PDA

View Full Version : POLL - We want a flyable B17



The_Pharoah
11-09-2004, 05:44 PM

The_Pharoah
11-09-2004, 05:44 PM

NorrisMcWhirter
11-09-2004, 06:06 PM
Hi,

I'd prefer a Lancaster. We've seen B17s before.

Cheers,
Norris

Flatlander1961
11-09-2004, 08:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

I'd prefer a Lancaster. We've seen B17s before.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The question was about the 17 not the lanc nobody asked what you preffered
You'll get your lanc when "target for tonight" comes out in about oh er 10 years

The_Pharoah
11-09-2004, 10:48 PM
bump

come on guys - there's been 40 views and only 8 or something votes. If Oleg happens to wander in here and sees a poll requesting the B17, do you think he'll take notice if it had 3000 votes for 'yes' or just 10?

Reaves_42
11-09-2004, 11:07 PM
Quick! start creating new user profiles =)

csThor
11-10-2004, 05:56 AM
Why putting time and manpower into a plane that cannot be used purposefully in the game? Our maps are too small to simulate a reasonable approach to the Forts missions. We don't need another "Oh-cool-tested-once-and-left-aside-afterwards" plane - we already have enough of these (Bi-1, Me 109 Z, to a certain degree Go-229 and YP-80).

clint-ruin
11-10-2004, 06:02 AM
I am sure Oleg knows that people want a B-17, and about a million other planes too. What he needs is someone who wants to make it rather than just want it :&gt;

There was a little snippet about flyable B24s / 29s and 17s before, so .. maybe?

NorrisMcWhirter
11-10-2004, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flatlander1961:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

I'd prefer a Lancaster. We've seen B17s before.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The question was about the 17 not the lanc nobody asked what you preffered
You'll get your lanc when "target for tonight" comes out in about oh er 10 years <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll ask your permission before posting next time, Flat. I'm very sorry to have offered an opinion on a discussion forum - please accept my sincere apologies. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

Tintin-B17
11-10-2004, 10:14 AM
hmmm some people are strange... they think a b17 isnt suited for il2 and they dont need it...so whats a tb3 doing there? oh dear, trust me the tb3 cannot be used "purposefully" you fly at 1 mph to target area only to get rammed before dropping anything.

please u silly people read the back of your game boxes of il2 and tell me the b17 is not suited for il2..even look at the front cover of aces expansion pack u can see a b17 getting shot down. it amazes me people do not want an extra bomber in this excellent flight sim.

btw there was someone who was making a b17 as third party called aliandt...people give him useful information resources but he doesnt reply or anything he should at least say he dropped the project and let someone else take over the last heard from him was over a year ago.

http://alemania.did.upv.es/~juansoler/B17/

link to his website.

IL2 IS A FIGHTERS AND BOMBERS GAME not just FIGHTERS!

csThor
11-10-2004, 10:36 AM
A TB-3 was - in contrast to the B-17 - used quite often for tactical missions along the front (of course at night).

But this plane bears the same question - For what? We have it as Luthier wanted to model it. Ok, fine. Though I'd prefer to have seen work put into a Pe-2 or Il-4 before the TB-3. Those are more important to gameplay, those have a sufficient environment. For BoB and beyond I severely hope Maddox Games puts more structure into the modelling stuff and keeps modellers from making "what ifs" before the really important planes are there.

Just a small statement to make clear what I mean: I am not bashing modellers for their work. I am merely stating my point of view on the matter of relevance of their choices. I am seeing more than the "Oh cool!" factor of a plane. Was it used in numbers? Where was it used? Did it make any impact on the war? Is our environment (map size, map location, modelling of several FM aspects etc) suitable for it? Or short - Can Plane XYZ be used inside its historical limitations, according to historical tactics and mission profiles? Il-2/FB/AEP/PF (heck - anyone have a shorter term? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) is more than just the mindless "Take-off-Die-Repeat" Furball of the Dogfight Arenas. There are many offline players (I am one) who have no real use for planes like Bi-1, Go-229 or Me 109 Z. Online Wars are still imbalanced because the vLuftwaffe have a twin-engined bomber and the vVVS doesn't. My 0,02 " ...

Takata_
11-10-2004, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
Why putting time and manpower into a plane that cannot be used _purposefully_ in the game? Our maps are too small to simulate a _reasonable_ approach to the Forts missions. We don't need another "Oh-cool-tested-once-and-left-aside-afterwards" plane - we already have enough of these (Bi-1, Me 109 Z, to a certain degree Go-229 and YP-80). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree 100%.
So many other features (like AI departement) in this game needs to be worked out that modelising more heavy bombers is just a waste of ressources.

The_Pharoah
11-10-2004, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tintin-B17:
hmmm some people are strange... they think a b17 isnt suited for il2 and they dont need it...so whats a tb3 doing there? oh dear, trust me the tb3 cannot be used "purposefully" you fly at 1 mph to target area only to get rammed before dropping anything.

please u silly people read the back of your game boxes of il2 and tell me the b17 is not suited for il2..even look at the front cover of aces expansion pack u can see a b17 getting shot down. it amazes me people do not want an extra bomber in this excellent flight sim.

btw there was someone who was making a b17 as third party called aliandt...people give him useful information resources but he doesnt reply or anything he should at least say he dropped the project and let someone else take over the last heard from him was over a year ago.

http://alemania.did.upv.es/~juansoler/B17/

link to his website.

IL2 IS A FIGHTERS AND BOMBERS GAME not just FIGHTERS! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point exactly!! I mean, as I posted in the B17 post (in this forum), I'd happily give up the P80, ME109Z and all the other planes that are 'wow, play once, never again'. I mean, how often do you go to an online server which allows these planes? And how often in offline campaigns do you use the Flying Wing or P80?

All I'm saying is, the B17 had a very important role in the war and I believe that it SHOULD be included in the game. It gives an added dimension that we currently don't have. I've flown B17's online (using externals) in formation with 2 others, and we shot down 5 fighters between us!! But we managed to wreck havoc on the enemy airfield before we got chopped up by flak. imagine the power of 3 x 10 500lb bombs dropped 'carpet bombing' style on your airfield as you try to take off.

Tintin-B17
11-10-2004, 06:31 PM
yes pharoah people dont understand stand this...and they cant "imagine" id give up all those pointless planes that cant be flown online also all the variants of the one plane..and just have 1 heavy bomber i dont know why they waste their time modelling a plane no one is going to use it online. b17 could be great for online games. right now the bomber pilots have nothing but the tb3 and always get rammed. all these people who are saying no to the b17 dont even fly the bombers they fly all the fighters that they have and say the bombers are pointless maybe theyre frightened that if we get the b17 they wont be able to ram us anymore.

do u have msn messenger pharoah?

csThor
11-11-2004, 01:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All I'm saying is, the B17 had a very important role in the war and I believe that it SHOULD be included in the game. It gives an added dimension that we currently don't have. I've flown B17's online (using externals) in formation with 2 others, and we shot down 5 fighters between us!! But we managed to wreck havoc on the enemy airfield before we got chopped up by flak. imagine the power of 3 x 10 500lb bombs dropped 'carpet bombing' style on your airfield as you try to take off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is an exact description why a B17 is virtually useless within the limits of the game - except for people who do not play anything but Dogfights (meaning no Online Wars, no historical offline campaign). Do we have bases for the B17s, do we have a map of Europe with Great Britain and Germany on it? Do we have maps that are large enough to simulate the ranges of these juggernauts?

Face it - even our biggest maps are hardly large enough for tactical (medium) bombers as He 111 or B25. Adding a B17 or similar buffs of that class is not going to be a worthy addition to the game (which gives all player types something useful) but is merely going to satisfy the "Boom-Boom-Kill" fetish of some.

TgD Thunderbolt56
11-11-2004, 07:29 AM
Would I like to see a flyable B17?...sure I would, but I'd rather have rock-solid stability.


TB



.

Aaron_GT
11-12-2004, 10:19 AM
I remember flying B17s in WB2 and it was fun, provided you were flying a sensibly set up scenario.

Before B17s, as player flyable planes, work well for decent scenarios in IL2/FB/AEP/PF you need:-

* The gunners to be realistically accurate
* To ensure that the net code can handle 12 B17s in close proximity without lots of stutters, and/or some way to turn collisions off during formation flying.
* Air starts at 25,000 feet due to map size
* Better high altitude modelling.

This would allow the modelling of the missions with small numbers of B17s, such as early in the Pacific against shipping, or tactical attacks against France. I can't see the engine handling the late war 1000 bomber raids of Europe, though. In terms of the Pacific the B17 was withdrawn after a while and replaced with the B24 which had a longer range, so for the Pacific the B24 would be the better plane to concentrate (and also relevant for Europe). It's not as pretty as the B17, though.

269GA-Maxmars
11-12-2004, 10:51 AM
Only after we've had a SM79!

Tintin-B17
11-12-2004, 11:10 AM
?

Atomic_Marten
11-12-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tintin-B17:
? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a beautifull Italian 3 engined bomber.

Now, back to issue here. Voted second option. Why? Obviously, we have in game IL2FieldMod. modelled witout option to jump to back seat. And that is the proof that not every flyable a/c included in IL2 series have all position 'flyable' to player.

AFAIC, it would be enough to see pilot (maybe co-pilot also) and bombardier position (I think the bombardier also used nose MG, but I'm not sure of that).

I'm not all into bombing stuff, but the game really need some multi-engined monsters flyable (besides two-engines, and TB3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). I'm aware that by modelling just one 4-engined bomber we could have a couple of fighters instead (by time spent on that). But also, we don't have flyable a lot of bombers; just ones that are *important* (by all means).http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/images/smiles/banana.gif

TB3 anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A.K.Davis
11-12-2004, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tintin-B17:
? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now, back to issue here. Voted second option. Why? Obviously, we have in game IL2FieldMod. modelled witout option to jump to back seat. And that is the proof that not every flyable a/c included in IL2 series have all position 'flyable' to player. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You people act as if this is a court case:

"Mr. Maddox, several years ago while developing a flight-sim that would represent the operations of the Il-2 Sturmovik attack aircraft on the Eastern Front, you modelled an important variant of this aircraft that your sim was based on with one of its position's inaccesible by the player, due to a lack of reference material.

Mr. Maddox, you have set a terrible precedent.

Ergo, you are now legally compelled to make any and all comprosises demanded by players for the inclusion of their favorite aircraft, no matter how unsuited that aircraft may be to your simulation engine, or the damaging effect it might have on your reputation as a developer of realistic and comprehensive aircraft simulations.

Of course, given this legally-binding precedent, failure to submit to these demands we result in your immediate summary execution.

Do you have anything to say in your own defense Mr. Maddox. Before speaking, let me remind you again of the infamous Il-2 Field Mod, lest you dig yourself deeper into this terrible pit of your own creation."

Atomic_Marten
11-12-2004, 05:21 PM
A.K.Davis, please, instead of analyzing my point of view, present your criteria for including some plane in game.http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/images/smiles/hmmm.gif

A.K.Davis
11-12-2004, 05:28 PM
1. That it be suited to the FB engine.

2. That we have maps that can accurately depict it's operations.

3. That an immersive campaign can be built around the aircraft (or if AI, that it adds to the immersion of existing campaigns).

Do all aircraft in Il-2 series meet this criteria? No. Were these aircraft made by Maddox Games at the demand of users? No, they were mostly made at the initiative of 3rd-parties.

Atomic_Marten
11-12-2004, 06:12 PM
I agree with you 'cause IMO all your points are true. Why I say only pilot+bombardier? Because I have seen a lot of posts that were indicating that "flyable multi-seat plane will not be included in game if it not possess all positions playable". That isn't true to what we have in game. Simple as that.

Yes, you mentioned 3rd party..we should be thankfull them for their effort, but also what they need to do is just what you say; they need to realize needs of the game. And instead creating some 'fantasy' planes (their favourites, I presume), they should concentrate on creating planes that were actually playing some part in aerial operations for period and theatre in question.

Just like Jippo's Ju88. That is what is really amazing, and Italian planes too.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif. Do335? Now I'm being less enthusiastic, although someone can say that I'm wrong there but.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gato__Loco
11-12-2004, 06:16 PM
To be honest, I wouldn't mind having a B-17, but much rather see a couple of two engine bombers. instead, in particular the Pe-2.

Tintin-B17
11-12-2004, 06:54 PM
i swear ak.davis is related to "the architect" from the matrix revolutions movie, ergo ergo blah blah blah! **mn it ! this thread is for people who want a b17!! not for u to analyze everything u made your point you dont want the b17! let us whine in here please. feel free to analyze this post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

woofiedog
11-13-2004, 02:10 AM
The B-17 would be a Great add-on for IL-2... but the Ju88 Series, Pe-3 and some of the Italian, Japanese and French wold be better used in the Game.
But if we do get a Flyable B-17... I hope it's a E or F model.

Stukaneer
08-22-2006, 12:20 AM
Well, in all the patches of AEP and PF i was longing for a message in the readme:

NEW FLYABLE AIRCRAFT:

<span class="ev_code_RED">B17-G</span>
<span class="ev_code_RED">B17-E</span>
<span class="ev_code_RED">B17-F</span>

Bui i didnt came http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
After playing IL-2 since it came out i was hoping for some of the BIG bombers, like the B-29 or the B-17. But they didnt came. The only thing i could do was <span class="ev_code_RED">SHOOT</span>them down!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
A message from me to the genius guys in Olegs Crew: PLEASE ADD THE B-17 or the B-29!! There are just no BIG BOMBS dropable by the player!! All your games are absolutely GREAT, the IL-2 Series are the (in my opinion) BEST Flight-Simulators from WW2. But please add some Big Bombers. Please. No more TB-3. More B-17 or B-29. Please do it for all the longing people. Please invest a month for doing a B-17 or a B-29. From my deepest Heart i beg you: Add a B-17 or a B-29. Or Both. Im getting crazy everytime i see a B-17 Flying in IL-2 i want to Fly it. I even Dreamed about flying a B-17 sometimes. Please do it. It would be pure mercy.

Foo.bar
08-22-2006, 03:35 AM
You don't know that B-29's interiour was been finished already? There are other reasons why it didn't came into game.

carguy_
08-22-2006, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Please invest a month for doing a B-17 or a B-29. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL

Viper2005_
08-22-2006, 11:38 AM
If we ever get a B-17, the one thing we need to make it viable is higher airstarts. This would be useful for all of the bombers.

HurricaneVictor
08-22-2006, 11:53 AM
Personnaly i would rather they sorted out the flight models of the aircraft we have rather than put a lot of time into a huge bomber. Some like the Hurricane and the Mosquito need sorting out.

isooAntti
08-22-2006, 12:05 PM
I vote no....those carpet bombing armadas of B-17 get on my nerves....viele gluck ich habe three meters of stahlbetong over meine head....


Seriously....make an addon of it. Money to make http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif I hope some third part guys make an addon with it, when Oleg let somebody to take over.

DuxCorvan
08-22-2006, 01:49 PM
(Sigh)... The B-17 thread of the week. There is one every six days since... ever.

Now, listen...

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE RESULT OF THE POLL IS: THERE WILL NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER IN OUR LIVES A FLYABLE B-17 IN THIS SIM.

Nobody made it when it was possible, nobody made it thereafter. Now it is the same if somebody makes it because it is F****NG TOO LATE!!!

Sorry, I hate shouting like this, but it's been stated sooooo clearly sooooo many times, and people still goes on and on and on with this mantra.

You're so heavy, really.

LeOs.K_Walstein
08-22-2006, 02:19 PM
I`d say Lancaster http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Wallstein

Low_Flyer_MkVb
08-22-2006, 02:20 PM
You'd have more fun in a Whirlwind. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

fighter_966
08-22-2006, 04:29 PM
How about Fieseler Storch .....MUCH MORE FUN TO
FLY!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif How many planes you can fly backwards...Fieseler!!The one and only

Zeus-cat
08-22-2006, 06:55 PM
Which of these three things is more likely to occur BEFORE we get a flyable B-17 in IL-2?

1) Hilary Clinton will get elected President of the United States to five consecutive terms after the all-Republican Congress unanimously eliminates that pesky two term rule becuase she is just so darn nice.

2) raaaid wins the Nobel Prize in physiscs when he proves that free energy exists and that perepetual motion can replace gasoline/petrol in all motor vehicles. He also marries Brittany Spears.

3) President Bush pronounces "nuclear" correctly.

Zeus-cat
08-22-2006, 06:56 PM
It was a trick question. ALL of these will occur before we get a flyable B-17 in IL-2.

PBNA-Boosher
08-22-2006, 09:09 PM
I've said enough. Now you're all going to die by being picked to death by gerbils.

Bandit.426Cdn
08-22-2006, 09:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All I'm saying is, the B17 had a very important role in the war and I believe that it SHOULD be included in the game. It gives an added dimension that we currently don't have. I've flown B17's online (using externals) in formation with 2 others, and we shot down 5 fighters between us!! But we managed to wreck havoc on the enemy airfield before we got chopped up by flak. imagine the power of 3 x 10 500lb bombs dropped 'carpet bombing' style on your airfield as you try to take off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is an exact description why a B17 is virtually useless within the limits of the game - except for people who do not play anything but Dogfights (meaning no Online Wars, no historical offline campaign). Do we have bases for the B17s, do we have a map of Europe with Great Britain and Germany on it? Do we have maps that are large enough to simulate the ranges of these juggernauts?

Face it - even our biggest maps are hardly large enough for tactical (medium) bombers as He 111 or B25. Adding a B17 or similar buffs of that class is not going to be a worthy addition to the game (which gives all player types something useful) but is merely going to satisfy the "Boom-Boom-Kill" fetish of some. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, hey, woah.. where do i start pointing out the glaringly obvious fighter sized holes in your bias?

Frankly, I am **** as a fighter pilot. 4 freaking years playing this game. csTHOR, you've shot my lame arse down a few times, but it likely never registered.. I'm not a challenge for the newest of the n00b. I try to shoot someone down, on a hardcore server and it's either being shot down in flames not knowing what hit me, or being unable to hit the broadside of a barn, or worse being accused of kill-stealing as i tunnel vision in on easy quarry. It's just the way it is for virtual washed-out basic flight school candidate. If they flunk that, but have potential, they get shipped over to the multi-engined air-trucks or bombers. Such is my case in enjoying this game.

I have the patience on a f/r server, to take off, and go on out the back-side of the airfield and gain altitude before going in for the usually long, slow, climbout into high altitude before target. I'm usually so far up there, beyond the average deathmatch airquake 20,000 feet below me, that i don't even register on you points-mongering fighterjocks. Keep in mind, I'm likely not going to see my own airbase for 40 minutes or more (or however long the fricken map lasts), if ever.. but I have the patience to do the run, and enjoy something else other than lawn darting into yet another mountain after losing a wing to another n00bs fire.

It's likely too late to include ANY 4 engined bomber in IL2 code now.. it's been too late for over a year. There was even a B-29/TU-4 modelled for IL2, somewhere to the 90% finished point a while back, but it disappeared sadly. It would be nice to have a nice, "modern" 4-engined bomber to play with other than the East-centric, but to the western market, "quirky", TB-3.

I enjoy flying bomber, csTHOR,i've got the patience to doing one-mission map bomb runs online. I enjoy it. Sorry to mess up your day when i pound you to dust on the airfield tarmac getting ready to take off, but i did enjoy it. Please do not assume that everyone should be airquaking it up in one online furball - mebbie you should have 1 or 2 flying CAP?

This whole long range bomber thing has been hashed out on this forum time in time out.. there are valid points for both sides of the coin. Bottom line though, it's too late for IL2, and the verdict remains uncertain, for it's potential in BoB.

Bandit.426Cdn
08-22-2006, 09:42 PM
Wow, and i'm replying to a post originating from 2004.. Holy reincarnated from the grave posts, Batman.

Nice job Stukaneer. Anything from any earlier than almost two years ago you can dig up? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

csThor
08-22-2006, 09:52 PM
Can't be, Bandit. I haven't been flying online for nearly two years now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I am not against bombers or shun them. I just did not see a single logical reason for including a strategic bomber when our environment is purely tactical. As an offliner I prefer to have planes that are useful in historical campaigns. A B-17, B-24 or B-29 need a different environment with different target categories, way larger maps and much longer visible ranges for objects.

JamesBlonde888
08-23-2006, 12:18 AM
Not really interested. The idea of spending 6 or 7 hours doing practically nothing is my idea of a job, not a game.

GAU-8
08-23-2006, 01:36 AM
why it should be in the sim (even though i know it never will), and why this is the best time to get it in.

-Olegs quality of standards- for the sim, and future sims.

the complexity of modeling a B-17 in this title may be HARD.... but NOT NEARLY as hard as the all new engine/dynamics of B.O.B. and future branch offs.

people will say "but the new engine is MORE suited..." ok, sure it maybe be, but who wants to go thru that much more coding when the fidelity of the new sim is so much more demanding?


thats it.

one day oleg will probably get around to doing one up..and he will say "dammit! wish done B-17 flyable in series, of IL-2. then made "buff" happy for player.by my standard, i have wont finish till,....2013! dam it! WIFE! MORE VODKA FOR "BUFF" HEADACHE! and will go back to work on it...


simple :P

DuxCorvan
08-23-2006, 07:25 AM
If you look up in a dictionary the expression "dead horse", there's a screenshot of this thread on a side.

MEGILE
08-23-2006, 07:29 AM
This thread died 2 years ago.

Xiolablu3
08-23-2006, 08:49 AM
Would be nce but its a LOT of work for one plane.

You could probably model 3 new fighters in the time you model all the different B17 positions and loadouts.
Plus the B25/A20/He111/Betty do great jobs as heavies on the mini-war maps.

Hell even the P38 is one of the best bombers in the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif