PDA

View Full Version : Why not B-17, or B-29's?



SZS_Waterboy
05-09-2009, 10:49 PM
You know, I have always wanted to have a realistic flight/Combat simulator, and once i found IL-2 I instantly fell in love(lol). Everthing was great....Except YOU CAN NOT FLY B-17s or B-29s. You would think that since they are one if not The most sybolic bomber of WWII, why not have it as a flyable plane?

SZS_Waterboy
05-09-2009, 10:49 PM
You know, I have always wanted to have a realistic flight/Combat simulator, and once i found IL-2 I instantly fell in love(lol). Everthing was great....Except YOU CAN NOT FLY B-17s or B-29s. You would think that since they are one if not The most sybolic bomber of WWII, why not have it as a flyable plane?

csThor
05-10-2009, 01:07 AM
Because it was far outside the scope of the original simulation which was about low-level tactical air war on the Eastern Front. Another reason is that the western front is pretty much reduced to a "placeholder" to whet the appetite, but it is still limited to the tactical air war because of the seriously limited map sizes and the small but important fact that the game doesn't know buildings or groups of buildings as target category. And lastly even the Pacific expansion did not feature maps which are big enough for a realistic depiction of the operations of the Heavies.

Oh, almost forgot: it takes about ten times the workload of a single-engined fighter to create an aircraft as B-17 or B-29. I guess that also had a huge impact on it not being flyable.

Sirrith
05-10-2009, 03:15 AM
You can fly both of these if you use mods. Google all aircraft arcade

Skycat_2
05-10-2009, 03:54 AM
I demand a flyable C-46 Commando so I can deliver supplies to China.

K_Freddie
05-10-2009, 10:41 AM
US copyright laws http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

WTE_Galway
05-10-2009, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
US copyright laws http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed ... flyable Boeing bombers were actually made for the game and ready around the time of Pacific Fighters but were pulled after the litigation by NG.

The mod guys can get away with it because there is no profit in a big aircraft corporation sueing them for ridiculous royalties they do not have any money.

csThor
05-11-2009, 01:03 AM
The cockpit for the B-29 was not accepted because of

a) technical errors making it unusable
b) financial troubles because of *cough* Grumman *cough*

I've heard both versions.
Basically as long as the game doesn't know buildings/groups of buildings as target category the whole point of strategic bombers in Il-2 is pointless. Coupled with maps too small for their ops these behemoths just don't make sense gameplay wise.

joeap
05-11-2009, 02:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
The cockpit for the B-29 was not accepted because of

a) technical errors making it unusable
b) financial troubles because of *cough* Grumman *cough*

I've heard both versions.
Basically as long as the game doesn't know buildings/groups of buildings as target category the whole point of strategic bombers in Il-2 is pointless. Coupled with maps too small for their ops these behemoths just don't make sense gameplay wise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 as well as the whole workload thing, at least for quality work. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
05-11-2009, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SZS_Waterboy:
You would think that since they are one if not The most sybolic bomber of WWII, why not have it as a flyable plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably quite symbolic for an American but Oleg and Co. can't appease every nationality by putting in there favorite aircraft especially when they take so long to make i.e. wheres my Lancaster http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. It took years before even a Ju88, B25 or Pe2 was put into this sim.

jarink
05-11-2009, 08:43 AM
All of the heavies (B-17, B-24, B-29) need some work to bring them up to current standards. The mod cockpits for the -17 and -29 are a good first step, but there's lots of other little issues with the planes (especially texture mapping) that could use some love.

If I had a copy of 3DSMax and <STRIKE>some time</STRIKE> lots of time, I'd take care of that stuff myself. I've tried with GMax, but it can't import the models properly.

As far as them not making sense gameplay-wise, there's some guys in online bomber squadrons that would disagree with you. There are now maps that are large enough for strategic raids. I'm inclined to agree with you about the target issues, but one could also make the argument that there are game issues even with tactical targets (like a column of tanks).

csThor
05-11-2009, 09:53 AM
Quite frankly, jarink, I think online requirements are secondary in this equation. The key issue is if offline players can use an aircraft as intended, online use can be easily derivated from offline use but not the other way round. As long as AI, target categories and especially visual distances aren't up to the job the whole question of adding strategic bombers is pointless. Having them just to have them is not enough in my book, not when it takes so much work just to make a cockpit and the various crew stations.

However even this question is academic as Maddox Games is no longer working on the Il-2 line. What the modders do doesn't concern me. I don't use that stuff.

Wildnoob
05-11-2009, 11:03 AM
sorry for fall out of the subject asking this pilot's, but wat about the carrier born torpedo bombers like the TBD Devastator (not incluid in the sim even as AI), the TBM/TBF Avenger and the B5N and B6N?

I would like to know wat happen. oh, Oleg was a mad devolpher, he hate those planes and for that didn't modelate them eigther just as AI and flyable. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

logic that Oleg don't put this planes as flyable ones the sim for have very good reasons, but I would like to know why. if I'm not wrong with the Avenger it was again issues with Grumman. wonder wat reasons led to the not inclusion of the B5N and B6N.

DuxCorvan
05-11-2009, 12:46 PM
Admittedly, they had not enough pit references for the Nakajima torpedo bombers, specially concerning crew stations.

IMHO, there were also two other things in mind:

1)-Not being able to include US torpedo bombers, the team must have been reluctant to stir more polemics in a then sensitive question by including only Japanese counterparts. Soon, US Pacific War fans would have demanded a balanced set of planes, and putting the NG question in light is something Oleg and UBI really wished to avoid.

2)-The same question also affected the ship sets. Given so many issues, the team decided to make a "light" PTO simulation to avoid getting trapped in insolvable issues. Therefore, they clinged to the politics of "it's not a naval simulation" and decided not to solve the shortcomings of Il-2 limited air-sea interaction -lack of planes, maps, ships, blotched ship DMs, limited naval abilities like not being able to dodge torpedos, boring campaigns because of missing elements, etc.

In the end, all of this "killed" PF, specially as a stand-alone experiment.

Wildnoob
05-13-2009, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Admittedly, they had not enough pit references for the Nakajima torpedo bombers, specially concerning crew stations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

seriosly?! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I have a Japanese book who cover all the internal parts of both planes with drawings. the B6N there's no problem I belive, because there's a restored model in National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C..

BTW:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/john_ferguson/jill1stbrd.jpg

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

while with the B5N the problem is that there's not a single complet exemplair today. but there are photos logic. a saw a documentary about the battle of midway about 3 years ago, and a Japanese B5N pilot give it's testimonial for had take part in the battle. sadly that especially axis veteran pilot's are becoming more and more rare today each day. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

hope that the guy is with good health and could contiune to share it's experiences with us alongside with all others from all nations. this are things that marked their lifes forever. I don't have any doubth that they can recognized all the cockpit of their planes.

but I are thinking too short. altough most of the Japanese aviators where lost in combat, it's logic that they know their planes and shared this during the post war, despite Japan's new pacifist constitution. the drawings are in color alongside with a diagram of all instruments. I gonna scan them and post it here.

but thank you you very much for this and the other informations DuxCorvan!

AllorNothing117
05-13-2009, 11:58 AM
No B-17 or B-29, boo hoo. Get them with the mods. You know what is a travesty? No, Lancaster, Lincon or Halifax with or without mods. THAT is something to complain about.

JG52Uther
05-13-2009, 03:34 PM
Lancaster is on the way.

WTE_Galway
05-13-2009, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
if I'm not wrong with the Avenger it was again issues with Grumman. wonder wat reasons led to the not inclusion of the B5N and B6N. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The American oddity of companies thinking they should be able to sue game and toy manufacturers for royalties over representations of WWII products designed with US taxpayers money (not just Oleg has suffered here, the Ford corporation tried a similiar caper with the Sherman tank) probably made simulating the Pacific Theatre (and in fact anything involving American armed forces) a lot less viable.

jarink
05-13-2009, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AllorNothing117:
No B-17 or B-29, boo hoo. Get them with the mods. You know what is a travesty? No, Lancaster, Lincon or Halifax with or without mods. THAT is something to complain about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so much the Lincoln, but you forgot the Wellington, Stirling and most glaringly the B-26... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

PanzerAce
05-13-2009, 09:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AllorNothing117:
No B-17 or B-29, boo hoo. Get them with the mods. You know what is a travesty? No, Lancaster, Lincon or Halifax with or without mods. THAT is something to complain about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so much the Lincoln, but you forgot the Wellington, Stirling and most glaringly the B-26... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Psh, you can have the Baltimore *****. I'll take the A-26, thank you very much.

X32Wright
05-13-2009, 11:23 PM
The problem with the Tenzan is complicated. It has a three stations: Pilot, Bombardier/Navigator,Rear Dorsal Gunner/Rear Ventral Gunner. There is a limit on how you can use 'stations' and reposition cameras or perspective aka 'positions' for this plane. Look at the problem with the Junkers Ju-88 which had a 'stationary gun' position as well as the A-20 ventral gun. The Tenzan would need a combination of Junkers and A-20 solution which is too much.

This means that at least three stations needed to be modeled plus the complexity of the bombsight issue and the choice of HOW to man the Ventral and Dorsal gun positions with animated ventral gun placement. You cannot leave the ventral gun position open because it interferes with the torpedo position. SO it needs to be animated or probably ve given a control key like the lack of 'bomb doors' control key.

Also the lack of data about the bombsight although the Norden bombsight could have been used but it would not be historical. As you know the floor of the Tenzan has a 'window'.

For those who knows this plane is pretty much more complicated for the game than a B-17 or B-29 where the probable issue is the polygon load of a properly modeled station without resorting to use of 'clip maps' and 'alpha channels' to convert 3D geometry to 2D flat panels that looks 3D. Please see the I-185 M-71 cockpit and look at the '3D looking' flat panels with clip map/alpha channel to save on polygon count.

Yes ultimately it is the lack of detail and references that made this plane problematic as well as game engine limitations.

Wildnoob
05-14-2009, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by X32Wright:
The problem with the Tenzan is complicated. It has a three stations: Pilot, Bombardier/Navigator,Rear Dorsal Gunner/Rear Ventral Gunner. There is a limit on how you can use 'stations' and reposition cameras or perspective aka 'positions' for this plane. Look at the problem with the Junkers Ju-88 which had a 'stationary gun' position as well as the A-20 ventral gun. The Tenzan would need a combination of Junkers and A-20 solution which is too much.

This means that at least three stations needed to be modeled plus the complexity of the bombsight issue and the choice of HOW to man the Ventral and Dorsal gun positions with animated ventral gun placement. You cannot leave the ventral gun position open because it interferes with the torpedo position. SO it needs to be animated or probably ve given a control key like the lack of 'bomb doors' control key.

Also the lack of data about the bombsight although the Norden bombsight could have been used but it would not be historical. As you know the floor of the Tenzan has a 'window'.

For those who knows this plane is pretty much more complicated for the game than a B-17 or B-29 where the probable issue is the polygon load of a properly modeled station without resorting to use of 'clip maps' and 'alpha channels' to convert 3D geometry to 2D flat panels that looks 3D. Please see the I-185 M-71 cockpit and look at the '3D looking' flat panels with clip map/alpha channel to save on polygon count.

Yes ultimately it is the lack of detail and references that made this plane problematic as well as game engine limitations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand. altougth is was far more complex modelate this kind of aircraft as I was though it was.

I have wat I think it is a magnific book about Japanese carrier born aircraft of WWII. it's the Kido Kubotai, witch means carrier wing. the autor is Nohara Shigeru. sorry again, I don't know anything from him, but this publication is with sure a magnific one. the only problem is that at least me for me is that the publication is in Japanese, apart from one or another name in english in some of the pages. but the book is full ilustred, there's not a single page without a image.

I scan some pages from it, and with the specific subject there's a image about the bombsigth of the B5N or the B6N:

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/7222/bombsigth.jpg

I'm so sad because couldn't identifed the aicraft image, but are already trying discovery it. if everyone here know, I would like to ask if possible that if someone spreak the Japanese langague and manage identifide the aicraft, or anyone of them anyway, could tell me the aicraft for me please?

I would try to say that is a B5N. the ordnance seems to me that is a 800 kg armor piercing bomb. I know that for example B5N's used 800 kg AP bombs for level bombing the anchor USN vessels during the attack on Pearl Harbor.

this is the B6N cockpit:

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7968/livro15.jpg

I'll contract someone to translate the relation of the instruments and post it here for those (alongside with me) that don't speak the Japanese langague.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/2209/livro16.jpg

and this one is the B6N navigator/bombardier station.

I don't have much time to write more now, but later I'll back.

would like to ask just a last question for those who already fly it, but the B5N and the B6N have all it's stations playable in CFS-2?