Give us B-17 Bomber!

[wizav]

The most amazing and the most interesting plane to fly in WW2 :)))

 

 

[razo+r]

We already have one. Oh wait, you mean flyable? Well...

[ivo]

The most amazing and the most interesting plane to fly in WW2 :)))

 

 

 

yeaaaaaaa The Final Action

[statrekmike]

There are more than likely two (probably controversial) issues that really need to be considered.

 

1.) The B-17 was strategic bomber and a big part of its design (and thus flying experience) was based around range, high altitude performance, and everything that goes with that. While I know this is something that some will balk at, DCS maps are simply not large enough to really support a B-17 taking off, flying to the target, and landing without the experience feeling rather abbreviated to say the least.

 

2.) Multi-crew is still kinda coming into its own for DCS and the B-17 would really, really require good, stable, fully functional multi-crew on a level that would at least be difficult to develop.

 

If you were to suggest something smaller like the A-20, Blenheim, or the like, I think they would be a good fit for DCS's obvious emphasis on tactical (rather than strategic) scale aircraft operations. Likewise, the fewer seats and positions, the easier it would be to make.

[Svsmokey]

To say nothing of two more engines than ED is interested in modeling .

[wizav]

There are more than likely two (probably controversial) issues that really need to be considered.

 

1.) The B-17 was strategic bomber and a big part of its design (and thus flying experience) was based around range, high altitude performance, and everything that goes with that. While I know this is something that some will balk at, DCS maps are simply not large enough to really support a B-17 taking off, flying to the target, and landing without the experience feeling rather abbreviated to say the least.

 

2.) Multi-crew is still kinda coming into its own for DCS and the B-17 would really, really require good, stable, fully functional multi-crew on a level that would at least be difficult to develop.

 

If you were to suggest something smaller like the A-20, Blenheim, or the like, I think they would be a good fit for DCS's obvious emphasis on tactical (rather than strategic) scale aircraft operations. Likewise, the fewer seats and positions, the easier it would be to make.

 

Would anyone here like to fly 4000 km to bomb something, seriously? :D

 

Multicrew would be great, imagine interceptor players attacking you while you shoot them from gun pods...

 

Also the joy of flying this 4 engine beast would be awesome even without combat scenario

[statrekmike]

Would anyone here like to fly 4000 km to bomb something, seriously? :D

 

Multicrew would be great, imagine interceptor players attacking you while you shoot them from gun pods...

 

Also the joy of flying this 4 engine beast would be awesome even without combat scenario

 

 

Speaking for myself? Yes. I mean, not all the time but I would at least like the option to fly a authentic feeling mission for the DCS module I buy.

 

That is the key point here. Thus far, ED and third parties have smartly kept to aircraft that operate on a scale that works for the maps that we have and will have in the future. While it is possible for players to fly very abbreviated missions with the modules we have, it is also possible for a certain subset of players to create and fly authentically scaled missions quite comfortably. If ED or a third party were to suddenly start doing large strategic scale aircraft, it would not be possible to create realistic/authentic feeling missions for them AT ALL. I am sure that some would still have fun with them regardless but I suspect that ED wants all the modules to have at least the potential for a mostly realistic/authentic mission in the framework provided.

[probad]

Multicrew would be great, imagine interceptor players attacking you while you shoot them from gun pods...

you are only imagining success, reality will be you eating flaming dookie immediately and your friends never wanting to do it again because its such a waste of time and playerslots to sink into one slow and vulnerable airplane

and you will cry to the server admin and all the forums about how disappointing and unfair all of it is

 

the only place this would fly are private pve missions

Edited May 1, 2020 by probad

[Evoman]

Like someones has already said DCS is still not there yet to really support something like the B-17 along with other long haul bombers. So for now I think something like the B-25 Mitchell would be more feasible. My favorite would be the PBJ-1H and PBJ-1J Navy variets with more guns.

 

 

[The LT]

you are only imagining success, reality will be you eating flaming dookie immediately and your friends never wanting to do it again because its such a waste of time and playerslots to sink into one slow and vulnerable airplane

and you will cry to the server admin and all the forums about how disappointing and unfair all of it is

 

the only place this would fly are private pve missions

THIS!!!!!

[Kang]

I agree a medium bomber would make for a much better choice. It fits the scope much better, doesn't require solutions to just as many problems at once and thus is a great stepping stone. Adding to Evoman's suggestion, perhaps even go for an A-20, which requires even fewer crewmembers.

[ac5]

I remember YEARS ago, there was a B-17 simulation, albeit with primitive graphics.

You could be a bombardier with the norden bombsight, co-pilot, pilot, gunner..

Would be amazing to have something like this in DCS.