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

[Weedwacker]

If they would release a game like Microprose "B-17 Flying Fortress: The Mighty Eight' for a DCS level of B17, it would be amazing, with real people gunning for you and a navigator/bomber guy, order the crew around. Deal with systems failing under attack...."ENGINE 3 ON FIRE, SHUTTING HER DOWN" "109s 11 OCLOCK HIGH!!!!"

 

I swear between this and War thunder not making any bomber cockpits makes me wonder if businesses are all trying to tie into upcoming HBO mini series 'the mighty eighth' (think band of brothers/the pacific with a bomber crew) and drop surprise announcements.

[JustVisiting]

Yeah, but it's just so damn ugly compared to a B-17 or B-25.

 

;)

 

Well, there was an old gag that the B-24 was the packing crate they sent the B-17 over in.

[JustVisiting]

If they would release a game like Microprose "B-17 Flying Fortress: The Mighty Eight' for a DCS level of B17, it would be amazing, with real people gunning for you and a navigator/bomber guy, order the crew around. Deal with systems failing under attack...."ENGINE 3 ON FIRE, SHUTTING HER DOWN" "109s 11 OCLOCK HIGH!!!!"

 

I swear between this and War thunder not making any bomber cockpits makes me wonder if businesses are all trying to tie into upcoming HBO mini series 'the mighty eighth' (think band of brothers/the pacific with a bomber crew) and drop surprise announcements.

 

Last week I think I read in this thread that someone thought a B-17 sim would be a bit dull. Microprose "B-17 Flying Fortress" was certainly not that. Every crew member in that sim had an important role and if you didn't know what you were doing and were not good knowing which member to switch to at which time it could spell disaster for the mission. The navigator position was particularly interesting. You would occasionally have to look out the windows, identify what you were seeing outside your windows, and re-correct for errors on your map. If you forgot to do these corrections you would end up way off once you were at the IP. A lot of the positions you simply had to take over from the AI. I also seem to remember, correct me if I'm wrong, that if engines were out you really needed to take over pilot control from the AI. The AI would tend to overstress the remaining engines trying to stay in formation. Sometimes you just had to take control and strike out on your own even if it meant losing the protection of the formation. Also, don't think about letting the AI bomb your target for you or take off or land the plane for you (you had to be a man and do that crap yourself). Microprose "B-17 Flying Fortess" was a hoot. Of course multiplayer would be awesome.

 

For those of you who think that a B-17 sim couldn't work well or not be fun please be aware that Microprose pulled it off twenty years ago.

 

We sometimes tend to make fun of the simplicity of the sims from the 80s and 90s but some of them were FUN and some of them were filled with massive amounts of atmosphere.

Edited April 26, 2016 by JustVisiting

[Legioneod]

Last week I think I read in this thread that someone thought a B-17 sim would be a bit dull. Microprose "B-17 Flying Fortress" was certainly not that. Every crew member in that sim had an important role and if you didn't know what you were doing and were not good knowing which member to switch to at which time it could spell disaster for the mission. The navigator position was particularly interesting. You would occasionally have to look out the windows, identify what you were seeing outside your windows, and re-correct for errors on your map. If you forgot to do these corrections you would end up way off once you were at the IP. A lot of the positions you simply had to take over from the AI. I also seem to remember, correct me if I'm wrong, that if engines were out you really needed to take over pilot control from the AI. The AI would tend to overstress the remaining engines trying to stay in formation. Sometimes you just had to take control and strike out on your own even if it meant losing the protection of the formation. Also, don't think about letting the AI bomb your target for you or take off or land the plane for you (you had to be a man and do that crap yourself). Microprose "B-17 Flying Fortess" was a hoot. Of course multiplayer would be awesome.

 

For those of you who think that a B-17 sim couldn't work well or not be fun please be aware that Microprose pulled it off twenty years ago.

 

We sometimes tend to make fun of the simplicity of the sims from the 80s and 90s but some of them were FUN and some of them were filled with massive amounts of atmosphere.

 

I still play the mighty eighth, it's a great game and still enjoyable after all these years. The ability to fly heavy bombers like the B-17 or B-24 would be great fun and would bring a new element to the sim. We just need more ground targets like oil refineries or factories.

[JustVisiting]

I still play the mighty eighth, it's a great game and still enjoyable after all these years. The ability to fly heavy bombers like the B-17 or B-24 would be great fun and would bring a new element to the sim. We just need more ground targets like oil refineries or factories.

 

Agreed. A good map and target rich environment are important.

 

A few years back I learned the startup, shutdown, and control operation for the actual B-17 ball turret. It's almost like an aircraft in and of itself. If DCS were to model a B-17 with high fidelity it would be akin to learning several aircraft. Another poster said he would be willing to pay 100 dollars for a B-17. I would be as well assuming that a combination of realism and fun factor can be maintained.

[NineLine]

I swear between this and War thunder not making any bomber cockpits makes me wonder if businesses are all trying to tie into upcoming HBO mini series 'the mighty eighth' (think band of brothers/the pacific with a bomber crew) and drop surprise announcements.

 

I cant speak for WT, but bombers for DCS add another layer of complexity, not only do you have multi-crew, but you have multi-prop engines. The first of anything always takes time. This of course is for player controlled and not AI. I cant imagine that we wont someday see multi-engine bombers for players to fly.

[NineLine]

We just need more ground targets like oil refineries or factories.

 

A number of these can be placed in the mission editor already.

[MegOhm_SD]

Yeah, but it's just so damn ugly compared to a B-17 or B-25.

 

;)

 

Matter of opinion. B24 is not really ugly.

 

Now there are A Lot of ugly German and British Bombers. Upon reflection I can't think of one that's not...:music_whistling:

Edited April 27, 2016 by MegOhm_SD

[flare2000x]

Matter of opinion. B24 is not really ugly.

 

Now there are A Lot of ugly German and British Bombers. Upon reflection I can't think of one that's not...:music_whistling:

Ahem . . . the Halifax is a beauty. So is the Mosquito. And what about the He 111?

 

I must say, the B-24 and B-25 are ugly . . . I even don't like the 17 that much . . .

 

Please don't hurt me - it's all opinions!

[WinterH]

I think only ugly German bomber is Do-17. He-111, Ju-88 and derivates, and even He-177 are all very good lookers.

 

B-24 and Lancaster are in an interesting place between ugly and special. But Wellington, Blenheim, Mosquito are pretty. So are B-25, B-17, B-29 etc.

 

Like all other posts, these of course are just my opinions :).

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I must say, the B-24 and B-25 are ugly . . . I even don't like the 17 that much . . .

25 ugly??? :lol: :lol: :lol: B-25 is one of the best looking aircraft designs even for today standards. But yes, it's a matter of taste :smilewink:.

 

S!

[IronJockel]

I cant speak for WT, but bombers for DCS add another layer of complexity, not only do you have multi-crew, but you have multi-prop engines. The first of anything always takes time. This of course is for player controlled and not AI. I cant imagine that we wont someday see multi-engine bombers for players to fly.

Tbh I don't think a full pfm is necessary for a plane this large.

Bombsight, clickable cockpit and stimulated system would be fine for a plane that isn't able to do fancy maneuvers.

[Legioneod]

Tbh I don't think a full pfm is necessary for a plane this large.

Bombsight, clickable cockpit and stimulated system would be fine for a plane that isn't able to do fancy maneuvers.

 

I'd prefer to get as close to the real thing as possible, full immersion, no shortcuts. I will never be able to fly one of these machines irl so I wan't something as close to the real thing as possible.

Players who don't fly bombers or aren't interested in them might not care about how in depth it is, but I definitely expect the same level of detail that we have in all other ww2 modules.

I don't care very much how long it would take to develop because it would be worth it. The devs could just add an ai bomber in the mean time.

Besides, they never said they were doing a player controlled bomber from my understanding, just an ai one, but I hope they will make one someday and I hope it's as detailed as the other modules.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Legion

[komemiute]

B-24 is the bomber I'd like to see, it's been overshadowed by the B-17 but it played a large role in the war. It had a larger payload and farther range than the B-17.

 

 

IIRC the 17 was much easier to fly.

The B24 wings made it a very stressful and dangerous beast.

 

Again, IIRC!:joystick:

[Sryan]

Matter of opinion. B24 is not really ugly.

 

Now there are A Lot of ugly German and British Bombers. Upon reflection I can't think of one that's not...:music_whistling:

 

I think the german FW200 condor is quite pretty.

[NineLine]

Tbh I don't think a full pfm is necessary for a plane this large.

Bombsight, clickable cockpit and stimulated system would be fine for a plane that isn't able to do fancy maneuvers.

 

But if you are gonna go deep into ASM (advanced system modelling) you might as well go ahead with the PFM as well.

[WinterH]

I wouldn't want to see SFM anything on DCS personally. But, AFM or AFM+ would be quite enough for me as far as huge bombers go. Still, the PFM level would be obviously best, but I'm ok with a module as long as it is not SFM.

[Legioneod]

IIRC the 17 was much easier to fly.

The B24 wings made it a very stressful and dangerous beast.

 

Again, IIRC!:joystick:

 

I know, she was also prone to catching fire but overall she could take just as much dmg as the 17 and she was well liked by crews from what I've read.

Despite her difficulty to fly, I'd still fly her over the B-17.

 

Also just a quick question, what are the differences between the afm and pfm? And what are the other ww2 modules model level?

 

Edit: just read the thread about the different levels of modeling and after reading it I def want the pfm for the bombers and all other aircraft for that matter.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Legion

[Sryan]

I know, she was also prone to catching fire but overall she could take just as much dmg as the 17 and she was well liked by crews from what I've read.

Despite her difficulty to fly, I'd still fly her over the B-17.

 

Also just a quick question, what are the differences between the afm and pfm? And what are the other ww2 modules model level?

 

Edit: just read the thread about the different levels of modeling and after reading it I def want the pfm for the bombers and all other aircraft for that matter.

 

All the current WW2 modules are at the PFM level. Only some jets included in FC3 have an AFM+ or lower level quality FM, Su-33 and MiG-29 are still sporting an SFM, the lowest quality standard for now but they will be updated soon. I believe both the Hawk and C101 jets have an SFM as placeholder for their final PFM level flightmodels to be completed. Although the hawk is in the process of upgrading right now.

 

Here's some detailed reading on what everything means: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122801

[IronJockel]

But if you are gonna go deep into ASM (advanced system modelling) you might as well go ahead with the PFM as well.

 

I just think that it could be ready for release with ASM before a PFM is in place. But if different teams would work parallel on both, sure.

[NineLine]

I just think that it could be ready for release with ASM before a PFM is in place. But if different teams would work parallel on both, sure.

 

Honestly I think system modelling might be more work than the PFM depending on how you look at it, honestly though, I would take a 'FC' level B-17 to start with while they worked their way up to full blown ASM/PFM module.

[IronJockel]

Honestly I think system modelling might be more work than the PFM depending on how you look at it, honestly though, I would take a 'FC' level B-17 to start with while they worked their way up to full blown ASM/PFM module.

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Hueyman]

Still having huge whishes and hope that a DCS B-17 ( not a FC-3 or poor mod, but a genuine DCS like the current Warbirds we have ) will see the light some day

 

It can be in a year or in 5 I don't care, but it has to come at the right time, when the appropriate environment will already be there, or it'll be misplaced, probably the most misplaced module ever created...

 

Watching this makes me happy, can't stop wishing having that in DCS... one day !

 

[ame]

[/ame]

[Mysticpuma]

Still having huge whishes and hope that a DCS B-17 ( not a FC-3 or poor mod, but a genuine DCS like the current Warbirds we have ) will see the light some day

 

It can be in a year or in 5 I don't care, but it has to come at the right time, when the appropriate environment will already be there, or it'll be misplaced, probably the most misplaced module ever created...

 

Watching this makes me happy, can't stop wishing having that in DCS... one day !

 

 

 

Got to say...that was a tough video to make....but seeing it turning up nearly 10-years later....makes me so happy :)

 

Cheers, MP

[TwoLate]

Yes if this gets into DCS what a day it would be.