Jump to content

What are the chances we will see a B-17 DLC some day?


oscar19681

Recommended Posts

I'd love to see a flyable B-17, honestly, anything new WWII wise would be awesome.

 

Personally there is only 2 fighters I really want to fly from WWII, the P-38L, and an F6F or F4U.

 

Bomber/Attack wise, B-17 is one of my favorites of all time, and I think it would bring in even more people. Also wouldn't mind seeing a B25 and maybe some german bombers/attack planes also like the He-111, the Bf-110C or G and the Ju-88 or Ju-87.

 

Personally I flew Aces High for the longest time, and Warbirds before that, and I still have friends who stick to aces high because currently the $15/mo gets them the ability to fly a bunch of WWII aircraft, and try as I might to get them to try DCS, they refuse because the WWII side just isnt as developed yet. (I cancelled my Aces High Subscription a few months ago after i learned how to not crash the WWII birds on takeoff lol).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

WWII Bombers in 1944 Environment? B-17?

 

In 1944 the allied heavy bombers were mostly carpet-bombing anything that looked like a target, with very limited opposition as the Luftwaffe was vastly outnumbered. While it would be challenging to bring home a damaged ship, that means you need to have a full crew in the mission. I don't think I'd buy that module. However I would like to see AI versions to try and tackle with the Dora or Kurfürst.

The anti-tank version of the JU-87 Stuka might be exciting when you remember what Hans-Ulrich Rudel managed to do with his Kanonenvogei. I think I would buy that.

LeCuvier

Windows 10 Pro 64Bit | i7-4790 CPU |16 GB RAM|SSD System Disk|SSD Gaming Disk| MSI GTX-1080 Gaming 8 GB| Acer XB270HU | TM Warthog HOTAS | VKB Gladiator Pro | MongoosT-50 | MFG Crosswind Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED could make many FC type aircraft and like the FC (Lock-On) types we all ready have, upgrade them to what is deemed appropriate. I for one appreciate a good flight model but I also enjoy many aircraft that are not modeled to an exact representation of the real item. Arguing about flight characteristics without actually flown except in simulation is accepting the author's coding of what he thinks represents as close to what actual flight is like.

If he has flown the real thing....all the better.

 

Having 300 hours in a simulator gets you 300hours of exactly that. Very well versed in that particular sim.....but that sim is again what the programmer's knowledge dictates of representative of flight and systems in that sim.

 

Climbing into the real thing will snap you into reality real fast.

 

So, imho, I would enjoy a FC (Lock-On) type B-17 or any other aircraft ED or their partners can produce. I would think that we could get most of those aircraft that everyone wants sooner, much sooner than waiting years for a super close representation of said aircraft. And then waiting more years for the era maps and aircraft that would match.

 

You may only want exact renditions but like I mentioned you would probably not begin to tell the difference without flying the real thing.

 

Your mileage may differ. Imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would enjoy a FC (Lock-On) type B-17 or any other aircraft ED or their partners can produce. I would think that we could get most of those aircraft that everyone wants sooner, much sooner than waiting years for a super close representation of said aircraft.

 

You may only want exact renditions but like I mentioned you would probably not begin to tell the difference without flying the real thing.

 

... A baffling hypothesis. One can easily tell that an FC-level aircraft is grossly inaccurate, without having flown the real thing, if only because of simple things like real-life manuals. For example, an FC-level P-51D would have ~1 step in the startup procedure, as opposed to the ~24 steps in the real one ... an extremely obvious difference to spot, for anyone who's read the real-life startup checklist.

 

Obviously, a manual isn't going to tell the whole story--far from it--but it tells enough to be able to easily spot major discrepancies between an FC-level partial-simulation and the real thing. E.g. one-step-startup versus two-dozen-step-startup. The only way that a simmer would be unable to tell the difference between an FC-level module and the real aircraft, were if he didn't bother to do the slightest bit of learning about the aircraft's operation.


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED could make a map and a mission in one easily for DCS WWII.

 

Have the Normandy map with an AI bomber stream. JAFU gives periodic reports on the location, altitude and heading of the bomber stream.

 

8th USAAF Mission Controller gives updates on enemy fighters attacking and spotted from the bomber stream.

 

AI fighters escort or intercept. Players join in.

 

Much like the scripted missions we see in the arenas.

 

What do you think? I think it would not be very hard to do, realistic, and a lot of fun.

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Echo, You missed my point completely. Yes if you knew that it took 25 or so button presses to start and the FC type had a single start button, hopefully most would realize that it is not the complete and accurate start up procedure for that type aircraft or for that matter I have to assume that in a WW1 early bi-plane and looking for the start button would be ahhh I don't know....sitting in the cockpit with someone pulling on the propeller might give a hint something may be questionable.

 

Point is spending 5 or so minutes starting a simulator aircraft may, spin your prop, but it necessarily does not do that for others. I, as I mentioned, do not need that level of accuracy in those redundant procedures to enjoy a flight in an aircraft that is modeled with the FC level. It takes much longer to program a 100% accurate,( again with reference to the programmer ability and knowledge,) aircraft than one of the FC types.

 

So, I say I, instead of waiting, and again as I have previously mentioned I cannot wait years for long periods of development being 75 years old, welcome aircraft that may not have the three thousand one hundred and sixty two rivets and twenty four startup functions to have FUN flying these simulators. By the way, not that it is really important, I was a pilot until I lost my medical...eyesight problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the full startup procedure is annoying when you're playing online, and the focus is on the PvP action.

 

I think a fair number of people would buy a PFM class B-17 or B-25, but it would have even greater success selling maps if they were just initially developed as AI aircraft. So much of the late war western front that's the focus of our current planeset was centered around the bomber streams... P-51s flying cover, and 109s and FWs (and soon 262s) trying to get through the cover to shoot them down.

 

We need them as targets to attack or defend more than anything right now.

PC - 3900X - Asus Crosshair Hero VIII - NZXT Kraken 63 - 32 GB RAM - 2080ti - SB X-Fi Titanium PCIe - Alienware UW - Windows 10

 

Sim hardware - Warthog throttle - VKB Gunfighter III - CH Quadrant - Slaw Device Pedals - Obutto R3volution pit - HP Reverb G2 - 2X AuraSound shakers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In *Normandy*? Really? I missed that bit of history...

 

To put it diplomatically, I think the majority of simmers who use DCS would prefer a more-is-more approach to detail than a quick-start button. Personally I though the time-consuming element in getting airborne was not so much the pushing of the buttons, but waiting for the engine to warm up. I am also pretty sure that our own (British) Spitfire pilots were able to "Scramble" pretty effectively without a big red button in the cockpit.

 

Come to think of it, how would the start up time of an experienced pilot compare with the time it actually took to get to the operational altitude of these bomber streams? Surely that's pretty time consuming too?

 

 

Conversely, I also agree with a previous poster that running a fully-crewed large bomber as a several hour sim flight is ... maybe not as appealing as leaping in to a fighter, as well as being potentially more problematic. Why? Well, if we are assuming you want a all-human (as opposed to NCO... heh heh) crew then you'll potentially start hitting the group problems well-known in multi-player PC gaming. It's all well and good if you can play with the same crew, you all have your favoured positions, and you all work as a well-practiced group. However... ever played in a PUG (that's a pick-up group) with complete strangers? Some times it can go well, and other times it just doesn't. What happens when you want to be the pilot/navigator/bomb-aimer, and you draw the tail-gunner - is the 3 hour flight so fun now? What happens if your bomb aimer gets bored/confused and bombs your own troops? Your tail gunner runs out of ammo before you cross in to enemy skies because he was "practicing"? Your top-gunner goes AFK to answer his phone? And we'll not even mention having a hyper-active 12-yr old as a pilot... Or do you intend just to play on locked servers with your mates?

 

Short version: the more (real) crew-members in your aircraft, the more you have to rely on the commitment and skills of others for your own enjoyment of the game. This, when it works well, would indeed be incredibly immersive and fun. However, the potential for it to all go to pot also raises correspondingly.

My *new* AV-8B sim-pit build thread:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3901589

 

The old Spitfire sim-pit build thread circa '16/17:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=143452

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully DCS WW2 will someday incorporate four engine bombers like the B17, and Lanc. I would pay three times the amount DCS charges for single engine aircraft. Although I'm not so sure the development time would be any longer than simulating the much more complex modern jet avionics.

 

There were rumours that the DCS Normandy map would include a narrow slice of the English coast. There were many heavy bomber mission before, during, and after the Normandy invasion. The shorter flight times, would be very popular for many flight simmers. I believe it would be a huge mistake for the devs not to add a very narrow slice of the English coast in the Normandy map.


Edited by Chivas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting point: would people expect the large bombers to cost the same as "snub" fighter?

 

I wouldn't, now that I think about it... More stations = more art = more complexity = more cost. However, I am sure that some people would (erroneously) assume that a-plane-is-a-plane-is-a-plane, and get the hump if they are asked to pay more that 50 dollar/pounds.

My *new* AV-8B sim-pit build thread:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3901589

 

The old Spitfire sim-pit build thread circa '16/17:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=143452

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the large bombers would take a lot more time to develop due to number of crew positions and also modelling asymmetric flight would take time. Plus although the aircraft increases in scale, the level of detail remains the same and so modelling a larger amount of precise detail will be difficult and time consuming.

System Specs: i7 8700k @ 5.0GHz (not delidded), ASRock Extreme4 Z370 MOBO, EVGA GTX 1080 SC 8GB, 32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200MHz DDR4 RAM, Samsung Evo 240GB SSD, Samsung Evo 500GB SSD, 1TB HDD, Noctura NH-D15S Heat Sink, Acer VE278H 27" 1080p Monitor, Ocukus Rift CV1.

 

Controllers: TrackIR 5, Thrustmaster HOTAS X, Saitek Throttle Quadrant (with DIY removable collective mod), Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals.

 

Just trying to keep my number of takeoffs and landings equal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer they focus on medium bombers (I have a thread on this incl a poll and the popular choice is the B25) - theoretically easier to develop than a 4 engine bomber like the '17 or '24. The medium bombers were much more versatile eg. the B25, A26, Mosquito, Beaufighter, etc.

AMD AM4 Ryzen7 3700X 3.6ghz/MSI AM4 ATX MAG X570 Tomahawk DDR4/32GB DDR4 G.Skill 3600mhz/1TB 970 Evo SSD/ASUS RTX2070 8gb Super

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In *Normandy*? Really? I missed that bit of history...

:huh:... B-17s flew many missions into Normandy. The fighters would be out of place, though, if that's what you meant.

 

The Normandy map doesn't need anything to sell, as WWII players hungry for ANYTHING will buy it in droves. A map of Germany, however... The 8th AF trying to get in and the Luftwaffe trying to keep them out were the defining air battles of the late war. Dogfighting ponies and FWs over Dresden without any bombers in the air would involve some cognitive dissonance.

 

As far as development goes, I don't see how a single-player version of a Fortress or Liberator would equal the complexity of the Mig 21 or upcoming Mirage. The cockpit would need a lot of textures and a copilot model, similar to the Huey. You'd also have to model looking through the bomb sight. I'd love to be able to jump into either the ball turrets or the tail gunner position, but I'm not sure the ROI would ever justify the cost of development. Of course, those would take a lot less resources to create, so I don't know.

 

Flying a full 8th Air Force simulated mission over Germany for 8 hours is something that sounds great in theory, and I'm sure a lot of us would try it *once*. The number who would do it a second time is probably a small to very small fraction of that. :smilewink:


Edited by nervousenergy

PC - 3900X - Asus Crosshair Hero VIII - NZXT Kraken 63 - 32 GB RAM - 2080ti - SB X-Fi Titanium PCIe - Alienware UW - Windows 10

 

Sim hardware - Warthog throttle - VKB Gunfighter III - CH Quadrant - Slaw Device Pedals - Obutto R3volution pit - HP Reverb G2 - 2X AuraSound shakers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Wags did say "We are committed to creating the most authentic recreation of World War II air combat ever done." http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2571277&postcount=4

 

So maybe there is hope she will arrive one day ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The old game, B-17 II The Mighty Eighth, hinted at some answers. It's MP was never implemented, so I'm making a leap in assuming the devs would have applied all the off-line features on-line in some fashion. Basically, there was a fast-travel system that was disallowed when a group was taking off (like your fighter cover) or there was danger nearby (such as flak or interceptors). Crewing was supposed to be either all human, a mix of human and AI, or all AI (the balance of squadron ac). AI performance was dynamic in that, every time you inserted yourself and outperformed him, the AI crewman was better when he resumed his duties. If you/he was killed, you started over. So, you could train your AI off-line, then turn them loose on-line. Camaraderie was available for, say, a human pilot, copilot, flight engineer, bombardier, and navigator (or any mix for that matter). How the AI level of training would have been shared is a mystery. If your human bombardier could not make it to a meet, how would his AI training be transferred? How would a single seat be denied to an unknown player when you'd prefer to accept AI to a stranger. I'll never be a great stick-and-rudder guy, but I'm still dreaming of being a crewman.

 

By the way, what is somewhat missed is that complex systems, atmosphere, and damage models occupy a lot of net code when you are trying to synchronize several people in a single plane--or several multi-crewed planes for that matter. Fortunately, heavies don't make abrupt moves that could require predictive algorithms as long as the Great Wall.


Edited by buster_dee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Sounds like reality for late war German a/c.;)

 

Woo Hooo!!!! :lol::lol:

Dogs of War Squadron

Call sign "HeadHunter" P-51D /Spitfire Jockey

Gigabyte EP45T-UD3LR /Q9650 3.6Ghz | 16GB DDR3 1600 RipJaws | EVGA GTX-1060 ACX3 FTW | ThrustMaster 16000m & G13 GamePad w/analog rudder stick | TurtleBeach EarForce PX22 | Track IR5 | Vizio 40" 4K TV monitor (stuck temporarily with an Acer 22" :( )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am new here to DCS World. The only reason I came here is because of the WW2 section. I still fly Aces High 2 for the reason of flying the B-17, where I am the CO of the v97th BG. I have been flying Air Combat Sim and games for about 28 years now. I have seen them come and go.

I personally like to see DCS World War 2 start off as 1943 and work up to April 1945. I like to see the B-17F model come first then the B-17G.

I am not very interested in the Morden Day aircraft except maybe the F86F and the F4 Phantom because the fact I am a Marine Corps Vet Nam Vet and watch them in action.

I like to see DCS make a maps that are full world like in MS CFS had.

Thats my $.02 as if I have any say on this.

v332nd FG Tuskegee Airmen

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Bf-109 is still in Beta and it still has bugs! It's been in beta awhile---my purchase date was February 2015 for $15, so I think it has been in beta longer than just one year. I think ED is spread out too much. They need to get serious with the WWII era stuff and quit farting around.

 

Last night, 1.5.2 release version, ACG (EU), I land to get repaired. Get repaired. Start up sequence >>> no electrics, engine doesn't start. Had to get a new plane.

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
For what purpose?

 

To fly bombing missions over the Caucasus?

 

Vegas might be more appropriate...

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am new here to DCS World. The only reason I came here is because of the WW2 section. I still fly Aces High 2 for the reason of flying the B-17, where I am the CO of the v97th BG. I have been flying Air Combat Sim and games for about 28 years now. I have seen them come and go.

I personally like to see DCS World War 2 start off as 1943 and work up to April 1945. I like to see the B-17F model come first then the B-17G.

I am not very interested in the Morden Day aircraft except maybe the F86F and the F4 Phantom because the fact I am a Marine Corps Vet Nam Vet and watch them in action.

I like to see DCS make a maps that are full world like in MS CFS had.

Thats my $.02 as if I have any say on this.

 

I think we'd all like to see it. DCS is (at least right now) primarily heavily geared towards more modern aviation. But the P-51, ME-109, and FW-190 are all extremely well done and arguably more fun and challenging to fly than any of the other modules aside from maybe the MiG-21 (that thing is just insanely challenging). So I think there's a lot of interest or could be if things move further that way. As I understand it, the F4U and the P-40 are both in the works as we speak, and both should be great fun to fly.

 

The problem with the B-17 I'd imagine is just honestly the complexity. You see how long it takes to get one plane, one model of it - done right. Some aircraft have been in beta for well over a year and are still not all there. Some have been in development for several years and are not even to the beta stage. From what I understand, each module costs upwards of 6 figures to put out. The B-17, done right, with all the stations and things that would have to be modeled would be an insanely big ask, and exceedingly expensive I am sure. A bird so beloved as that one, people would have sky high expectations. They'd want to be able to run the length of the aircraft, tweak every switch, knob, and rivet and have extreme levels of detail (that's the funnest part of DCS). Just imagine how much that would take if a simple fighter can take years and 6 figures to do. I'd bet one day it can and will happen, but I'd also bet it will be quite some time and a huge number of modules will be ahead of it, if it ever gets on the drawing board.

 

TL;DR - It's not that there's not enough interest or that it's only your $.02, it's just an incredibly big undertaking. They'd have to basically devote a few years resources to just that one aircraft to do it right, and at the time, there are just so many other things on the plate. I'd love it. I'd pay more than $100 for that bird alone. I just can't imagine it'll be an easy one to get in game.

 

Thanks for your service, by the way! :thumbup:


Edited by OneBlueSky

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was a DCS fully simulated B-17 I would pay whatever price they asked for it and honestly probably rarely fly fighters again. I am a bomber guy and always will be

 

:thumbup:

 

same here

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

City Hall is easier to fight, than a boys' club - an observation :P

"Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us." - Jefferson

"Give a group of potheads a bunch of weed and nothing to smoke out of, and they'll quickly turn into engineers... its simply amazing."

EVGA X99 FTW, EVGA GTX980Ti FTW, i7 5930K, 16Gb Corsair Dominator 2666Hz, Windows 7 Ultimate 64Bit, Intel 520 SSD x 2, Samsung PX2370 monitor and all the other toys

-

"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...