PDA

View Full Version : Flyable B17...



XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 03:06 PM
I'm sure our community can do this one:

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004497


The B17 would be an incredible addon -

I picture p47's, p51's escorting a group of B17's....



S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 03:06 PM
I'm sure our community can do this one:

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004497


The B17 would be an incredible addon -

I picture p47's, p51's escorting a group of B17's....



S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 03:20 PM
Recon_609IAP wrote:
- I'm sure our community can do this one:
-
- <a
- href="http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/
- bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004497"
- target=_blank>http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims
- /boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=00
- 4497</a>
-
-
-
- The B17 would be an incredible addon -
-
- I picture p47's, p51's escorting a group of
- B17's....
-
-

I picture 1 weekly posting: "How start B-17??" and another bi-weekly posting: "how use bombsight???".

I also supsect it will never be used online.



<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 03:28 PM
I'd fly it...and blow stuff up too! uh huh.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 03:32 PM
It is flyable, just not in FB.

you can get the B17 sim and experience the excitement of flying from Norflok to the middle of Germany at 175mph. You can start all the engines individually, taxi to take off etc. Actually, though the flying can be dull (to my mind at least), it's a pretty good and you can switch between crew position and planes during missions (and ther's a very handy fast forward switch).

They could update that and you'd have a potentially 'brill game.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 03:38 PM
is that CFS3? those look 100X better than the crappy stock cockpits


"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 03:48 PM
Yep its cfs3
and the addons by third party developers make it looking very nice.

Even some grafix addons help it make better than the first crap from microsoft.

FM from FB is still the best and cfs3 doesn't get close but on the grafix front i have seen some very nice stuff like the B-25 Mitchell stunning.......

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 04:03 PM
I own a copy of CFS3, and i must said that graphics are great, but that's the only thing they have. Behavior of planes are larger better in IL2... and also smoothness in motion of models... i've spent more time searching tips and tricks and/for twaking it than really playing it... no matter what Nvidia drivers i use. Mi PC is an Athlon XP 2400, MOBO Kokab 18p NV2 chipset, GForce 4 4800 TI 128MB 8x AGP, etc... and still can't play it at a decent frame rate at a higher res than 1024x768 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif ...

Regards.

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 04:14 PM
B17 II the mighty Eighth...awesome game. Once you lift off, switch over to someone other than the pilot (navigator was always a good bet if you wanted to make it to target) then just speed up the time compression until an "event" occurs.(Attack by fighters, Flak, Crew health,)

Flying through flak in that game was the amazing. The crew management was really cool. One of the things I used to do was start one of the historical missions, and whenever we were attacked, I'd switch to the enemy fighters and try and down my own flight just too see the aftermath of my efforts aboard my plane. Other times I'd switch to one of our escorts to down the plane I was just flying that I'd try to down my own bomber with (this and switching to the various gunner positions on my plane) all done during the mission. You'd have to move the crew around to compensate for a dead pilot or navigator.
Navigation was a real challenge, but I got pretty good at it after awhile (look for landmarks).

Obviously the graphics of the landscape and clouds cant measure up to modern sims but they got the job done. The flight models for the planes were'nt exactly up to IL-2 standards either but the B-17 felt like it was flying as it should. I Flew home plenty of missions with the rudder all the was to the right and stick pulled halfway back trying to keep a the plane in the air and on track because of damage to the aircraft.
The sound was excellent too.

I'm tempted to install it again....matter of fact I think I will.

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 05:07 PM
The planes look great, but I'll never fly them. I'm long past fed-up with CF3 and it's jitters. I never got that game to work properly.
As I see it...I already paid $60.00 for the game, why should I now spend my play time trying to fix it????

Nice planes, bad platform...wasted effort.

http://home.comcast.net/~ick_352nd/

http://home.comcast.net/~ick_352nd/icarus.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 07:28 PM
Hm, since FB gets the Flying Fortress as an AI plane, the only thing we now need are MANY server hosts that have the B-17 (maybe along with the PE-8?) in their plane lists for flight!

These two birds would definitely add more excitement, and certainly some fantastic experiences for both attackers and the bomber pilots with their escorts! They would greatly backup the 111 and the TB-3.

HOSTS, please make sure you have those 2 ai birds in stock for flight!

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 07:55 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
-
- Recon_609IAP wrote:
-- I'm sure our community can do this one:
--
-- <a
-- href="http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/
-- bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004497"
-- target=_blank>http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims
-- /boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=00
-- 4497</a>
--
--
--
-- The B17 would be an incredible addon -
--
-- I picture p47's, p51's escorting a group of
-- B17's....
--
--
-
- I picture 1 weekly posting: "How start B-17??" and
- another bi-weekly posting: "how use bombsight???".
-
- I also supsect it will never be used online.
-
-
-
-
- <font face="Courier New">
-
- _____ | _____
- _\__(o)__/_
- ./ \.
-
- </font>

Bladiejr u most be blind if u are online or u are never online.
hehehehe bro bombers are very populair online , look more around.
Well and if the B-17 is ever coming flyable i go to a allied sqd and fly that baby insted of my He111 girl.
mmmmmm yamiee , Olegggggggggggg !!!!!!!!
give me give me give me pleaseeeeeeeee.
I/KG26_Oranje

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 09:42 PM
Ick_352nd:
Wasted effort? in your opinion maybe, for those of us who fly CFS3 (myself included and yes I fly IL2 and FB) then the effort is much appreciate. I can get CFS3 to fly just fine, sure there are a few stutters when things get thick but I can live with that til I have a juicier system.
The planes look dynamite and I'm sure they will fly excellent as well, looking forward to this and the BoB add on coming out soon for CFS3. If no one bother to work on CFS3, to improve it after MS ditched us, then it could be considered a wasted effort.

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 10:27 PM
I remember the flight model for the B-17 being spot on (as far as I know) but those for the fighters were terrible. Also there were some annoying bugs. Any mod/patch work about?

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 10:36 PM
"I picture 1 weekly posting: "How start B-17??" and another bi-weekly posting: "how use bombsight???".

I also supsect it will never be used online."




You suspect huh ?......


It would be used online if it were flyable...
and so what if someone ask everyday how to start this or do that ...Thats what this place is for...to ask questions...

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 01:00 AM
Just to be sure, what do you actually mean when ya say "flyable"?

Flyable, like there's only the external model (ai plane)?

or

Flyable, like fully modelled including cockpit, gunnerpositions and bombsight?


For me it would just be fine if case #1 would happen, external model only, no cockpit; I'm fine with that, as long as the servers out there have the plane in their lists.
Anyone agreeing?

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 01:29 AM
J18_Weed wrote:
- "I picture 1 weekly posting: "How start B-17??" and
- another bi-weekly posting: "how use bombsight???".
-
- I also supsect it will never be used online."
-
-
-
-
-
- You suspect huh ?......
-
-
-
- It would be used online if it were flyable...
- and so what if someone ask everyday how to start
- this or do that ...Thats what this place is for...to
- ask questions...
-


Oh come on guys... you know how popular bombers are online.. i see soooo many 111's flying around... not really.

I dont mind another bomber, but at least model something that was used in large numbers... B-24 or B-25 would be a good fit.. not that anyone would fly those online either, because people just tend to enjoy stick-yanking.

Don't take everything so personal.

<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 01:36 AM
- I dont mind another bomber, but at least model
- something that was used in large numbers... B-24 or
- B-25

Errrr, like the B-17 then, which is what this thread is about - maybe the reason there arent more bomber pilots playing is because the ones in the game are pretty sh*te

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 01:47 AM
I think most of all, the B-17 is a strategic bomber, and at most you could only get one or two people to fly those on bombing missions.

I can see it being quite a asset in scripted servers, very long range ones only though. Better to have a flyable B-26 or B-25 for most situations.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 01:50 AM
Realy impressed and look at the ta152 cockpit view http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What a view .)

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 01:51 AM
I just watched the 352nd movie. verry cool. nice Music Selection.

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p837.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
http://www.brunching.com/images/hellweather.gif (http://www.brunching.com/toys/hellweather.html)
<FONT COLOR="Green">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 02:35 AM
B-17 only for long-range? Excuse me?

Am I the only one here who is aware of the FACT that the B-17 G coming in the pacth will be modeled WITHOUT a cockpit view?

And as far as I know, at almost every server I connected to theres at least one bomber pilot active (except me, I fly them all the time).


And don't give me that long-range stuff. Youre saying only fighters deserve close-range action? Then tell me how close the fighter bases were to each other in WW2!

I think the B-17 G and the FW-200 will be a great deal of extra fun, ESPECIALLY in close-range combat situations. Unless of course someone here has forgotten that the G-model of the Fortress was armed with 12 (!) defense mgs, mounted on 8 stations all over the plane.
And I'm sure some of you know what the Pe-8's guns can do at close range, but the Pe-8 has only 6 (if I counted correctly) mounted on 5 stations.

So, all I now hope is that once the B-17 G is released as an AI plane (for now), many servers will have it in their list. PLEASE!

That would be GREAT.

ANYONE agreeing?

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 02:40 AM
who is going to climb to 35,000 feet high to use a B17? LOL come on guys....no one is gonna fly a b17 higher than about 1000 ft off the ground.might as well tape a giant bullseye on it too

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. Semper Invictus! <img src ="http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509047.jpg">

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 02:45 AM
I guess the punters who will buy that CFS3 and fly the fortress will let you know http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 03:51 AM
Bombers are used extensively in coops - and would be used more often if 1C would have more flyable bombers in the game. We use bombers everyday in Forgotten Skies as part of our war.


As far as altitude - we could easily have high alt escorts - if you knew anything about coops and the FMB, you can start aircraft in the air at any altitude.


I get the impression here that we have dogfight only folks that don't seem to realize there is more than a dogfight room use for a B17.


Additionally - an entire game obviously was centered around this aircraft, imagine the appeal if Oleg really put the manpower into making this a reality in FB - I would say you'd practically have a B17 cult following! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As far as externals and no cockpit - doesn't sound good to me.

Do I feel I need every single position? no, a few gunner spots, bombing spots, pilot would suffice in my opinion.

Now, to cause some trouble:
Guess some of the point, was an inferior game like CFS3 can have such a great aircraft modelled, I was proposing that the best flight sim available should have it as well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (I would say that it's good to beat out the competition...but I don't see CFS3 as being in the same league as FB - lol)

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 04:00 AM
Lots of people want to model the B-17. The problem is to find suitable reference info.

Of course, everyone has photos of B-17, but detailed 3-view drawings are needed for all positions and equipment to actually model it.

I would like to fly the B-17. I think the firepower, durabilty and bomb load would make it considerably more popular than the current FB bombers.

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 04:06 AM
StG77_Fennec wrote:
- Lots of people want to model the B-17. The problem
- is to find suitable reference info.
-
- Of course, everyone has photos of B-17, but detailed
- 3-view drawings are needed for all positions and
- equipment to actually model it.
-
- I would like to fly the B-17. I think the
- firepower, durabilty and bomb load would make it
- considerably more popular than the current FB
- bombers.

Actually the B17 is one of the easier ones to find such drawing.. relitvie to other WWII aircraft

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 04:07 AM
Well, I can't find any. Not free anyway. Only pictures of instrument panel, but nothing else.

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 04:12 AM
StG77_Fennec wrote:
- Well, I can't find any. Not free anyway. Only
- pictures of instrument panel, but nothing else.

Oh.. free.. that does make it harder! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 06:38 AM
Fennec How Much are they and Where?
PM me. we might could work something out.

<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
<FONT COLOR="Green">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 11:21 AM
Somehow I have a feeling B-17 will be so easy pray for Russian planes.. like Lagg3 or I-16, which probably will still remain invulnerable to bomber defensive fire.. and they have those bloody effective rockets.. B-17 are reaaally easy targets for Lagg3. Fortunalety LAgg3 and B-17 are likely to fly on same side. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 01:39 PM
EasyEight wrote:
-- I dont mind another bomber, but at least model
-- something that was used in large numbers... B-24 or
-- B-25
-
- Errrr, like the B-17 then, which is what this thread
- is about - maybe the reason there arent more bomber
- pilots playing is because the ones in the game are
- pretty sh*te
-
-

The B-17 was not flown in massive numbers on the eastern front, which is what this game is about. In fact, it was not flown in massive numbers on the western front, when compared to the Liberator. It just happens to be the one plane that gets the most exposure from mass media, as well as being easily recognisable.

111's are perfectly suitable bombers. Please explain how they are "sh*te".

<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 02:34 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
---
-
- The B-17 was not flown in massive numbers on the
- eastern front, which is what this game is about. In
- fact, it was not flown in massive numbers on the
- western front, when compared to the Liberator. It
- just happens to be the one plane that gets the most
- exposure from mass media, as well as being easily
- recognisable.
-
- 111's are perfectly suitable bombers. Please explain
- how they are "sh*te".
-
- <font face="Courier New">
-
- _____ | _____
- _\__(o)__/_
- ./ \.
-
- </font>

aren't you for getting the Ardennse an Normandy maps. Also IL-2 was exlusivly only the eastern front. FB includes more than that an w/ the free addon even more.

I just wish they make the bomber gunners just a tad more accurate. Before all the patches a bomber could defend itself now they are all greenhorns how cant' hit a plane 100m right in front of them. An He-111 is almost defenseless. I certainly woudn't want those gunners on a 17!

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid79/p9141f290fa1c1c59a2dc382c77af21f3/fb1a8321.jpg


Lead Whiner for the P-47D-40, M and N and Hvars

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 02:39 PM
I am not forgetting them, I am ignoring them, since neither exist yet.

Once we do have these two maps, the B-17 is still a poor choice given its lower numbers when compared to the B-24.

<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 03:00 PM
"The B-17 was not flown in massive numbers on the eastern front, which is what this game is about...."



Were on the box can I find any refrence that this is just an east front sim...

This is an eto and east front sim....and will be even more of a eto sim when new maps are here....Hell south pac even

Remember there is a Berlin Map ....


As for climbing to 30 + thousand feet..Air starts at say 15000 ft.. climb the rest of the way..There are all kinds of work arounds for this..

I see the day when we will get some servers that have no Russian planes Just US Brit and German...flying eto type missions...B17 would be perfect for coops....Hopefully the 24 and 25 will be upcoming....P51 P38 P47s escorting
b17s to Berlin ..Being intersepted by Gustavs and 190s...
I can see it now....

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 03:17 PM
Flyable would be really nice.

But as an AI only will be ok, and bombers are really good fun on a DF server as well as a co-op.

I often take up a PE-8 with a 5000 bomb to re-arrange the other sides airfield /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Took a PE-8 up to 7500M last time I flew, total mission time was over half an hour and included a bomb run from 6000M (I missed as well /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif but got 3 AA) before I climbed to get contrails.

Boy that did look awesome. Being strafed by an idiot in a ME109 as I crossed my runway threshold with full flaps, and gear down, spoilt the experience somewhat (it was a no vulch server).

More people should try bombers on DF servers, good flying practice and makes for a more immersive experience too, with your own side providing support!

Roll on the B17!

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 04:12 PM
Air starts?
Being strafed on landing ruined the experience?
Flying AI-only planes?


What happened to this community?

Again, hardcore simmers take a back seat to the arcadians.

<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 04:37 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
- Air starts?

Quite agree.

- Being strafed on landing ruined the experience?

It has it's place, but server rules are server rules.
That was my complaint /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- Flying AI-only planes?

I know it sucks doesn't it! Usually fly the HE111 but felt like a change /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-
- What happened to this community?

It remains diverse M8 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- Again, hardcore simmers take a back seat to the
- arcadians.

Nah, they are just in a different theatre /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nice to have a choice, to go hardcore when time permits and 'arcadian' when a quick 'fix' is required. Ultimately both forms still require sthe same skill set when controlling one's chosen weapon. With different views and aids of course, but the core skills remain the same.

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 05:12 PM
- the B-17 is still a poor choice given its lower numbers when compared to the B-24


Well, cut your Liberator whining, cause the Fortress is on its way, the B-24 isnt.
Besides, dont give me the "numbers" point. We have the Bi-1 in the game, right? And it NEVER made it past prototype state, right?

And if ya dont like ai bombers being available on servers with ext views on, stay away from them, your loss is our gain. Hell, when the B-17 will be here and I have to notice that only a few servers have her, I just might host my own server with B-17, FW-200 and Pe-8 on!
Bomber friends unite!

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 05:31 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
- Air starts?
- Being strafed on landing ruined the experience?
- Flying AI-only planes?
-
-
- What happened to this community?
-
- Again, hardcore simmers take a back seat to the
- arcadians.
-


I mean air starts for the allied flyables ...there is no England for the allies to fly from (for a b17 type raid with escorts)..Ive seen a lot of coops were some start on ground and some in air...I see nothing arcadish about it...

You play your way Ill play my way....Call it what you like
no one cares...

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 05:54 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
- The B-17 was not flown in massive numbers on the
- eastern front, which is what this game is about.


Russians had more than 40 B-17's of their own, and in addition to that 561 US bombers took part in Frantic raids that landed in to, Russia. Also several hundreds of B-17 bombers took part in the bombing of Hungary and Berlin, which were at the time definately part of the Eastern Front.

I think it has more reason to be in game than several planes that are already in. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 07:22 PM
Some of you folks are funny.

The B-24 saw more use than the B-17. With the new maps coming, I'd expect to see the B-24 as a priority.

The B-25's saw extensive use by the russians. As did A-20's.

The B-17's that were used by Russia were repaired units that had crash-landed there. I wonder if the FM on this bird will be screwy (planes usually handle differently after structural repairs). It should be noted that the US refused to send anything but twin engine bombers to Russia.

I like lots of planes, just like anyone else, but there are several issues with adding the B-17.

1. It was not in high numbers in Russia anyways.
2. It was not as common as the B-24 (despite pop-culture belief).
3. B-25s/ A-20's were quite common in Russia.
4. Very few people fly the He-111 online, leading me to believe that this whole conversation has nothing to do with the tactical advantage of flying bombers online and every thing to do nationalistic plane-lust.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 07:29 PM
Again there is a Berlin map ......

Again there will be more allied planes from the ETO....


What part of that arn't you getting....


Again show me were its says eastern front sim ......

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 07:30 PM
BaldieJr wrote:

- 1. It was not in high numbers in Russia anyways.
- 2. It was not as common as the B-24 (despite
- pop-culture belief).
- 3. B-25s/ A-20's were quite common in Russia.
- 4. Very few people fly the He-111 online, leading me
- to believe that this whole conversation has nothing
- to do with the tactical advantage of flying bombers
- online and every thing to do nationalistic
- plane-lust.

1. I think when the number goes to hundreds, it is significant.

2. The fact is that 3rd party who likes B-17 modelled it but nobody has liked B-24 to complete a model yet.

3. As above, although A-20 seems to be rapidly advancing at the moment. And will be likely addition to the game.

4. I don't agree. Play something else than dogfight games too and you will see how much they are used. But in any case it is a moot point, because most FB players play ofline, and neither one of us knows how popular online bomber campaigns are. I'm Finnish, and I would like to see B-17's, Pe-2's, Blenheims, Bostons, Ju-88's etc flying around as much as possible. To me they are much more interesting than fighters.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 07:33 PM
"A-20 seems to be rapidly advancing at the moment. And will be likely addition to the game"

Jippo - I would be very satisfied with a A20 - Glad to hear this news http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For me personally, this would keep me very satisfied for a Allied bomber.



S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 07:37 PM
Baldie.

Although I bring this topic up as a B17, to be honest, I am really asking for a Allied bomber besides the TB3.

Whether that be a B17, B24, A20, Pe2, SB2, Pe3, etc...

I just ask, please make it flyable.

The He111 is great, I want a bomber on the Allied side that I can fly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 08:00 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- BaldieJr wrote:
-
-- 1. It was not in high numbers in Russia anyways.
-- 2. It was not as common as the B-24 (despite
-- pop-culture belief).
-- 3. B-25s/ A-20's were quite common in Russia.
-- 4. Very few people fly the He-111 online, leading me
-- to believe that this whole conversation has nothing
-- to do with the tactical advantage of flying bombers
-- online and every thing to do nationalistic
-- plane-lust.
-
- 1. I think when the number goes to hundreds, it is
- significant.
-
- 2. The fact is that 3rd party who likes B-17
- modelled it but nobody has liked B-24 to complete a
- model yet.
-
- 3. As above, although A-20 seems to be rapidly
- advancing at the moment. And will be likely addition
- to the game.
-
- 4. I don't agree. Play something else than dogfight
- games too and you will see how much they are used.
- But in any case it is a moot point, because most FB
- players play ofline, and neither one of us knows how
- popular online bomber campaigns are. I'm Finnish,
- and I would like to see B-17's, Pe-2's, Blenheims,
- Bostons, Ju-88's etc flying around as much as
- possible. To me they are much more interesting than
- fighters.
-
-
--jippo

40 B-17's, or hundreds? I'm not trying to make you angry at all (although my writing style probably indicates otherwise), but which is it? B-17's aren't even listed as lend/lease aircraft, but we do know that the Russians kept/repaired/used any that landed there.

As far as the argument goes about the other allied aircraft, i'll say this: ok, those planes were indeed there, while flown by other countries. But the fact still remains: the B-24 was in far greater use than the B-17.

I do agree that there is no control over what 3rd parties do, I'm just surprised that the community is not pushing for prioritizing the planes by historical significance.

Of course, this is the same group that would complain about a fictional hollywood movie, but want '45 planesets :-)

By the way: I play a lot of single-player FB. When I get online, I gravitate towards scripted servers. I never play co-ops since those are just single-player + lag (fighting AI). Even with bombing ops available in scripted servers, its still not something you see a lot of.



<font face="Courier New">

_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 08:28 PM
Futre we'll have the B-17 on ALL our servers. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
FOR INFORMATION ON THE 310TH FS OR 380TH BG Please visit the 310th FS Online @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange" http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="RED">
A proud member Squadron of Ghost Skies Forgotten Battles Tournament League.
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> 310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 09:31 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
-- 40 B-17's, or hundreds? I'm not trying to make you
- angry at all (although my writing style probably
- indicates otherwise), but which is it? B-17's aren't
- even listed as lend/lease aircraft, but we do know
- that the Russians kept/repaired/used any that landed
- there.

Don't forget Frantic and Hungary raids! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


- As far as the argument goes about the other allied
- aircraft, i'll say this: ok, those planes were
- indeed there, while flown by other countries. But
- the fact still remains: the B-24 was in far greater
- use than the B-17.

True.


- I do agree that there is no control over what 3rd
- parties do, I'm just surprised that the community is
- not pushing for prioritizing the planes by
- historical significance.

Doing a flyable bomber for FB will take hundreds of man hours. I think there is little point in trying to tell people how to spend a large portion of their daily life. Do you think anyone would spend such amount of time doing something that they really don't prefer to do (because they like another plane) for free.

I do not always agree with choices 3rd party modellers do. I for one would be much more interested to see more early war and multiengine planes developed instead of fantasy planes for '46 that never really took part in anything. But considering the number of projects dropped already, even when people are doing what they really want because it is so time consuming process, I really see no point trying to tell anyone that they are doing or thinking of doing a wrong plane.

There is nothing wrong with making wish lists or anything like that, maybe somebody will start to model something based on that. But I think that anykind of lobby to drive some models in front of others or anything like that would be completely out of order.


- By the way: I play a lot of single-player FB. When I
- get online, I gravitate towards scripted servers. I
- never play co-ops since those are just single-player
- + lag (fighting AI). Even with bombing ops available
- in scripted servers, its still not something you see
- a lot of.

Best advice I can give to anyone playing FB is to join a squadron (but be sure first that it is a nice one) and enroll for an online war like VEF.

That really is something. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo



Message Edited on 10/10/0308:34PM by Jippo01

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 11:05 PM
BaldieJr wrote:


- 111's are perfectly suitable bombers. Please explain
- how they are "sh*te".


Straigfht from warbirdalley -

In fact, the experience in Spain generated a false sense of security in which the Germans thought that the He 111's light armament and speed would be sufficient in the coming war. Thus, although it was out of date, the large numbers in which it had been produced made the He 111 the Luftwaffe's primary bomber for far too long in the war, availability being more persuasive than practicality for this serviceable, but highly vulnerable, aircraft. Modern fighters like the Supermarine Spitfire and the Hawker Hurricane proved the He 111's inadequacy during the Battle of Britain. As soon as possible, the Luftwaffe replaced the Heinkel with the Junkers Ju 88, reassigning the Heinkel to night operations and other specialized tasks until, by war's end, it was being used primarily as a transport.


Nuff Said on that me thinks


B-24, B-25 or B-17, not bothered either way, but would be nice to see one of them flyable - just happens that this thread was started with the 17 in mind. How popular and in demand each on is, is a personal thing. Making it happen is another matter.

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 12:45 AM
There are numerous flyable B17's still in existance.. its common for modeellers to get permission to photo the interiors and scale them etc.

The drawings are also available through the NASM

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 01:16 AM
BaldieJr wrote:
-
-- I
- never play co-ops since those are just single-player
- + lag (fighting AI).

Most coops I've flown online have had human players on both sides. Give 'em another try, you might be pleasantly surprised.


S!

SKULLS_LZ

SKULLS Squadron VF-98
"Better than the Best"

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 01:55 AM
BaldieJr wrote:

- The B-17 was not flown in massive numbers on the
- eastern front, which is what this game is about. In
- fact, it was not flown in massive numbers on the
- western front, when compared to the Liberator.

What's your definition of massive then? Possibly your imagination, who knows?

Approx 18000 B-24's were made during WW2, and 12000 odd B-17's. The majority of the B-17's went to Europe, especially the 8000 odd G variants.That's a pretty massive amount of aircraft in my eyes.

According to 8th Air Force Monthly Records, they ALWAYS had more B-17's than 24's on hand from September 42 until May 45, flying 'western front' missions.

The 15th Air Force in Italy had both from November 43 until the wars end, although they had more 24's than 17's ( between a 3:1 and 2:1 ratio )

The 8th AF flew 274,921 Effective Heavy Bomber Combat Sorties ( individual planes ) , the 15th 131,268 effective.

It is fair to say the 24 flew more missions in more theatres ( Pacific for one due to its longer range etc ), but to say that the 17 was not flown in massive numbers compared to the 24 in the west is , well, bollocks really