SilentGun Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 it would be the best feeling to fly the legendary b-24. and I do believe dcs lacks bomber's (not A-G fighter's):pilotfly: Link to my Imgur screenshots and motto http://imgur.com/a/Gt7dF One day in DCS... Vipers will fly along side Tomcats... Bugs with Superbugs, Tiffy's with Tornado's, Fulcrums with Flankers and Mirage with Rafales... :)The Future of DCS is a bright one:)
joey45 Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 What version?? The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. "Me, the 13th Duke of Wybourne, here on the ED forums at 3 'o' clock in the morning, with my reputation. Are they mad.." https://ko-fi.com/joey45
diveplane Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 I will do the sounds for it if anybody wants to make a ai model :>)... https://www.youtube.com/user/diveplane11 DCS Audio Modding.
OutOnTheOP Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 What version?? Given the timeframe DCS:WW2 is starting in (Mid-1944), the -J would seem most appropriate to me.
Whiplash Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 I think it would be pretty great if they ever make a flyable B-24. The B-17 gets most of the attention when it comes to American WWII Heavy Bombers. Of course, my opinion is bias since my grandfather flew in B-24's during WWII. I think some other B-24 fan might appreciate this so here is a link to a slide show of a bunch of pictures he brought back with him. Most are of B-24's but I think there is some B-17 nose art in there too. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "Adulthood is like looking both ways before you cross the street and then getting hit by an airplane." Dogs of War Dedicated WWII Server Thread
ED Team NineLine Posted March 10, 2014 ED Team Posted March 10, 2014 I would love a flyable bomber of any type really. German, British, American.... whatever... would be great to have a multi-crew flyable bomber. I found a bunch of aero stuff for the Ju-88, while scanning some 109 film :music_whistling: Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
Grim_Smiles Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 I would love a flyable bomber of any type really. German, British, American.... whatever... would be great to have a multi-crew flyable bomber. I found a bunch of aero stuff for the Ju-88, while scanning some 109 film :music_whistling: I'm hoping for this one day as well. Though I'd imagine it might be easier on the devs to make some of the smaller ones first and work their way up. Ju-88 being just one example of a smaller bomber. While I'd love to see something like a fully crewed B-17 and B-24, I can't imagine just how much of an undertaking that is going to be, especially just starting out. "Hurled headlong flaming from the ethereal sky; With hideous ruin and combustion down; To bottomless perdition, there to dwell; In adamantine chains and penal fire" (RIG info is outdated, will update at some point) i5 @3.7GHz (OC to 4.1), 16GB DDR3, Nvidia GTX 970 4GB, TrackIR 5 & TrackClip Pro, TM Warthog HOTAS, VKB T-Rudder Mk.IV, Razer Blackshark Headset, Obutto Ozone
ED Team NineLine Posted March 10, 2014 ED Team Posted March 10, 2014 Well with the Huey having AI gunners now, its getting closer... we will see, I imagine it will depend on the success of DCS WWII and if it attracts 3rd Parties and such... Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
Pman Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Well with the Huey having AI gunners now, its getting closer... we will see, I imagine it will depend on the success of DCS WWII and if it attracts 3rd Parties and such... never say never ;)
ED Team NineLine Posted March 11, 2014 ED Team Posted March 11, 2014 never say never ;) I never said never, but I do comprehend what would go into a P-51D level bomber, and it would take some work, even with AI gunner stations ;) And no one would be that satisfied with AI gunners :) Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
HellToupee Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 Ild like to see Lancaster, with all its gizmos and big as bombs :)
Harakou Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I think it would be pretty great if they ever make a flyable B-24. The B-17 gets most of the attention when it comes to American WWII Heavy Bombers. Of course, my opinion is bias since my grandfather flew in B-24's during WWII. I think some other B-24 fan might appreciate this so here is a link to a slide show of a bunch of pictures he brought back with him. Most are of B-24's but I think there is some B-17 nose art in there too. You're not alone; the B-24 is my favorite bomber of the war. :thumbup:
Jimbo777 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Dude! those pictures are awesome. much respect to all those men . Jim
Whiplash Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 yeah, I have more on an old hard drive. My grandma still has all the originals. I remember when I was pretty young going through his box of stuff with him and looking at these pictures, definitely has had a big influence on me. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "Adulthood is like looking both ways before you cross the street and then getting hit by an airplane." Dogs of War Dedicated WWII Server Thread
Dr_Arrow Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 In Il2 1946, Daidalos team patch 4.13 - there will be a fully flyable B-24D with some very interesting features. Enjoy, if you haven't seen it yet:
airdoc Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Thanks for sharing the B24 IL2 1946 preview video. I 've discussed about this project with one of the two people who developed this aircraft. It took them 2 years to finish it. And although this is top quality work for IL2, it is not DCS-level. So, you can imagine the insane amount of work-hours needed in order to model a heavy bomber. If a DCS-level fighter takes about 6 months to develop, a heavy bomber would take at least a year. Let's hope to see a successful kickstarter for the B17 soon. cheers The three best things in life are a good landing, a good orgasm, and a good bowel movement. The night carrier landing is one of the few opportunities in life to experience all three at the same time.
buster_dee Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Actually, I had over 6 years in it. But, in fairness, I was not experienced (Guse, much more so). And, honestly, I had no idea how many other people had to burn time on it after my part was done until they did so (and are still doing). It was an eye-opener to think I ever thought I was due any personal credit. When I hear "not to DCS standards," I cringe. It was daunting to manage what we did for 46. I personally think that living by blueprints is not the Holy Grail; there are too many holes, and it would seem to me that you never even know if a drawing was for a discontinued or stillborn part. I'm battling with a canopy ATM (for 46 again). I have not seen a single picture, wartime or otherwise, that supports the blueprint I have. I really hope Luthier hangs in. I still think he is smitten by the right bug.
airdoc Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Actually, I had over 6 years in it. But, in fairness, I was not experienced (Guse, much more so). And, honestly, I had no idea how many other people had to burn time on it after my part was done until they did so (and are still doing). It was an eye-opener to think I ever thought I was due any personal credit. When I hear "not to DCS standards," I cringe. It was daunting to manage what we did for 46. I personally think that living by blueprints is not the Holy Grail; there are too many holes, and it would seem to me that you never even know if a drawing was for a discontinued or stillborn part. I'm battling with a canopy ATM (for 46 again). I have not seen a single picture, wartime or otherwise, that supports the blueprint I have. I really hope Luthier hangs in. I still think he is smitten by the right bug. Hi Buster_dee, I 've known Monguse for sometime through our online meetings in Battle-fields.com, and would like to get to know you as well. I truly feel that the work you 've done for the upcoming B24D is outstanding, but i didn't want to use this word before it was released. IL2 fans will figure it out on their own soon enough, as well as the other remarkable changes regarding bombardier station autopilot, etc. I specifically used the phrase "not at DCS level" instead of "not at DCS standard" because i was referring to the differences in the whole modelling process implemented at DCS, relative to virtually every other sim available. And this comparison was not in any way meant to downgrade the quality of your work, but rather to make a point about the amount of additional work hours that would be needed if one was to model the function of every internal system and make every switch and button clickable in a heavy bomber cockpit. Maybe i should have expressed myself in a different way about this. All i can say is that i highly appreciate your work in the B24D, and that the flight sim community will surely be grateful for what you 've done once they get to see it. cheers The three best things in life are a good landing, a good orgasm, and a good bowel movement. The night carrier landing is one of the few opportunities in life to experience all three at the same time.
buster_dee Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 I should read my posts more carefully. I meant that I cringe at the extra work.:doh:
airdoc Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 I should read my posts more carefully. I meant that I cringe at the extra work.:doh: :) The three best things in life are a good landing, a good orgasm, and a good bowel movement. The night carrier landing is one of the few opportunities in life to experience all three at the same time.
hvymtal Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 It really depends on if making multiple cockpit positions that have totally separate functions will work. Sure, the Huey has the copilot and CA has the secondary machine gun positions on tanks etc, but we're talking pilot, bombardier/nose gun, Dorsal and Ventral ball turrets, tail gun, and two waist guns. That's seven different positions, six of which have machine guns! I'm not saying its impossible, anything is possible, but it would likely be a bit ridiculous to try and do everything unless the gunners are automated, and that takes away from sim fidelity. Really, what we need is two or three people using the damn thing but I don't think that is yet feasable, especially when looking at how mind-boggling the code for the Huey is from a code noob's standpoint. My Logitech Extreme3D Pro "Essentials" Profiles for FC3 and 25T: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/599930/ Thrustmaster T.16000M, TWCS FC3, F-5E, M2000C, AJS-37, C-101, F-14, NTTR
buster_dee Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 (edited) I love bombers. I got my start in the stillborn Target for Tonight project a dozen years ago. I think no bomber sim can succeed unless the bomber is the primary aircraft, even at the expense of the fighters. That's a very different "sim," with a very different crowd in mind. Give me immersive terror and a strong multi-crew bonding element. Give me B17 II with modern graphics. And, no, I'm not suggesting that DCS abandon its true fan base--who have probably also waited a long time for an unrestrained commitment to flight and systems modeling. It just doesn't interest me, and I don't see "my" sim ever happening again--or an effort to revive the B-17 II model would have happened again, and again, until someone succeeded. I backed this because I--God forgive me--respect the whacky, creative, stubborn guy who calls himself Luthier. When he is in total control (not so here, as teaming was the best way to pick his dream off the deck), he comes the closest to giving me what I like, even if only peripherally. There's a simpler explanation: I learn like a stone, and the only thing I ever contribute to a dogfight is to signal the beginning with my flaming corps. Mods, delete this post if needed. It's obvious I've gotten off track. Edited October 8, 2015 by buster_dee
Recommended Posts