PDA

View Full Version : Boeing B-29 "Superfortress"



AFJ_Locust
02-01-2006, 08:34 PM
Will we see these ac in the future of this sim or BOB ?


Boeing B-29 "Superfortress"
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap20.htm

Northrop P-61C "Black Widow"
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap25.htm

Saunders1953
02-01-2006, 08:48 PM
You mean flyable? 'Cause we have the B29....

AFJ_Locust
02-01-2006, 09:00 PM
Ya I mean flyable

I thought we had the b17 AI
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/b17fortress.html

wasent there someone who developed the cockpit for the b17 ?

Nimits
02-01-2006, 09:38 PM
I think, at some point, someone was working on the interior of the B-29 . . .

But, truly, if there is one plane that really doesn't fit into FB/PF, its the high level, high speed, strategic bomber. By the time climbed to cruising altitude, you'd be at the edge of the map . . .

Sharkey888
02-01-2006, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Nimits:

But, truly, if there is one plane that really doesn't fit into FB/PF, its the high level, high speed, strategic bomber.

Remember the low level raids of 1945. Just perfect with the late war Japanese fighters......maybe when PF gets redone http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

jarink
02-01-2006, 10:57 PM
The remote gun control stations used by the B-29 would be a minor nightmare to code for this (or any other) game.

SaQSoN
02-02-2006, 12:12 AM
B-29, obviously, doesn't fit into the BoB timeframe. While in the FB it will never be made flyable.

Hoatee
02-02-2006, 04:52 AM
Well it is a pity 'innit? Even the Soviets used a version after the war.

SidCheshire
02-02-2006, 08:38 AM
So did the RAF, it was known as the "Washington"

AFJ_Locust
02-02-2006, 08:50 AM
Well your right, I was fishing around in the qmb & found many bombers I had no idea exzisted in the sim, there all AI.

Does anyone know the names so i can add them into a Map ??

I used to know some of the names like for instance for the pe2 I forget the names now tho.

AFJ_Locust
02-02-2006, 08:52 AM
How about the b17 couldnt it be made flyable ?
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/b17-002.jpg

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/bombers.htm

bogusheadbox
02-02-2006, 09:12 AM
There are plenty of discussions about the inclusion of heavies in BOB.

I doubt we will see them in this sim. But perhaps maybe there will be a feature in BOB.

I for one would like to see heavies. Half the fun of flying a heavy bomber is actually maintaining it while approaching target. Using support fighters to get you there. Spotter planes to guage target height and best route of approach.

I would fly one for sure - even if it did take some time to get anywhere.

TgD Thunderbolt56
02-02-2006, 12:47 PM
Airspawning and teamwork allow for a reasonable facsimile of high-alt bombing. On HISTORIA server there are a few maps with externals enabled that have the B-24 and B-17 that airspawn at at 2k or better. A couple circuits and 4k+ isn't difficult.

Usually as they're coming into target at about 4500m, the defenders are still hanging from their props trying to grab "E" as they don't airspawn. It's made for some interesting bomber-busting and 3 or more of these guys in tight can ruin the day of just about any fighter jock...and roll the map in a few sorties if the lead bomber knows his stuff.


TB

AFJ_Locust
02-02-2006, 12:59 PM
Thunderbolt very often many of us that fly in Sptsv109, take the B25 we line up on the runway, take off together, fly out together, we normaly come in at 18000Ft, 23000 Feet is also possible, Theres nothing like haveing 5xB25 in the formation, everyone is on comm's & when the gerry's come in they get slaughtered by the rear gunners.

Anyway I am dying to hit a target with the B29 but without a bombsight or cockpit forget it, Its just not the same.

I hope one day we will have the superfortress, even the b17 would be awsome........

Cheers......... Untill that day!!!

Invader88
02-02-2006, 01:13 PM
yeah i really hope that we get 'em some time after BoB, cause oleg said it'll be the starting point to a new series of sims (or addons to BoB??) which will cover the whole war...would be great, wouldn't it

Invader88
02-02-2006, 01:14 PM
i love all the 4.mots, but the B-24H/J is my all time favourite http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

masaker2005
02-02-2006, 02:16 PM
B-17! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

AFJ_Locust
02-02-2006, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by jarink:
The remote gun control stations used by the B-29 would be a minor nightmare to code for this (or any other) game.

The gun stations already funtion as AI

they could just leave them that way

xTHRUDx
02-02-2006, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
....and roll the map in a few sorties if the lead bomber knows his stuff.
TB

*blush* aww shucks, TB, thanks for the nice words

ElAurens
02-02-2006, 08:48 PM
Easy to do with your computer controlled gunners.

Try it in a Betty

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

jarink
02-02-2006, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
The gun stations already funtion as AI

they could just leave them that way

Yes, but if it were flyable to the same standards that are present today (gunstations are normally modeled and human-controllable), then it would be rough. The B-29 used a unique system where the chief gunner (in the bubble behind the cockpit) could control which gunner had what turret available (except the tail gunner) It was also possible for a single gunner to control more than one turret.

I won't argue that there is precedent for leaving gun stations AI on flyable airplanes (like the forthcoming Ju-88), but it is the exception rather than the rule.

CRSutton
02-03-2006, 08:14 AM
Said it before. I would gladly pay money for a flyable B17 or B24-condor-landcaster-wellington blemhin whatever. I got no probem with Oleg and crew making a little change off of me. I think many others would as well. Heck, truth is, I am a little surprised that he gives all these extra planes for free....Dude is like a god in my book. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Philipscdrw
02-03-2006, 10:59 AM
The problem is that Il-2 isn't designed for add-ons like that.

If he made a B-17 add-on, then he makes another add-on, he'd have to make two versions - one for the B-17 people and one for everyone else.

It's because the Il-2 planes are on a numbered list, and there can't be any gaps in this list, and all the planes on this list must be the same on all the computers to play online. At least that's how I understood it, from SaSQoN.

It's not open like MS Flight Simulator in this way.

AFJ_Locust
02-04-2006, 03:35 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/upload.jpg

Aaron_GT
02-04-2006, 10:18 AM
I think, at some point, someone was working on the interior of the B-29 . . .

I remember seeing some fantastic screenshots of it about a year ago. Maybe it didn't get finished (it would be a LOT of work) or maybe the work wasn't up to the right standard or process (wrong poly counts and so on).

Aaron_GT
02-04-2006, 10:28 AM
Yes, but if it were flyable to the same standards that are present today (gunstations are normally modeled and human-controllable), then it would be rough. The B-29 used a unique system where the chief gunner (in the bubble behind the cockpit) could control which gunner had what turret available (except the tail gunner) It was also possible for a single gunner to control more than one turret.

True - I doubt the IL2 code could cope with that without a lot of work. It might also be why we don't get access to the B25C and its remotely sighted ventral turret.

VF2_Sarge
02-04-2006, 10:28 AM
I think the possibility of new bombers may be out of the question. Can't confirm it though. You also have to consider why the release of alot planes hasn't been done. TBF, SB2C just to name a few. I've been told that since the release of BoB, PF is on the back burner and to suck it up.

Cheers

|CoB|_Spectre
02-04-2006, 10:19 PM
Oleg posted quite some time ago about the problems involved with modeling multi-crewed aircraft. Consider that the surroundings of each position must be modeled to whatever standard the developer requires, multiply that times the number of positions and you can see where bombers quickly consume as much time as several fighters.

I, too, remember the really nice screenshots of the B-29 and hoped it would become flyable. I wouldn't think the fire control/gunner issue would be a deciding factor when you consider it's not a far reach from what's been done in some space sims. Insofar as the chief gunner's role, the developer decides what items to include or exclude based on their opinion of required accuracy. The Norden bombsight in the B-25, being an example, is far more simplified than the Norden operation in B-17 II, but it didn't keep them from using it in this sim.

AFJ_Locust
02-04-2006, 10:29 PM
I, too, remember the really nice screenshots of the B-29


Yep

I was thrilled when I seen thoes

To bad it never came about

Aaron_GT
02-05-2006, 03:51 AM
The quality of the work in the screenshots was better (IMHO) than the other multi-crew bombers we have (although we'll have to see what the Ju-88 brings). Maybe that was the problem - too many polys? The modelling, though, seems to get better and better. There are some very patient people out there!

csThor
02-05-2006, 04:30 AM
Rumors say the model was technically fine, but suffered from the complete cut Maddox Games made after the "Grumman affair". Something about financial stuff I guess.

Aaron_GT
02-05-2006, 05:57 AM
That's a real shame. I hope the models can be used in other sims that haven't attracted the ire of large companies, as they looked very nice.