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

[Hueyman]

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

 

Wow, nice to meet you Puma ;-) I watched all the three movies yesterday and became very nostalgic of the good old IL-2 days... we have to be honest, nothing yet came even close of that game, with all his planes, theaters and environments... and more than decent flight models... Not surprised to see always a very active community of modders and simmers on that one !

 

And thanks for your hard work, really nice videos you did here !

[Jacks]

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

 

Mysticpuma, I have to say well done on that video! Imagine the video you could create once DCS 1944 is fully developed with a large map, P-47, B-17 etc........

 

WHEN the B-17 is developed for DCS, I hope we can walk around it to move between crew positions and get some good internal action shots like in the video so we can develop a better understanding of what it must have been like for the young men flying these incredible machines into battle.

[Captain Orso]

If you don't want to wait for an official DLC, you might want to keep your eyes on this Battleships Bismark. Post #170. Don't be fooled by the thread name. This is all things WW-II and Markindel and his supporters are working on a whole bunch of things, all at once.

 

[Para_Bellum]

Indeed. :thumbup:

 

 

 

[Tomsk]

Wow!! Those look amazing, I'm always astounded by what the modding community achieves. So does that mean DCS WWII "Bomber Nights" are now possible?

[Ala13_ManOWar]

We always say DCS still lacks enough WWII stuff, but those pics makes me realize how little would be necessary indeed. So, how close we are :D :thumbup:.

 

S!

[Shahdoh]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=167940

[Jacks]

Para bellum, are you planning on releasing this mission to the public?

[TwilightZone]

really great.......:-)

[Para_Bellum]

Para bellum, are you planning on releasing this mission to the public?

 

It's not really a mission (yet), merely a test. The combat box is "hand crafted" using single ship groups so the formation is basically restricted to flying straight ahead.

[Shahdoh]

Will be putting up a post in the next day or so on how to setup large bomber formations that can turn at waypoints and stay in, or at least return to, formation.

 

Here is a stress test of 24 B-17s contrailing. unfortunately, system crashed before turning at the waypoints, but can get a good idea of frame rate hits you might see. I normally get well over 120-150 fps with my 4.2Ghz system with a GTX980 card, 16G of ram.

 

***Twitch deleted the video ***

 

With 24 bombers contrailing, I was getting 60-80 FPS. Decent still but obviously a load to the system.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Shahdoh

[OutOnTheOP]

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

 

It won't really matter until ED finally decides they care enough to actually support it. Right now, DCS does not, to the best of my knowledge, support multiple turrets on an aircraft, and bombers will either attempt to BFM against fighters (breaking formation), or will fly straight ahead and ignore them (use "blind" mode, which keeps them in formation but means they will not return fire).

 

Until DCS builds AI to support WW2-style bomber tactics, no amount of fan mods will make a difference. Besides that, fan mods are not really the way to go for online play, because it adds YET ANOTHER hurdle to people actually finding a server on which they can play. DCS is hard enough to get into an online game already.

[NineLine]

It won't really matter until ED finally decides they care enough to actually support it. Right now, DCS does not, to the best of my knowledge, support multiple turrets on an aircraft, and bombers will either attempt to BFM against fighters (breaking formation), or will fly straight ahead and ignore them (use "blind" mode, which keeps them in formation but means they will not return fire).

 

Until DCS builds AI to support WW2-style bomber tactics, no amount of fan mods will make a difference. Besides that, fan mods are not really the way to go for online play, because it adds YET ANOTHER hurdle to people actually finding a server on which they can play. DCS is hard enough to get into an online game already.

 

Its known and reported, but until we have bombers like that in DCS you are right, its not going to work right.

[Captain Orso]

It won't really matter until ED finally decides they care enough to actually support it. Right now, DCS does not, to the best of my knowledge, support multiple turrets on an aircraft, and bombers will either attempt to BFM against fighters (breaking formation), or will fly straight ahead and ignore them (use "blind" mode, which keeps them in formation but means they will not return fire).

 

Until DCS builds AI to support WW2-style bomber tactics, no amount of fan mods will make a difference. Besides that, fan mods are not really the way to go for online play, because it adds YET ANOTHER hurdle to people actually finding a server on which they can play. DCS is hard enough to get into an online game already.

 

Its known and reported, but until we have bombers like that in DCS you are right, its not going to work right.

 

I have to respectfully disagree. It is far from an optimal solution--very far--but it is also far more than what we have had until now.

 

BTW ED could implement the code to make bombers work correctly (historical bomber formations, proper formation behavior, multiple turrets and other MG armaments, evasive formation maneuvers) before releasing their own bombers; just sayin' ;)

[NeilWillis]

Of course they COULD do it, but then again, they COULD do all sorts of things.

 

The fundamental issue will always be resources, and priorities.

 

WW2 wasn't even a core ED project, it was something they inherited, and without raking over that episode, let's just leave that well alone. It happened, and ED dealt with it in a very generous manner.

 

Ask yourselves this, at a quoted $100,000 dollars for just the PFM aspect of a module, and the added complexity of multiple turrets, multiple crew, multiple engines, and the need to fly in formations of large numbers of B-17 in order to correctly simulate the manner in which wartime raids we conducted, what are the chances of this being a straightforward matter?

 

The fact is that the majority of users simply wouldn't have the kind of processing power to make ANY mission involving the B-17 work, and that situation is not likely to change for many years to come. The result would be the usual lynch mob mentality lambasting the awful software, and the fact that ED can't get a single thing right.

 

Then there is the unit price of such a beast. The L-39 costs $59.99, and is a far less complex undertaking than the B-17 - even with 2 entirely different types modelled, and the complexity of multi-crew facilities. This is a very crude estimate, but if you work on $30.00 per crew member, and given that the B-17 has a crew of 10, that would be $300.00 for the module. How many of us are ready to pay that?

 

Now, in the light of all that, what do you think ED's decision would be regarding a PFM/ASM B-17 bomber with all the crew positions, and a realistic environment to use it?

 

Or of course, they could simply concentrate on things they CAN implement thoroughly and realistically, which is exactly what they're doing, and no amount of discussion here will change reality. It is too big a project to consider feasible, and we have to accept that, at least for the forseeable future.

 

There are far more suitable projects they can and will work on, and although I can understand the want, the bare facts tell me that it isn't about to happen any time soon. Though I would love to have both that and a Lancaster bomber, I am not holding my breath on this one before 2020 at the earliest!

[Captain Orso]

I don't know where you came up with the assumption that the ED B-17 is going a player-flyable AC, or that, even if it is, that it is going to a be multi-player AC. I don't believe ED has stated any such thing of yet. From my understanding, it will be AI only, at least to start with.

 

Also, reading in the modding forum, the B-17 modders lack a few functions which may or may not be fairly simple to implement. With them modders in general will have the ability to produce not only the B-17, but practically any multi-person crewed aircraft. There are already numerous people working together on these.

 

ED adding these functions to DCS-World 2.5 would boost the ability for private persons, and 3rd parties to produce a plethora of interesting modules, missions, and campaigns. The synergy would be strong indeed.

 

With the planned dedicated server to take up much of the compute-stress of formations of AI AC, I'm hoping it won't hurt the player with an average or below rig more than what hi sees now, if net less. But that is only wishful thinking.

 

Any bit that ED produces, which makes DCS-World a more attractive product, will have a payoff in a wider and more satisfied customer base, which in the end means profits. ED will, as always, have to calculate the ROI, and I think they have a good idea what the WW-II projects are worth to them

[x39crazy]

A b-25/26/A-20/26 would make a lot more sense honestly

[Silver_Dragon]

Remember ED working of AI units to WW2 Normandy Theater (ground, air), not sure if sea.

[OutOnTheOP]

 

Ask yourselves this, at a quoted $100,000 dollars for just the PFM aspect of a module, and the added complexity of multiple turrets, multiple crew, multiple engines, and the need to fly in formations of large numbers of B-17 in order to correctly simulate the manner in which wartime raids we conducted, what are the chances of this being a straightforward matter?

 

For a full module, sure. An AI aircraft should be much easier, and the main sticking point are the two I mentioned: multiple turrets, and maintain-defensive-formation AI.

 

Then there is the unit price of such a beast. The L-39 costs $59.99, and is a far less complex undertaking than the B-17 - even with 2 entirely different types modelled, and the complexity of multi-crew facilities. This is a very crude estimate, but if you work on $30.00 per crew member, and given that the B-17 has a crew of 10, that would be $300.00 for the module. How many of us are ready to pay that?

 

Now that's just ludicrous. Four engines do not require four times the development time, they require almost the exact same as one engine... and a bit of copy-pasting.

 

The overall systems complexity is less than a single-seat F/A-18. Sure, there are more people aboard. Three of them have no gauges, dials, or controls other than a manually operated .50 cal mount. Two have power-operated turrets, so they have... what, a .50 cal, power switch, sight intensity rheostat, and for the ball turret, a turret retraction switch (which I am pretty sure was operated from inside the aircraft by someone else anyway). The pilot, copilot, flight engineer, and navigator stations functions are little different from what a single-seat fighter pilot has to do anyway; the navigator simply has the luxury of a map board instead of a knee board, and has a transit in the nose bubble (which is a pretty dead-simple instrument to model). The engines are less complex to operate than that of the P-47 (already in development), there are just four duplicate sets of controls. The only really new challenge would be the bomb sight.

 

Either way, the discussion is about AI bombers, not full modules. For the AI bomber, it seems the only thing really holding it back is that ED doesn't care. Bit sad that ED can't seem to be bothered to take the relatively small steps required to actually establish a wider fan base for their WW2 modules. AI ground vehicles require little more than the addition of 3D models (which could be easily outsourced or even purchased already complete) and would greatly add to the options for DCS WW2, but in the years (YEARS!) since the release of the P-51 and FW190, they have not shown any real progress on getting it done. Lone modders have brought more WW2 content working on their own than have ED.

 

It all gives me serious reservations about any time ED promises this or that content is "on the way" or "in development".

Edited June 20, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[Hueyman]

Four engines do not require four times the development time, they require almost the exact same as one engine... and a bit of copy-pasting.

 

 

Absolutely, although all arguments can be received, the single, too simplistic fact that the more engine you have, the more complex it is, is simply false.

 

I love the B-17, above everything down this earth ( well. there's a Huey in the same area ;-) )

 

But it's no more than an airplane.

 

Two wings, a fuselage, tailplane, powerplant(SSSS), and that's all.

 

Since the code is done for a single R-1820, then it won't be much longer to add three more, there isn't even true correlation between engines... Other systems may require time to develop, but once again no more than the coming P-47, which all have dedicated avionics, engineering sights etc, that takes time to researches solid info on.

 

I think the longtest part would be an accurate 3D model and fine quality textures for the whole ship. That is a big job.

 

Let's the B-17 lovers hope... :pilotfly:

[Krupi]

I cannot agree there, yes the model would be big and take time however I think the hardest part of making a B-17 would be researching and implementation of the systems that is what sucks up time with WW2 aircraft. Things changed quickly back then and changes were not always so obvious.

[OutOnTheOP]

I cannot agree there, yes the model would be big and take time however I think the hardest part of making a B-17 would be researching and implementation of the systems that is what sucks up time with WW2 aircraft. Things changed quickly back then and changes were not always so obvious.

 

Valid point for the difficulties of creating a *playable* module.

 

Not a particularly strong argument for why we haven't seen a single AI-only WW2 aircraft, nor a single WW2 truck, halftrack, or AA gun. They could literally copy-paste the code for the ZU23, reskin it, and have a perfectly acceptable Flakvierling. Or do the same conversion for the M113 to an M3 halftrack. MTLB to Sdkfz 251 Hanomag. Any cargo truck.

 

But as yet, there is not one. Single. Solitary. WW2 AI asset in-game.

[Krupi]

Valid point for the difficulties of creating a *playable* module.

 

Not a particularly strong argument for why we haven't seen a single AI-only WW2 aircraft, nor a single WW2 truck, halftrack, or AA gun. They could literally copy-paste the code for the ZU23, reskin it, and have a perfectly acceptable Flakvierling. Or do the same conversion for the M113 to an M3 halftrack. MTLB to Sdkfz 251 Hanomag. Any cargo truck.

 

But as yet, there is not one. Single. Solitary. WW2 AI asset in-game.

 

We haven't seen anything yet however we have heard that the Normandy map will be coming with ground and air units :)

 

I will try and find the post, it was from Racoon if I recall.

[Brigg]

Has there been any more words about when they are releasing the Normandy map

[Solty]

Has there been any more words about when they are releasing the Normandy map

Nope.