Non-flyable Bombers with Multicrew (Commander, Gunners)

[iFoxRomeo]

I understand, that a fully flyable B-17, A-20 or Ju88 would be problematic, but how about a

 

- AI flown Bomber (already available, WWII asset pack)

- Human controllable gunturrets like the doorgunners in the Huey (feature now introduced)

- If gunturret not occupied by a human, then ai controlled (already available, WWII asset pack)

- Human Commander on board to give the AI pilot orders similar to the already available wingman orders or like in combined arms to units, if the mission-maker adds the Commander seat, or not so that planned bombing raids don't get spoiled. (Combined Arms)

- Option to mark a bombing target for the Commander on the F10 map/or similar (Combined arms)

- Intercom with the in-game voice chat (available)

 

With the introduction of the Huey MultiCrew feature, this seems to be a possible way to Multicrew the Bombers.

 

I wouldn't expect such a feature to be "for free"

 

What do you think?

 

 

Fox

[xvii-Dietrich]

Very clever idea.

 

I really like this concept, and the suggestions made for its use. The perspective of having a human gunner in a bomber, who is able to call out incoming enemy to the human escort fighters via SRS would be immense. It would also let certain aircraft adopt a reconnaissance role. Also, it would also make for a fantastic view point for cinematics.

 

From the escort fighter's point of view, it intensifies the need to provide escort cover, if they know they are protecting a human player.

 

Also, from the enemy-aircraft perspective, it adds an element of excitement,  not knowing if there is a human gunner about to train fire on your aircraft.

 

This seems to be an ingenious way to add a huge amount of gameplay, features, immersion and excitement, without the massive complication of implementing multi-engined bombers, and thus satisfy a lot of the requests we have seen from players.

[Sacarino111]

+1

 

[mrsteel]

I was just going to suggest this but checked before I did, +1 all the way, I would love to have at least some aspect of bomber gameplay.

[Callsign112]

+1

[Montes]

+1

[Mogster]

I can’t see this happening.
 

All the crew stations would still have to be modelled, every crew station is like a mini cockpit, some would require large parts of the interior of the aircraft to be modelled. You’d still need FM, DM, systems of some level, a decent external, it’s a lot of work.

 

How many people to pay for this? It seems the way to get a decent return is to make flyables, other devs have said this. Large multi crew multi engine aircraft are similar in complexity to making 3/4 single seaters, the economics seem poor.

[iFoxRomeo]

12 hours ago, Mogster said:

I can’t see this happening.
 

All the crew stations would still have to be modelled, every crew station is like a mini cockpit, some would require large parts of the interior of the aircraft to be modelled. You’d still need FM, DM, systems of some level, a decent external, it’s a lot of work.

 

How many people to pay for this? It seems the way to get a decent return is to make flyables, other devs have said this. Large multi crew multi engine aircraft are similar in complexity to making 3/4 single seaters, the economics seem poor.

 

 

Guess who will be flying the Hind or Apache in SP when you are at the gunner's position? Why do you need a new FM? It has one already and a virtual pilot too. DM is also available, as it was part of the new DM. I think the external model of the available B-17, A-20, Ju88 is great already .

Yes, the stations need to be modeled. But there's no need for modelling of switches or systems, as these stations don't need to control anything but their guns and their oxygen (check Huey doorgunner for comparison). Of course the stations themselves need modeling, but you don't need to walk around in the aircraft. If I remember correctly ED once said, that the 3D modeling was the quickest and "cheapest" part of a module.

This feature could be included to combined arms, as ED wants to upgrade CA at some point.

 

I suggested this for some reasons.

1. To know if there is enough interest for such a feature. ED made it possible to man AAA, and I think manned door/turret gunners are even more interesting than stationary AAA.

2. Make ED aware of this idea. ED knows far far better than me how to make it profitable if there is enough interest in this.

 

A fully-fledged DCS: B-17 would probably be not profitable. I'd think it would be a niche in a niche.

 

Fox

[Mogster]

The difference with the Mi-24 and UH-1 is that they are already paid flyables and the interior had to be modelled anyway. Adding user manable crew stations is just gravy. The crew stations in a B17 might not have 50 switches and flight instruments but they are still very complex, some allow a view of much of the aircraft interior. It’s a huge 3D and texture task. 
 

How interested would people be in an aircraft when a human can’t fly it? People seem to have a very low tolerance for “half assed” stuff. It sounds like a lot of work for ED, a large proportion of a full flyable module, and in the end it’ll be difficult to monetise that work.

 

As far as the comparison with CA, the vehicle interiors and systems are barely modelled, the units are being included as AI so the 3D stuff had to be done anyway.

Edited March 28, 2021 by Mogster

[Callsign112]

On 3/28/2021 at 5:03 AM, iFoxRomeo said:

 

 

Guess who will be flying the Hind or Apache in SP when you are at the gunner's position? Why do you need a new FM? It has one already and a virtual pilot too. DM is also available, as it was part of the new DM. I think the external model of the available B-17, A-20, Ju88 is great already .

Yes, the stations need to be modeled. But there's no need for modelling of switches or systems, as these stations don't need to control anything but their guns and their oxygen (check Huey doorgunner for comparison). Of course the stations themselves need modeling, but you don't need to walk around in the aircraft. If I remember correctly ED once said, that the 3D modeling was the quickest and "cheapest" part of a module.

This feature could be included to combined arms, as ED wants to upgrade CA at some point.

 

I suggested this for some reasons.

1. To know if there is enough interest for such a feature. ED made it possible to man AAA, and I think manned door/turret gunners are even more interesting than stationary AAA.

2. Make ED aware of this idea. ED knows far far better than me how to make it profitable if there is enough interest in this.

 

A fully-fledged DCS: B-17 would probably be not profitable. I'd think it would be a niche in a niche.

 

Fox

Actually I think this is a really good idea, except I am not so sure I agree the B-17 wouldn't be profitable. I think it would be profitable, and not only that, modules like that would also help build the MP community. It could work exactly like the Apache except you just have more stations. If your the only human player, you have Ai at all the stations your not. If your hosting a group of human players, you only have Ai where/when needed. 

Aside from it being a very desirable WWII plane, one of the biggest reasons I will buy the Mosquito is because of its dual engines. This is a first for DCS, but I really hope it wont be the last. There is a very long list of big air frames that should make it into DCS, the B-17 is just one of them IMO.

[Tree_Beard]

On 3/27/2021 at 12:50 PM, Mogster said:

every crew station is like a mini cockpit, some would require large parts of the interior of the aircraft to be modelled. 

Why would you assume this? None of the current combined arms vehicles have a cockpit model that I am aware of, yet you can still drive around and fire the guns. Would it be cool to have a fully modeled interior of a b17? yes it would. But, for playing around as a door gunner and shooting at attacking fighters during a bomb raid I don't think you necessarily need anything that elaborate. 

[Gunfreak]

The Lancaster mod will let us do fully crewed 4 engine bomber.