PDA

View Full Version : B-17's Lancaster's with the 1C Oleg touch



TC_PVT_Roger
04-28-2004, 05:03 AM
Ever since I flew the "alpha" demo version of IL-2, and experienced flying in the world Oleg Maddox and 1C created, I wondered about getting some bombers into the game.

Game limitations aside, i.e. map size, render of high altitude, etc. The game engine, and environment Oleg & Co. have designed crys for the inclusion of flyable bigger bombers.

If you were one of the many who looked forward for years to B-17 2, so that you could fly online in formation with your buddies, than you understand the desire to make something happen with this game, or possibly the BoB game. I'm not sure, but I think if you are interested in making something happen, we should get organized.

Maybe the first step is to find out how many guys/gals out in the world of IL-2/FB are genuinely interested. Then go to some of the places where bomber boys hang out, i.e. Bombs Away, and see who would like to join the effort.

After that, contact Oleg and see if he would be willing to discuss the possibilities. Perhaps if he knew there was a group of passionate people willing to supply needed data, etc. He would consider this idea more closely.

Just an idea.

=TC=PVT.Roger

TC_PVT_Roger
04-28-2004, 05:03 AM
Ever since I flew the "alpha" demo version of IL-2, and experienced flying in the world Oleg Maddox and 1C created, I wondered about getting some bombers into the game.

Game limitations aside, i.e. map size, render of high altitude, etc. The game engine, and environment Oleg & Co. have designed crys for the inclusion of flyable bigger bombers.

If you were one of the many who looked forward for years to B-17 2, so that you could fly online in formation with your buddies, than you understand the desire to make something happen with this game, or possibly the BoB game. I'm not sure, but I think if you are interested in making something happen, we should get organized.

Maybe the first step is to find out how many guys/gals out in the world of IL-2/FB are genuinely interested. Then go to some of the places where bomber boys hang out, i.e. Bombs Away, and see who would like to join the effort.

After that, contact Oleg and see if he would be willing to discuss the possibilities. Perhaps if he knew there was a group of passionate people willing to supply needed data, etc. He would consider this idea more closely.

Just an idea.

=TC=PVT.Roger

Breeze147
04-28-2004, 06:48 AM
I tremendously support the idea of all kinds of bombers in the game, but at the same time, I believe there are insurmountable limitations, such as those you have already mentioned. Also, ask yourself, do you really want to fly from England to Schweinfurt, 6 hours each way, for what may amount to 2 minutes of action?

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap16.jpg

TC_PVT_Roger
04-28-2004, 07:10 AM
Breeze

My guess is a possible solution to the current limitations in the game, would be to try and get interest for an add-on to the next game...BoB.

Whether or not you or I would want to particpate on a flight from London to Berlin is one thing, others may. Besides, the ability to do that, does not necessitate you actually doing it. There are always going to be game features/planes that not everyone will take advantge of. I don't fly the Gotha, or the P-11, but I have no problem with their inclusion for those that do.

As for the amount of action you would encounter on some long flights, I suppose that would be directly impacted by your route, and the numbers of fighters, flak you encountered along the way. Be fun to find out though.

JimRockford
04-28-2004, 07:31 AM
All large cooprerations and, most big business, and a lot of small busines already engage in market research in the intial planning stages of any project. I'm sure that if they have or do determine that there is an amout of desire for such an inclusion that it would be profitable to undertake and is within their capabilities, it will occur. While a couple of hundred or so folks that openly express thier desires for such things won't hurt anything, I doubt it will make a huge impact on the project planning timeline graph. Keep up your dreams tho, it's not totally inconceivable that you can make a difference. Jesus was one man and look how the world has changed since he walked around.
I'd love to have lot's of flyable bombers myself
so put my name on the supporters list.

TC_PVT_Roger
04-28-2004, 07:43 AM
Jim

I would totally agree with your assesment, if we were taking about Microsoft, Electronic Arts, or another big gaming house, but we have a unique wildcard in the gaming world here...Oleg Maddox.

Using your post as an example, should we ever have seen a game called "IL-2 Sturmovik" whose prime emphasis was on the Eastern Front? Short answer..no.

Besides, an add-on, with more focus and attention on bombers, would not negate the inclusion of the always popular fighters! After all, someone would have to keep those enemy AC away. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

=TC=PVT.Roger

[This message was edited by TC_PVT_Roger on Wed April 28 2004 at 07:02 AM.]

Breeze147
04-28-2004, 08:12 AM
Don't misunderstand me. One can always use time compression. I wholeheartedly support the idea of every bomber we can get our hands on. Add me to your list. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap16.jpg

TC_PVT_Roger
04-28-2004, 04:08 PM
Breeze

NP your name is added...now what did I do with that list. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
04-28-2004, 04:22 PM
get into that p11 or a **** plane now.
belive me its the most fun u can have in fb http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
<123_GWood_JG123> NO SPAM!

Snuffy_Hadden
04-28-2004, 05:04 PM
I posted this in Oleg's Ready Room, but when I saw this thread here, I thought I'd add it here as well, since I don't know that everyone doesn't go to Olegs.

In this world, there are many types of people. These people are all different from one another in likes and dislikes. There are those who were born to be fighter jocks and there are those who were born to be bomber pilots. Each, though different, carries its own special qualities that oddly enough the other group fails to see.

The thrill one set of folks have for "booming and zooming" is not the same for those of who define themselves as level bomber pilots or crew members. Those who fly or desire to fly the level bombers have a thrill for the mission as a whole and not just for the temporary joy of killing another person. (In essence that's what we do when we fly these sims, we mimic the killing of people ... not the destruction of machinery.)

A definition of the B-17 by the U.S. Air Force Procurement Tables says this: "Heavy Bombardment Airplane": It's mission: Strategic Bombardment accomplished with precision during daylight hours over long distances. OR, The Flying Fortress was a long-range heavy bomber whose function in time of war was daylight precision strategic bombardment. Targets are not and were not bombed at random. Targets were carefully selected to have the most impact and bring the conclusion of the war as soon as possible.

Without the bomber and the crews that manned them, the fighter plane force alone would not have brought an end to any war by and of themselves. So fighter pilots do not think to highly of yourselves as a means to an end. On the contrary, if it were not for the massive streams of bombers taking out targets so far behind enemy lines, the wars could have drug on for many more years. By these bombers the facilities for making war was denied and deprived from the enemy. (Whomever they may be.) The destruction of his means to wage war is to deny him the ability to continue that war. Thus comes the glory and honor of and from flying a level bomber.

But its not just about flying a plane. Its about a crew, a plane, and it's mission, its about the overall outcome of the war. The heavy bombers, the B-17, B-24, B-29, the Lancaster, Halifax and Sterlings, all made victory possible in the shortest amount of time.

Bomber crews paid a far heavier price during the war than did fighter jocks. Bomber crews went into the war as young men and came out old men due to their specific horrors and duties that they faced. Especially in the daylight raids, where fighters were more apt to attack a bomber stream.

As a bomber pilot/crew member, there was no illusion as to the wild blue yonder. Their duty was performed at 5 or 6 miles above the earth which placed them in double jeopardy. Bomber crews not only faced all the perils of their counter parts on the ground, or in the fighters, but they had to contend with the fact it was a 30,000 foot fall if their plane, their only means of survival, should get destroyed.

Unlike ground troops or fighter jocks, there were many a time that bomber crews could not shoot back at those shooting at them. A tragic demonstration of the laws of chance. Your plane, one 88mm round, same place, same time. But unlike the fighters or the ground forces who were told to bug out if things got too hot, never was a level bomber mission ever turned back because of opposition, whether air borne or flak. Weather was the only obsticle that forced a level bomber mission back before reaching its intended target.

They call them level bombers because the U.S. Air Force found out that evasive manouvers during fighter attacks or flak attacks was not a option for these planes and their crews. With formations as tight as they were, just making scheduled turns at waypoints could be cause for a collision and the loss of 10 or more men, and at the minimum two planes.
Evasion of fighters by the pilots jockying the bombers around, not only caused possible collisions of other bombers, but the nonstability of the gunning platform caused many a gunner to miss his mark when targeting an interceptor. By trial and error the U.S. Air Force determined that level flight for these planes was the only way to do their missions.

It takes a special breed of man to fly face first into a known target area with fighters and flak rings protecting it, and risk his life to perform his duty.

Do I sound passionate? I hope so. Because I'm one of the few that considers himself to be a bomber pilot and not a fighter jock. My passion is these planes. They strike an awe in me that I can not explain. Much the same way you fighter jocks get off on a Mustang or a FW or whatever. I get off on the massiveness of the machine, the amount of destruction that can be wrought by a very small number of these planes flying in formation. The fear factor that weighs on the enemy's mind when he hears the droning of the multi engined formations overhead, he knows there is no escape from what is to come. No fighter squadron would ever equal the firepower of a squadron of fully armed level bombers. (maybe in today's standards that's possible but in the 40s it wasn't.)

What do I want in a bomber? What do I want Maddox Games to do?

I want to be able to do coop missions with other bomber squadrons and form those long bomber streams and fly into the heartland of the enemy and wreak havoc on his industry, on his ability to wage war, on his very life. I want to set up missions, pick targets by priority, and put together a campaign whereby the outcome of the war is predetermined by the sheer numbers of level bombers that are carrying out the mission. I want to see and feel what history was in those days to see those thousands of bombers stream overhead.

Yes I know the computers we use will not allow us to provide or reproduce exactly thousands, but still the thrill of being a part of something that resembles the massiveness of that fragment of history, sends chills down my spine.

I don't think that all the stations of the bombers need to be modeled at this point in time, as the point has been made and quite frankly so, to be a gunner in a bomber on a 3 or 4 hour on-line mission could be boring as hell, especially since the chance of real death is never imminent. But the life of these bombers comes from the pilots and the bombardiers and the navigators. If anything, I'd like to see the cockpit models finished and incorporated, and the nose section completed. (Perhaps the Radio Ops station and the Bomb Bay as well.) These birds can be a 2 man operation minimum. One to pilot and the other to be navigator, bombardier, and radio operator. Let the AI control the guns for now. (Later as time permits, model the gun positions and make them manable as an option should online gunners be found, or let the second man of the crew be able to jump from station to station for best defense.)

What do I want from Maddox Games? Give us what Microprose/Wayward/Infogrames and others could not. Give us manable, flyable on line bombers, with a working Norden Bomb Sight so we can have our virtual recreations of Heavy Bomber Groups the same as the fighter jocks all have their virtual recreations of fighter groups.

I hear Maddox Games is developing a new engine that may allow more planes with less stutter and frame rate drop. If so this is by far excellent news and I hope it is true. BoB would be an excellent platform and start for Maddox Games and 1c to make the changes necessary for high altitude level bombers. And since the south of England will more than likely be modeled and mapped, then the inclusion of every base used by the Allies is an extreme possibility. NOW is the time for Maddox Games and 1c to recognize the need for this kind of programing and incorporate it into the new game before its too late.

I would very much like to see Maddox Games create a global map system of some magnitude where you could span multiple maps to perform your missions. For example Bomb group 401st from Deenethrope wants to fly to the outskirts of Berlin and deliver a package to any number of industrial facilites located there. Ops might have to span 3 or 4 maps to do this, but thats okay. Ops should be able to place waypoints along the desired route and the bomber group needs to be able to follow said route for a part of the mission success. As waypoints are passed the next map should load and the flight continues. (though I'd rather have one large all inclusive map and no switching.)

I'd like Maddox Games to pay a little more attention to the details necessary to provide a proper environment for level bombers. Give us airfields that look like the airfields of the 40s in England. Give us the ability to start planes on their hardstands and develope a taxi route to a specified runway based on wind direction and weather. Give us the ability to choose payloads, fuel quantities, give us some AI crew members for our bombers to worry about. And model in the death or injury of a gunner so that when a gunner is hurt/killed his gun no longer is operational until such time as he can be first aided to health again. Give us the proper formations for flying in.

I'm sorry, I don't see a need for "what if" planes. Its not my type of gaming. I want historical recreation. Give me what was then ... and not what could have been.

And yes there are those of us who might sit for 6 hours of flying time in a bomber for 2 minutes of action as was so eloquently stated. As long as the right environment is given us. Because its not just about the bombing. Its about getting there, getting the job done, and then bring the plane back home again along with the rest of the crew. It's about survivability.

Does IL2/FB/AEP/ETC., need level bombers? Yer damn right they do. Put me down for a vote.

[This message was edited by Snuffy_Hadden on Fri April 30 2004 at 04:27 AM.]

Xiolablu3
04-28-2004, 05:25 PM
A 'Jump to next Action' feature could be put in to a bomber flight, this could work offline but not online unfortunatly.

A bomber flight online isnt really workable over long distances as most of the flight would be incredibly boring, just like real life missions.

TC_PVT_Roger
04-28-2004, 05:33 PM
Snuffy

Yeah, I did read the above over in Oleg's RR. It looks like your grocery list of things you think would equal the perfect WWII bomber sim. You can correct me if I'm wrong in that assessment. It's obvious you put a lot of thought into the post.

I agree with many of the things you would like to see done, even if I may disagree with the tone of the message. Or maybe it's my perception of the tone, it's so hard to read proper inflection of attitude or mood into the written word.

I have found Oleg to be an incredibly accommodating guy, very open to possibilities of new avenues his games can travel down. So, with that in mind, I think if we had a well thought out approach, and demonstrated the commitment that hopefully many bomber fans will be willing to contribute, i.e. help with research, good modelers volunteering help, etc. We may be able to get some if, not all of what you have on your grocery list, as an add-on to Oleg's next sim (BoB).

I think it will take a group willing to do more than just post a few times here or in his RR demanding action though. I think it will require action on our part beyond just words typed on a sheet.

I'm willing to do it to get the kind of game that I had hoped B17-2 would be.

If we had an organized group, we could then notify Oleg of our goal, and gauge his interest. It's worth a shot don't ya think?


=TC=PVT.Roger

Jettexas
04-28-2004, 07:27 PM
Im always amazed when someone poops on these "Pro-Bomber" threads, often vehemently..Why?.
Usually the poop comes in 3 flavors...
#1. "No one will want to do that"
#2 "Marketingwise your shooting yourself in the foot."
#3. "Modeling aircraft interiors and gun positions is the most difficult thing in the universe next to Cold Fusion"
All of which are incorrect

#1> "Who would want to do that"
Everytime this comes up someone always posts the inevitabe "who would want to do that" and "bombers?!!.zzzzzzzzzzz" post...Well lemme tell ya as a 4 year simmer 2 years with the same squad and waaaaay to many in hours in CFS2/Il2/FB/AEP and other sims...The people that want it are the squads and more "historical" gamers.
I know its hard to belive but I have witnessed on many occasions, 15 or 20 guys from two squads milling about for over an hour getting to their bases and organizing for a CFS2 bombrun, I dont remember anyone crying about how bored they were... no it wasnt a "6hour run" but the better squads will invest time in this beleive me. Lots of squads (back in the day)would actually maintain a Bomber Wing.that did nothing but fly heavys....really!..lol
I saw the same type of post over at the PF forums when Carrier ops were brought up ..."why bother having landings and takeoffs/mulitple planes on deck, just have em spawn at the end of the deck at flight speed"
Ok cool thats great for the guy that wants instant action but there are squadrons that appreciate the OPTION of being able to do things in a historical context. Pop into the zone sometime and witness 12/15 guys land on a deck , then turn around and take off again in reverse order.It often takes well over an hour..so what ..you park...grab a cold one and BS with your buds on comms and watch the show.its very cool and while its not for everyone its great to have the option. Same deal with bombruns, lengthy ? Yes..indeed,But Dual objective squad-vs-squad bombruns are awesome. Some of the best times ive had in sims are on the return leg after youve destroyed your target and your guys on CAP have kept the opposing squad from doing the same, the BS gets deep but it is a hoot.
No I dont think youd have lot of takers for a 6 hour run, at least ive never seen it , but i have seen grown adults blow a whole sunday evening on a "Yamamoto Intercept" of about 2 or 3 hours..it happens..Doesnt make em better or worse than the quick action guy..just different.
Dogfight afficianados routinely sink the better part of a day off in the HL...Whats the diff.? Anyway..You can do alot in an hour and weve got maps of sufficient size to accomodate that right now. Just need the much promised an ballyhoo'd planes.

and as an earlier poster already said, Will the addition of bombers detract from the experience you already enjoy?

#2. "Including Bombers = Marketing Death and potential customers RUNNING to your competition"
To those that would protest on a marketing angle..Let talk a bit about the sim community....Im sure you all realize that the sim community is very small, new members dont just wander in everyday , there is usually some kind of personal impetus to get into simming, a friend in the military, a pilot you know, a buddy in a squad,just a love of planes, whatever ,the point is almost NO ONE purchases a sim title on impulse its a niche within a niche already, we dont buy enough titles to feed the giant companies, So for the most part we get a "redheaded stepchild" level of support (with the exception of the Il2 series) that being said as in most small close knit groups of hobbyists I would offer that word of mouth sells more copies than direct advertising and propaganda sites, One event in the sim community recently has contributed to this emphasis on "word of mouth advertising" more than any other.....
"Great CFS3 Debacle"...Many simmers based on the strength of M$'s prior offerings ran out to buy that...that...(hmmm).."Fine Product" (cough). Most simmers will in the future wait to purchase a game , till they hear from enough of their buds,and squad mates before they rush out to buy a title, I waited on FB til iwas sure it was a winner , in turn I recommended it to my squaddies, who to date have purchased about 20 copies based on these recommendations.
Therefore, speaking from a marketing perspective...
If we accept that,
A. The sim communtiy is small to begin with
B. A large % of them are in some way involved with a squad, group,forum,or whatever.
C. That these groups are the people most likely to purchase a sim product
D. That these people tend to rely on thier buds recommendations in considering the purchase of a new title
Then...
how is responding to the wishes of this segment of the sim community and including the features they would like to see a negative in any way? Seems to me that the smart strategy is to give your "hardcore" what they want.Since they bring new simmers(customers) to the game. No one is suggesting a "Bombers All the time-6 hour Game minimum , divorce maker sim"

#3> "Modeling an Aircraft Interiors and gun positions causes peoples heads to explode from the sheer mental exertion."
No not really, what it means is A little longer development cycle in the modeling of addtional interiors. This wait also means that the company doing the developing (for which they get not one dollar til the title is out and sinks or swims)Must wait a little longer to start getting paid..therein lies the rub...the wait for the money..they pay all these guys up front for work on a title which may , just may lay an egg....In which case..thats it, its over. Repo City.
I hold a degree in Engineering Design Graphics (Architectural) so I know a thing or two about 3D modeling of interiors too, Ive seen first year students,when given a set of plans and some refernce materials create photrealistic interiors of Buildings, rooms, churches,Labs,Stadiums etc correct down to the pictures on the wall and cigarrette butts in the ashtray in 12 weeks.(ACAD ADT,3ds, VIZ-4).Whole buildings..!Raytraced , rendered , Photoshopped and in the can.
Unless theres something im missing thats really complicated about the function of these interiors with respect to the game. .Its far from impossible.
But, that being said-3d Modeling(and subsequent texturing) of interiors is very very very time consuming,Most gaming companies are rather small and they want thier full timers working on the fighters and whizz bangs as priority one and.... hiring new full timers...well MY god they would want a salary!!! And we would have to pay it!..Such impudence..
this leaves the third party "aftermarket"to take up the slack, but to expect unpaid volunteers to forgo thier mortgage payment,sunlight. human contact and recreational activities to sink every waking moment into the development of these models for NO compensation. Is a tad unrealistic...the above mentioned students can do it because they want out of school really really badly and thier time is already dedicated to that class and professionals do it for MONEY...
The other issue is The monumental difficulty in researching source material for the models..most of this information is unavialable on the web, (ive looked) and if you find it it cost $$$, (again out of your pocket with no short term return on your investment)
I support your grass roots effort. Bravo
Been whining for bombers for a long time, I dont think there is anyone in a postiion of power that is "anti-bomber" they just dont see the potential benefit to them achieved by the extra effort. I have done my best with this post to enumerate the benefits of thier inclusion and shoot down the three most popular critiscisms. THere has been some progress made of late and we will most likely see at ;east one of the long awaited Medium bombers at least as AI(AI...why bother?) in the near future...(crosses fingers)-there is still the much fabled "summer flyable bomber add-on/patch" to hope for (Ill beleive it when I see it) and periodically the mob gets riled up over bombers.....Ulimately I would hope that in the future these concepts are grasped by the powers that be- and the community gets what it wants on the "frontend".

Keep the faith,
Bang that Bomber Drum.
S!
Jettexas

http://home.austin.rr.com/davislanedavis/il2sig4.jpg

PF_Mark
04-28-2004, 08:00 PM
Put my name on the list http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.artjunky.com/phantomfighters/images/patch06_grey.gif

Snuffy_Hadden
04-28-2004, 10:15 PM
Roger,

I'm more than happy to help in any way I can. I even tried to learn how to model aircraft and scenery, but for some reason my "freelance" "artistic" software use is not as good as my secular career software use. I'm a mechanical engineer with a heavy leaning in machine design and facilities design.

I can use AutoCAD all day long modeling in 3D solids for machine design, but for some reason I guess for the lack of logic behind the "freelance" software, can't get up to any kind of speed using modeling software such as Gmax or any other type. And I doubt very seriously that any of these modelers can take a 3D solids model created in AutoCAD and convert it into something they can use in a flight sim. (If I'm wrong please correct me.)

I'm currently in the process of contacting Boeing about the availabiltiy and cost of a set of blueprints for the B-17, but have not heard anything as yet.

I have a book on the bases used by the 8th airforce in England which shows altitude, latitude, and longitude for these bases as well as runway layout, hardstand layout and in some cases living quarters and other facilities. If someone needs pictues of bases for modeling, I can certainly scan the info and email it to whomever.

Personally, I'd like to see Maddox Games / 1c get their hands on a copy of "B-17II The Mighty Eighth", and see what they can do for ummm reverse engineering the thing. I hear that at one time Oleg himself inhabited the Bombs-Away Forums for quite a while, he should be familiar with the game. I'll even scrounge a copy of the game and mail it to them if they thought it would help.

I'm a willig participant of this effort Roger, I'm just not directed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

:salute:

Snyde-Dastardly
04-28-2004, 11:29 PM
Im all about it. Sign me up! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Id love to be in a crew with all my buds and duke it out in the vapor trails
S!
Snyde

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Vic-Whiplash/GRDN.bmp

initjust
04-29-2004, 12:36 AM
If you are interested in really "simulating" the airwar during WWII whatever game you choose needs to allow for "long boring" missions.

There are plenty of people that are willing to spend literally hours getting to the target area for a few brief moments of action.

The group I fly with is about to do a recreation of the Doolittle raid on Tokyo.

We will land our B-24s on our carrier and then take off in the same order and time frame that the actual raiders did. Each pilot will assume the identity of an actual raider and be assigned to stike the very same targets that the pilots who relly flew this mission did. These targets will be in the located exactly where they were in reality.

We will need to plan our flight routes using real world navigation incorporating wind drift, air density, IAS/TAS calculations and magnetic deviation changes. Fuel conservation will aslo be an issue.

The total mission time will be at least 7 hours from launch to landing at Chuchow in China. The only deviations from the historical mission we will make is that we will not launch 800 miles from Tokyo but about 200nm instead. We will also have an "alternate" ending for those in our group who can't spend 7 hours flying. They will have the option of trying to find a submarine positioned SW of Japan.

All these pilots will know about the location of the sub is its Lat/Lon coords. It will be up to the individual pilot to do the nav work-up that will get them from where they are to where the sub is and then they will need to find the sub. They will then need to safely ditch in the ocean near the sub in order to consider their flight a success.

Those that choose to continue to Chuchow, and have the time, will be required to do their own nav calcs from the target area to the southern tip of Japan and then across the South China sea to Chuchow. The time of the mission will also be historical and it is most likely that the sun will be low and night will be setting in as the B-24s near the China coast.

These pilots will be required to fly at an altitude that will put them between two solid overcast cloud layers. They will have no visibility of the sky or the water. The only time they will be allowed to dip below the solid layer of clouds beneath them is when they think they are about 100nm from Chuchow. This means that they will be required to fly some 500nm on just their instruments. If they get their nav calcs wrong or don't follow their flight plan closely enough they will be lost with very little chance to find their way to Chuchow before running out of gas or it getting too dark to see anything.

This type of mission with its navigational and pilotage requirements and historical, precisely located targets is not currently possible in IL2 due to the fact that IL2 does not model any of the factors needed for this type of navigation and it does not have large enough maps of the real world to allow a mission of this nature.

And, unless Maddox incorporates these elements in the pending Pacific Fighters game it will not be possible either. The game will need to model atmospheric conditions (air density/temperature/humidity) and their effect on IAS/TAS, varying layers of wind, magnetic declination and all the other factor required to really simulate real world navigation of a long range flight during WWII.

It is this type of thing that turns a game into a real simulator.

The small gorup of guys I fly with have spent hundreds of hours making flights of several hours duration and ended up lost over the vast Pacific Ocean searching for our carrier only to run our of gas and ditch in the ocean because we screwed up the nav calcs required to get to the target area and back again.

Sometimes we missed the mark because we didn't properly account for wind drift or air density at the altitude we were flying and as a result our speed over ground (water) was faster or slower than we thought. And because our ground speed was off we flew too far or not far enough before making our turn for the next leg of our flight route. Sometimes we miss the mark because we don't pay close enough attention to how long we fly a given heading at a given IAS before we make the turn to the next waypoint.

Often we get it exactly right and it is a wonderful thrill to see your carrier exactly where you calculated it would be after a 4 hour flight.

Other times we might miss because we don't pay enough attention to where combat action takes us so we then need to try and figure out how to get back on course and what adjustments we need to make to heading and speed to account for the time spent in combat.

All of this needs to be possible if a game is going to be a real simulator and not just a game.

I have a great deal of respect for the men and boys who manned the heavy bombers during WWII.

Perhaps even more so than I do for the fighter pilots and my respect for them is enormous. Especially those who flew in the Pacific.

They were some very brave men and boys.

They willing to take off and fly for hours over featureless ocean with no landmarks to guide on and only their skill and knowledge of navigational procedures to get them home. Sure their carriers sometimes had limited range radio beacons but during the early war years they were not reliable nor were they always on.

TC_PVT_Roger
04-29-2004, 04:38 AM
One thing about Bomber Boys is...they have a passion for the experience!

I have a copy of B-17-2 myself. Heck I was among those that patiently waited for well over a year, only to have my dreams dashed on the runway when the game finally came out. I was still writing reviews then, and my review for B-17 The Mighty Eighth certainly reflected my angst.

Anyway...I'm not sure how much a copy of the game would help Oleg, but it's certainly one more thing that can be offered as a way to entice him to consider a bomber option for his next game.

Maybe what we need to do is decide on a central place to coordinate our efforts. As visited as these Ubi-Soft forums are, they allow for lot's of exposer, but don't really lend themselves to ongoing discussion, and planning. I'd recommend Bombs Away, but as it's not my site, I really can't speak for it. Still, a place to coordinate I think is what is needed next.

After that, we can continue to recruit interested parties. I think you will be impressed by the numbers willing to give up their time for this cause. While we recruit, we can formulate a cogent letter to Oleg (maybe we enlist a person fluent in Russian?) outlining our "grocery list". Of course, we will need to hash out amongst ourselves the gist of that list first.

The prospect of starting a plan is exciting. I best stop now as I'm sure I'm making little sense though, just woke up, only on first cup of Joe.

Look forward to reading some of you guys thoughts.

S!

=TC=PVT.Roger

Snuffy_Hadden
04-29-2004, 05:31 AM
@Initjust

What are you flying that allows for all that? It sounds great!

Freycinet
04-29-2004, 06:18 AM
Oleg signed up for 5 sims with Ubisoft, I believe, BoB being the first. Logic says that he'll elve intro the Strategic bombing later on, it's too big to be ignored.

You'll get a fabulous four-engined bomber sim a couple of years down the line I guess.

Snyde-Dastardly
04-29-2004, 06:35 AM
Not to be one of those guys,,but,,
Initjust,you must have hit the 4 by mistake insted of 5. B25. Just a goof in all your excitement. But Im with ya in the Doolittle raid. Id sit in my waist gun pos.Smoke some cigs yuck it up with the rest of the boys on the crew, and as we came in low Id unleash the .50 on anything and everything http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif Id join a bomber group in a matter of seconds who did the type of things your talking about!
S!
Snyde

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Vic-Whiplash/GRDN.bmp

Capt._Tenneal
04-29-2004, 08:47 AM
I'm with you as long as we honor the crews of all nations by having as many bombers flyable. I'd hate for Oleg to kowtow to the Western front crowd by just including the B-17 and the Lanc. If we're letting them in, let them all in.

Maybe an all-bomber expansion ? FB: Heavy.

initjust
04-29-2004, 09:01 AM
Yes, Snyde, thanks for pointing out my typo. Of course I meant B-25.

We have worked out a deck ops plan that would allow us to land and park 16-17 B-25s on deck at the same time. Crowded for sure but absolutely possible but the last two to land must absolutely nail their landing since there will be no room to bolter, they must stop in a very short distance in order to not hit the plane parked in front of them AND they will only have the port half of the deck to work with.

Snuffy, you might be surprised to find out that we are doing this in (gasp!) CFS2.

Snuffy_Hadden
04-29-2004, 03:43 PM
This needs a good bump!

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

TC_PVT_Roger
04-29-2004, 04:15 PM
Capt

I'm not for excluding any country, or any bomber. Having said that, I would expect with a bomber like the B-17 (just for examples sake), requiring the work equivalent to 6 to 8 fighter planes (I'm guessing the amount with all the gunner/bomber positions), that 15 bombers would be the equivalent to what...100 planes??

Once again the numbers above reflect my uneducated guesstamit. I'm sure a real modeler can give us a better idea of the challenge.

The point being, are we better off starting with a few key bombers (I would insist the B-17 be one) and then build upon that? Remember, IL-2 started with a handful, and look where we are today. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just food for thought, as we continue to gather interest in the project. There are no right and wrong ideas at this point, it's all good!

=TC=PVT.Roger

Rebel_Yell_21
04-29-2004, 04:15 PM
One more vehement yes vote.

Real men will always fly bombers! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/taylor/strugglesupremacy1.jpg

Snuffy_Hadden
04-29-2004, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TC_PVT_Roger:
Snuffy

Yeah, I did read the above over in Oleg's RR. It looks like your grocery list of things you think would equal the perfect WWII bomber sim. You can correct me if I'm wrong in that assessment. It's obvious you put a lot of thought into the post.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep about 2 and a half days.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TC_PVT_Roger:

I agree with many of the things you would like to see done, even if I may disagree with the tone of the message. Or maybe it's my perception of the tone, it's so hard to read proper inflection of attitude or mood into the written word.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read it with any of your favorite military music playing in the back ground ... flags waving, fireworks going off. Of course when I posted this in ORR, I was really in a sort of pissed off mood because of the lack of understanding or the want of understanding by some of the malcontents posting in that thread. But it was all good and I couldn't see a need to change it much other than to incorporate those things I left out in ORR. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TC_PVT_Roger:

I have found Oleg to be an incredibly accommodating guy, very open to possibilities of new avenues his games can travel down. So, with that in mind, I think if we had a well thought out approach, and demonstrated the commitment that hopefully many bomber fans will be willing to contribute, i.e. help with research, good modelers volunteering help, etc. We may be able to get some if, not all of what you have on your grocery list, as an add-on to Oleg's next sim (BoB).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds good I'll volunteer any way I can.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TC_PVT_Roger:

I think it will take a group willing to do more than just post a few times here or in his RR demanding action though. I think it will require action on our part beyond just words typed on a sheet.

I'm willing to do it to get the kind of game that I had hoped B17-2 would be.

If we had an organized group, we could then notify Oleg of our goal, and gauge his interest. It's worth a shot don't ya think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's my understanding that that is how Bombs-Away.net was with B-17II except for the fact that the programmers and management of the various software companies that ended up with the package over time felt no need to comply or work with the public asking for help. I hope this doesn't happen here.

It is though because of this lack of service, customer relations, willingness to update a program etc., that caused many of those who flocked to B-A to eventually chill off and got into flying single seaters in IL2/FB/AEP/ETC.

I'd like to think that if some responsible software company committed themselves and etc., into producing a game that B-17II should have been that many of these guys would come back to the bomber community.

TC_PVT_Roger
04-30-2004, 04:09 AM
Snuffy

I agree with your assessment that if we worked with a "responsible software company" that indeed many "guys would come back to the bomber community".

I think that Oleg & 1C, while not a software company, are our best bet to find someone in a position to make something happen, who actually shares many of the same passions you and I do.

I would ask everyone to guard against expectations that Oleg will want to re-create B17-2, or what we hoped B17-2 would be. I think initially gaining his acceptance to the idea in general (that being a add-on to BoB) is our first step. After that task (the biggest we face), the next will be to plead our cases regarding the details.

I have high hopes that Oleg would listen to our proposal, and give it due consideration. Of course, we could ultimately be disappointed if he just doesn't have time, but some how I think he "makes" time for the stuff he has a fire for. Maybe with some gentle prodding...we can light that fire.

I know one thing, we have a heck of a lot better chance working with Oleg to achieve this, than we would with Microsoft.

Maybe I'll make a forum for the ongoing discussion and work toward our common goal....I wonder if anyone would come by to help if I did??

=TC=PVT.Roger

Snuffy_Hadden
04-30-2004, 05:28 AM
As much as I could ...


Roger check yer private topics.

TC_PVT_Roger
04-30-2004, 05:47 AM
Snuffy

Check and responded to. Let me know.

While we explore options as to the best place to continue this discussion more extensilvely, I hope we can get a few more guys with a passion for the heavies to join in.

=TC=PVT.Roger

Hades_WOF
04-30-2004, 05:48 AM
Count me in, i love bombers.

WUAF_Badsight
04-30-2004, 06:17 AM
in FB now the PE-8 & B-17 are cool

but un-needed

FB is a short range sim ....... the maps are small

best bombers for FB are the JU-88 , TU-2S type bombers

mid-weight & fast ...... this type is more needed & more usefull in FB as the game is now

this fact doesnt make the PE-8 or the B-17 any less cool

TC_PVT_Roger
04-30-2004, 03:39 PM
Badsight

Ah, you might want to read the entire thread buddy. The consensus seems to be to try and get something going for Oleg's next game BoB. I think all of us are keenly aware of FB limitations.

Thanks for the input though!

=TC=PVT.Roger

Snuffy_Hadden
04-30-2004, 04:03 PM
To say that the Heavys are not needed is a fault of your short sightedness.

And quite frankly, I don't find the maps too small. Most of the maps I fly on are large enough to put a couple squadrons in the air do their thing and return.

I also liked the comment from Capt._Tenneal about an all bomber expansion. I like FB: Heavy Metal! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

jenikovtaw
04-30-2004, 07:57 PM
I'm just wondering, sorry If im a noob, is BoB just BATTLE OF BRITAIN, or the whole war? Or is it 1940-43 kinda deal?

jenikovtaw
04-30-2004, 07:57 PM
I'm just wondering, sorry If im a noob, is BoB just BATTLE OF BRITAIN, or the whole war? Or is it 1940-43 kinda deal?

Snuffy_Hadden
04-30-2004, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jenikovtaw:
I'm just wondering, sorry If im a noob, is BoB just BATTLE OF BRITAIN, or the whole war? Or is it 1940-43 kinda deal?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well for starters Jenik, welcome to the forums. As far as we know right now BoB will be initially the Battle of Britain. We're hoping though that 1c/Maddox Games/Etc., can be convinced to expand it and perhaps at a later date that may be their intention. So we're putting together a list of things we'd like to see that are sadly lacking currently in any product of IL2/FB/AEP.

You're welcome to voice your support.

wayno7777
04-30-2004, 09:15 PM
It's funny to come across this thread cause I have my copy of B-17 II sitting in front of me. I was gonna put it back in and try it again. as far as the BOB goes I'd fly those 111's and 88's cross the Channel. Or Stirlings, Hamptons and Welingtons. No B-17's yet by December 1940 though. Sounds like an interesting concept. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Wir greifen an!"
("We attack!")
Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/wayno77-bluesclues3a.JPG

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one!

Snuffy_Hadden
04-30-2004, 09:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wayno7777:
It's funny to come across this thread cause I have my copy of B-17 II sitting in front of me. I was gonna put it back in and try it again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are plenty of us over at www.bombs-away.net (http://www.bombs-away.net) that are still flying B-17II ... you'd be surprized what the latest computer hardware will do for that sim. Its just amazing.

In fact the v8th U.S.A.A.F. is still flying over at B-A ... we're on our second campaingn and closing the doors fast on vGermany.

One point of advice. If you're running XP on your system, make sure you have loaded service pack 1 before you install B-17II. If ya have a problem .. log in over at B-A and ask away .. more than enough help there if you need it.

:salute:

jenikovtaw
04-30-2004, 10:31 PM
Why do you guys believe Oleg will make BoB more than just battle of britain?

I mean it would be wicked if he did, but you gota understand, its a business, and profit drives everything.

I would be content with just battle of britain IF, it is done well, has more "storyline" so to speak, and has gameplay rotating around bombers, as opposed to bombers being "dodadds" so to speak.

Franzen
04-30-2004, 11:04 PM
Besides wishful thinking it can only become a reality if noted before the game is completed or released. If people wait to voice their preferences till after the game is out then it will be too much work to make patches. Yes, it is a business and driven by profit but we must remember that before Maddox has the profit in hand it is in their customer's hands.

Fritz Franzen

TC_PVT_Roger
05-01-2004, 12:59 AM
I have no expectations that OLeg would change BoB from what it is. My hopes are that an add-on, built from the BoB basic game, could be what we are looking for. Think of the Forgotten Battles after the original IL-2, or Pacific Fighters that we now look forward to.

I hope that cleared it up for ya.

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

=TC=PVT.Roger

Antony_B
05-01-2004, 03:07 AM
For anyone who thinks big bombers are dull have a look at these old watime training films for the B-17: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/B17.html. Forget what's on tv these are great http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tully__
05-01-2004, 03:28 AM
I don't mind long missions at all, I often flew 4 hour missions in EAW and occasionally flew realtime deep penetration escort missions. While not many can give 6-10 hours for a single mission, there is a market. If it can be included as an option in a sim that caters primarlily to other types of mission, people will fly realtime long range missions.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/legalsig.jpg

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)
Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)

Salut
Tully

Franzen
05-01-2004, 10:40 AM
I agree with Tully. I flew my first "long mission" the other night due to being extremely bored. Much to my surprise I actually enjoyed it. Pardon the pun, but time flew. If it wasn't for constant reminders(nagging) from my wife I never would have realized the time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz Franzen

Snuffy_Hadden
05-01-2004, 07:25 PM
This is good! I'm glad to see so many respond in a postitive note about wanting to see the Heavies.

Forget the naysayers about map size .. so ya fly a short mission to and out from target area at least you're flying the plane you want to fly and interacting with others with the same desire and love.

Currently IL2/FB/AEP may not be the medium of choice for the heavies though it is nice to see one or two.

Please be reminded that Bob is an entirely different game altogether. The engine is different, the intent is different, it could be the transition we need.

Comment on these forums has been made that the BoB engine will allow for larger numbers of planes with less frame rate drop. It is also being designed with the mission of the bomber already laid in as the flights of the Axis Bombers coming in at altitude, so that will be factored in. Most likely it will have all of south England mapped, and I daresay that it'll have maps that will span the width of the Channel and have a good size of land on either side so that proper bombing missions can be planned. All the airbases in East Anglia can be added as a patch. The heavies from England and the U.S. can be modeled and patched at a later time and this could be considered the extension of the war in the western front.

So its all good. BoB could be the remedy for those of us desiring to fly the heavies. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Snuffy_Hadden
05-01-2004, 07:29 PM
For those of you who might be interested in what a group of bomber enthusiasts are doing.

They're still playing B-17II and flying coop missions in the best way they know how to replicate MP (which the game manufacturer left out.)

Check out this forum (http://www.bombs-away.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=21) and read some of the posts by the flyers of the v8th U.S.A.A.F.

We're on mission 48 of the second campaign in flying this sim.

:salute:

heywooood
05-01-2004, 07:55 PM
I am looking forward to Maddox version of daylight precision bombing 8th AF style also.

TC_PVT_Roger
05-02-2004, 09:53 AM
Let's go on the assumption that our best chance for an add-on to feature heavy bombers, is from Oleg's BoB. After all, that game should at least feature some of the necesary maps, i.e. England, Channel, France, etc. Plus it will likley do a better job simulating high altitude flight, not to mention the ability to have larger formations of planes, and hopefully different 'types' of formations as well.

So, if all that is true...what heavy bombers would you like to see modeled?

I figure bare minimum would be the B-17 (multiple varients), B-24 (ditto varients), the Lancaster, maybe the Short Sterling.

I figured the above would be a great to kick off any game focusing on "The Heavies". Plus they fit in nicely to the theatre that BoB should have some ready made maps for.

That's my short list anyway.

=TC=PVT.Roger

Snuffy_Hadden
05-02-2004, 11:04 AM
Well I'm not sure, but I think all the aircraft used by the Axis is already modeled and in place, therefore all that is really needed are the Allied heavies.

TC_PVT_Roger
05-02-2004, 11:25 AM
Snuffy

Well the BoB game will require all new models from what we have now. Having said that, the Axis bombers most often thought of, wouldn't be considered "Heavies", that is the Ju-88, He-111. I sure wouldn't mind seeing those modeled, but I have an idea they are already on the drawing board.

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

=TC=PVT.Roger

HoosBB
05-02-2004, 10:11 PM
Well, I think there would need to be some kind of quick save function if there are extremely long bombing runs included in BoB. I hate using time compression and I usually don't have more than three hours to sit and play. This would make long bomb runs accessible to more people.

Snuffy_Hadden
05-03-2004, 07:43 PM
I do not know that you can incorportate time compression into an on-line flight can you?

GT182
05-07-2004, 02:19 PM
Seeing I've been involved with B17 2 for quite awhile count me in. I don't have the know how for modeling and graphics but I'll do whatever I can to get a new "Bomber" sim going with the "Heavies".

Remember now, Rick Genius and his merry band of men (he and some of the others are from the Bombs-Away community) are making Target 4 Tonight, the British Bomber Command with Lancasters. They haven't finished yet but maybe they'd like to be invited to help out too. I know RG, Arm Slinger and Freya were fans of B17 2 at one time and possibly still are.

Arm Slinger, are you reading this thread bud? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"GT182" / "vonSpinmeister"
www.bombs-away.net (http://www.bombs-away.net)
"Fly to Survive, Survive to Fly"

Droopsnoot
05-08-2004, 10:17 PM
@ Initjust

What program are you using? CFS2?

Can I join your group? I am a WWII Vet. I am a retired Regular Officer in the USAF who held USAF ratings as a Pilot, Celestial Navigator, Visual Bombardier , Airbourne Radar Operator(Radar /Nav),Flight Engineer and Aerial Gunner.

I have several hundred hours of overwater navigation time, having flown over 300 combat hours in the Pacific during both day and night, I have made three North Atlantic crossings as a Navigator and two as a pilot of a B-29 and a B47.

I have developed my own system of Psuedo Celestial for MSFS and used it to fly Amelia Earhart's last route. This was two years before the commercial FS program came out.

I have actually bombed Tokyo, both by day and by night, as well as 20 other targets in Japan.

I staged out of China for some of my B29 missions

I received my multi-engine pilot training in a B25, and have done low and high level bombing out of them as well as Radar bombing, using the APQ 13 radar set.

I am trained in the B-25 slow flying technique used by Doolittle's group for their carrier take-off.

I was a lead crew bombardier, which also included Pathfinder duties.

I was a green card instument pilot; A B-47 Flight Simulator Instructor Pilot, for over two years..

I always "fly" the simulator in real time.

I was an aerial gunnery instructor, both flexible gunnery and all turrets.

I would very much enjoy flying your "Shangri-La" re-enactment mission.

Oh yeah, sign me up as interested in Bomber sims. I was the military advisor to the developers of B17 II.

[This message was edited by Droopsnoot on Sat May 08 2004 at 09:37 PM.]

[This message was edited by Droopsnoot on Sat May 08 2004 at 09:40 PM.]

[This message was edited by Droopsnoot on Sat May 08 2004 at 09:50 PM.]

Snyde-Dastardly
05-09-2004, 09:45 PM
Hey Droopsnoot,got any pics

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Vic-Whiplash/GRDN.bmp