse. this is a sore spot for me. and i DO appologise in advance before being burned at the stake.

so here goes...

1.if people started to work on it a few years ago..all those positions would have been finished by now...

2. we dont need the full size maps. ok, so you have to have several waypoints to gain alt. not a problem. and thats pretty much what happened in real life (more or less within reason) not a straight "B-LINE" shot from airfiled to target,and back.

3. if its SUCH a problem as "everybody' else states about "too many positions,etc,etc" we will NEVER EVER see a B-17 in ANY of olegs flight sims, not even the ones after B.O.B. WHY? you ask? its "too much work" for them to model now, think about how much MORE work its going to be in a HIGH POLY/high dynamic weather/torque/slipstream/shudder/ or whatever game engine. all of a sudden modeling in "old" IL2 engine looks real good. the B-29 and all cockpits/stations were done. its not impossible. and that the B-17 info is every where on the internet. and readily available almost anywhere else involved with flight. *I AM NOT SAYING ITS "EASY TO MODEL" im saying its MUCH easier to model in older engine than compared to his up and coming B.O.B. engine....and what his exacting standards are going to be THEN.)

4."other" bombers made it in the game, its still a BOMBER. does not matter that its short range or what not. its a bomber with MANY positions to model...and they are in game.

5. adding B-17 cockpits gets rid of PESKY online pilots who know where the enemy is all the time due to externals. and treat it like a giant kite/floaty gun station on WW servers.

6. FULL SWITCH servers can now have higher representation of historical battles that always wanted the B-17 in server, but would not allow due to needing to keep externals on.

7.nobody can argue "uuh dude, this is FORGOTTEN BATTLES!" just about every MAJOR FIGHTER OR BOMBER in WWII has been made and playbable in IL-2 series engine. its been decided long ago that this is now the "worlds almanac of flight sim aircraft for combat" in one stop.

8. (EDIT) thank you Oleg, for the B-24, and B-25. we appreciate the hard work BUT nobody flies them EXCEPT when forced to, on historical "euro fortress" servers that NEED B-17, but dont have one. excluding japanes /pearl harbor maps.

9. as stated before... many/most will PAY for this if it was a pay for add-on. so nothing can be said about "cost". not really, considering that he would/could have made this and added it into a patch for free (like 15-30 other aircraft we got for free). SOME money is better than no money.

10.THE BALL TURRET station. nuff said.

please note i am not attacking ANYBODY that posted in the thread...dont take it personally when i say "everbody states that...".


INCOMMING!

Buzzsaw-
04-17-2006, 09:53 AM
Salute

The B-17 could be flyable with very little work, if the designers would simply limit the accessible positions to the pilot and bombardier.

There is no reason why this can't be done, in fact there is already a flyable aircraft in the game modelled without an accessible gunner position, that being the IL-2 Field Mod.

99% of the time, when used on the COOP servers, only one person is aboard the multi-position planes that have already been modelled.

On the dogfight servers, only one person can be aboard, period. And 99% of the time they are in the pilot or bombardier's seat.

We could have all kinds of flyable planes, such as the early Bostons, Blenheim, early B-25's etc.

Unfortunately there seems to be no inclination by the designers to make this perfectly acceptable compromise.

Takata_
04-17-2006, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
The B-17 could be flyable with very little work, if the designers would simply limit the accessible positions to the pilot and bombardier.
- I fully agree, and from my point of view, it's a complete waste of ressource to model any gunner position in any bomber in term of "accuracy" when many other critical feature are not implemented at the same time. ie: in cockpit rear view rotating behind pilot's head and fully obstructed by seat.
- Bomber's gunner would be one of my last choice of critical feature to be implemented in such sim. It's already full of compromise in term of accuracy.
S~
Takata.

GAU-8
04-17-2006, 12:09 PM
so WHAT exactkly is it that makes the B-17 so left out, when there are other 4 engined HEAVY bombers out there that are done???

Monson74
04-18-2006, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by GAU-8:
so WHAT exactkly is it that makes the B-17 so left out, when there are other 4 engined HEAVY bombers out there that are done???

Because the B-17 saw most action on the Western Front & this series depicts the Eastern Front & the PTO. I hope BoB will eventually bring us Fortresses & Lancasters - Do17s would also rock.

GAU-8
04-18-2006, 12:24 PM
but if that was the case, by installments of fronts. we shoudlnt have teh P-51 out as well (but the reason is different, its a fighter) it was not involved with pacific,? there is the P-80 jet in sim as well, along with many other aircraft that do not fit into a pacific,eastern or med front.

DuxCorvan
04-18-2006, 01:13 PM
1) Most add-on planes are 3rd party work. Oleg & Co. just fixed and included them in the code. Had the B-17's interiors been modeled by some 3rd party guy before the NG issue, they'd be in the game.

2) After that, any new US planes were doomed by the NG issue, or whatever.

3) Learn to live with that. Complaining, protesting, whining or commenting about the lack of flyable B-17 won't work anyway. You can threat if you want with holding your breath till the B-17s are in, but you're only going to have every vein in your forefront bursting.

Three paid add-ons, and Il-2 saga will end. Flyable B-17 won't be in them. The End.

Sorry. We'll have to wait and pray for the BoB sequels.

Copperhead310th
04-19-2006, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by GAU-8:
but if that was the case, by installments of fronts. we shoudlnt have teh P-51 out as well (but the reason is different, its a fighter) it was not involved with pacific,? there is the P-80 jet in sim as well, along with many other aircraft that do not fit into a pacific,eastern or med front.

Kris,
P-80 was deployed in Western ETO for trial testing in france with in the last few months of the war.
Adn by the end of the PTO there were ships loaded with P-80A's sitting on the dock in Queensland, and through out the SW PTO awating final asymbly & deployment. So that aircraft is Relevent in a way, althou more so to the 1946 add on.

And yes the P-51 was was also in the PTO, SW PTO, & the CBI theaters, deployed with the the 5th, & 7th AF to name a couple.

And by the way bro how the hell are yas?

reisen52
04-19-2006, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by GAU-8:
but if that was the case, by installments of fronts. we shoudlnt have teh P-51 out as well (but the reason is different, its a fighter) it was not involved with pacific,? there is the P-80 jet in sim as well, along with many other aircraft that do not fit into a pacific,eastern or med front.

http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/p51pics/military/pacific/7.jpg

P-51D's on Iwo Jima ready to escort B-29's over Japan

jasonbirder
04-19-2006, 03:53 AM
How would you use this (or indeed any other 4 engined bomber) in the game - in any historical way...
Given the lack of large maps & relevent strategic targets...and the p*ss poor AI would make flying in tight formation with other groups a menace...
It was very very infrequently used as a tactical bomber (and was pretty ineffective in that role)
Obviously it could be used as an airstart/airfinish flying target on Dogfight servers...but whats the problem with just using AI B17's for that...
I'd love to fly 4 Engine bombers in a relevent setting either daylight or night bombers...but just cannot see anyway whatsoever that a halfway decent mission could be created for them...
Its not just that the planes aren't modelled...its the entire game environment which isn't modelled to accomodate them...

GAU-8
04-19-2006, 05:44 AM
DUX!!!

that would be the logical reason that i havent thought about. THANKYOU for bringing this up...i have no clue if that is what is effecting it. IF thats the case, i compleltely understand. AND would consider it dropped! thats the simple answer i was LOOKING for . the rest of namby pamby stuff didnt make nough sence..(or matter if it was another aircraft just as problematic within the game.)

HI COPPER!

REISEN52..i cant see your pick..but i believe ya :P

jasonbirder

in order of your questions

1.(please tell me your kidding??)the same way anybody uses ANY aicraft (within limitation of the GAME) as close to historical as possible. "best representation" within reason of hardware/sofware capabilities. just like anybody else. you CANT ask THAT question....and not be taken seriously.... go to any 190/109/p-51/p-38/p-39/mig/yak/la-5/la-7/he-111/ pilot (or any simmer thats here) and ask the same question (youll get laughed at). we all are here for the most realism that we can get available. thats it.

2. i dont have a problem flying with large tight formations online.. as long as its a smooth server. there isnt a problem that i have had with that.

3.i never said anything about it being a tactical bomber. all i have said is that I AM pretty good at nailing certain targets at 9 K... sure im off here and there...but in real life, bombs falling close by.. affects you psychologically.. and thats what makes this simm great. having fear, but knowing you wont REALLY get hurt

4. ever used AI B-17 on DOGFIGHT SERVER? dogfight server means externals are ON. now what happens when externals are on..EVERYBODY comes looking for you. you dont have a chance. your raped in teh air. B-17 NOT allowed in "FULL REAL " servers, because leaving in the B-17..now means you HAVE to have externals on..so the B-17 pilot can see (tahdaaah!) EXTERNALLY! which makes the "full real " server now a "DOGGYFIGHT SERVER" it aint gonna happen. the magic is when THEY KNOW your out there...but where?? they cant find you, and if they dont, what they are protecting , will be gone .

5.you must not have a lot of creativity. lets see. uuuum. (within game limitations OF COURSE) long flight in to BERLIN , MUSTANGS are only escort, and few between. 190s and 109s lurking somewhere nearby at mid, to high altitudes. flack. 15 minutes boredom, 2 minutes sheer hell. not only sounds halfway decent..it actually happened. but maybe your halfway decent and mine..arent the same. i base mine off of "what did, "what could" and "what if" as a last resort.

6. the game "Accomodates" just fine, and we accomodate the best we can (again within hardware/software limitations). if it didnt "accomodate" there is NO way it could have ever been put in, in the first place. it sounds like YOU are looking for "PERFECTION" and cant find it (im surprised you play this sim at all with all of its "glaring errors" ..while I am looking for "the closest within reasonable limits".

jasonbirder
04-19-2006, 06:52 AM
Well I certainly didn't mean to get under anyones skin quite so effectively http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
And yes it is possible...with a certain suspension of disbelief to use Strategic bombers in this games series...
But i'm not kidding...
1)
Please tell me your kidding??)the same way anybody uses ANY aicraft (within limitation of the GAME) as close to historical as possible. "best representation" within reason of hardware/sofware capabilities. just like anybody else. you CANT ask THAT question....and not be taken seriously.... go to any 190/109/p-51/p-38/p-39/mig/yak/la-5/la-7/he-111/ pilot (or any simmer thats here) and ask the same question (youll get laughed at). we all are here for the most realism that we can get available. thats it.

If I fly a fighter mission on the East Front I can take off perform my mission & return to base...If I fly a Jabo mission I can do that strike relatively sensible targets...EG: trucks, tanks etc etc & return to my base...If i'm defending a target against AI bombers I can take off, climb to altitude, perform an intercept & return to base...etc etc...the list goes on even with the lack of certain planes and certain objects & certain maps...the missions of most of the planes in the sim can be reasonably simulated...with heavy bombers thats just not the case...
The maps simply aren't big enough - in reality formations of B17s would take off form up & climb to altitude over friendly airspace, untroubled by enemy fighters...Are there any maps big enough to allow this?
They would then hit large scale strategic targets...factories/oil fields etc etc...are there targets like this in FB/AEP/PF?
If you consider Airstarts and flying off the map to finish a mission as realistic...so be it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
2)
I dont have a problem flying with large tight formations online.. as long as its a smooth server. there isnt a problem that i have had with that.
Online it might not be a problem...with AI it is a big problem...the vast majority of play is Offline only.
3)
3.i never said anything about it being a tactical bomber. all i have said is that I AM pretty good at nailing certain targets at 9 K... sure im off here and there...but in real life, bombs falling close by.. affects you psychologically.. and thats what makes this simm great. having fear, but knowing you wont REALLY get hurt
If you're not going to use it as a tactical bomber...what sort of targets are you going to be hitting...cos there are no strategic targets in the game...
4)
4. ever used AI B-17 on DOGFIGHT SERVER? dogfight server means externals are ON. now what happens when externals are on..EVERYBODY comes looking for you. you dont have a chance. your raped in teh air. B-17 NOT allowed in "FULL REAL " servers, because leaving in the B-17..now means you HAVE to have externals on..so the B-17 pilot can see (tahdaaah!) EXTERNALLY! which makes the "full real " server now a "DOGGYFIGHT SERVER" it aint gonna happen. the magic is when THEY KNOW your out there...but where?? they cant find you, and if they dont, what they are protecting , will be gone .
Many apologies...when I said Dogfight server I meant - an online server that isn't an online war regardless of difficulty settings...I meant a full real server - but with a come as you are - shoot down the enemy planes mission philosophy...I never said anything about Icons/Padlock/Externals etc...In fact if you were flying B17s it would have to be full real because navigation was a key part of flying one...Which would be negated by using the map button...
5)
You must not have a lot of creativity. lets see. uuuum. (within game limitations OF COURSE) long flight in to BERLIN , MUSTANGS are only escort, and few between. 190s and 109s lurking somewhere nearby at mid, to high altitudes. flack. 15 minutes boredom, 2 minutes sheer hell. not only sounds halfway decent..it actually happened. but maybe your halfway decent and mine..arent the same. i base mine off of "what did, "what could" and "what if" as a last resort.
To me taking off, then making it back to the base with a plane in whatever condition are a key part of the mission for me...Its not just about 10 minutes of shooting or being shot at then hitting Esc!
6)
The game "Accomodates" just fine, and we accomodate the best we can (again within hardware/software limitations). if it didnt "accomodate" there is NO way it could have ever been put in, in the first place. it sounds like YOU are looking for "PERFECTION" and cant find it (im surprised you play this sim at all with all of its "glaring errors" ..while I am looking for "the closest within reasonable limits".
The game isn't perfect...Its a GAME...and it does a good job of representing alot of the things that happened in the air in WW2 to a degree that I enjoy...its just that Flying Long Range Strategic Bombing Missions isn't one of them...In many ways a game engine like Silent Hunter III is almost a better way of simulating this than FB/AEP/PF...

Copperhead310th
04-19-2006, 11:08 PM
Jeez Gau u boys over with the 380th BG not happy with the B-25's any more? lol
i reaslize you need your b-24's & B-17's....& i want em my self. But arent the b-25's far mor practical for the maps in this sim?

anasteksi
04-20-2006, 06:40 AM
How long you can continue this? I think it has been pointed out to be useless. We wont get flyable B-17.. This kind of topics come out of the blue sometimes and every time huge, pointless whining starts..

TC_Stele
04-20-2006, 12:55 PM
http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/kill_thread_accordian.jpg

AFJ_Locust
04-20-2006, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Personally I think the B29, with it's speed and bomb load would be the cat's meow in the low level tactical role.

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

Exzactaly PLUS its already AI

Just name it something else & give it some generic pit

reisen52
04-20-2006, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
How would you use this (or indeed any other 4 engined bomber) in the game - in any historical way...Given the lack of large maps & relevent strategic.... I'd love to fly 4 Engine bombers in a relevent setting either daylight or night bombers...but just cannot see anyway whatsoever that a halfway decent mission could be created for them...Its not just that the planes aren't modelled...its the entire game environment which isn't modelled to accomodate them...

Excuse me but the stratigic target distance from Alconbury B-17 base to Cherbourg is about 120 miles. Alconbury to St. St-Nazaire is about 284 miles & the B-17's made these runs very frequently.

Zeke

GAU-8
04-20-2006, 10:55 PM
sorry guys ESPECIALLY jasonbirder. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

i do owe an apology

had a bad day, and of course the little stuff gets blown out to "stupendously big" proportins. ya know. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif had to have an outlet..and i guess here was it.

my thing is that i never knew it to be OFFICIALLY DEAD (that i can recollect..but i may be wrong..i forgot the easy stuff to remember too often). i thought it was "Dead" becuase of a few lackluster reasons to put it in. yall ahve GOOD points..but to me..it just didnt seem to be anything to TRULY make it a NO-GO, except for what DUX said about the N/G type issue.

sorry bout that. now im gonna hear it from COPPER! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gandy_Katarin
04-21-2006, 07:24 PM
Remember it takes time for a heavy bomber group to get airborne...then form up...then they have to climb,these birds are made for high altitude bombing and they cant just gun it and climb like mad. By the time these birds were on the way to the target i wreckon most people would be moaning they were taking to long to appear lol.