B-26 Marauder and other Tactical Bombers

[SkyhawkDriver]

With the maps getting bigger, why hasn't there been a realistic discussion on bringing on tactical bombers such as the B-26? This would be a dream for me in DCS!

We have all these fighters in the game right now, but not a single player controlled tactical bomber. The B-26 saw extensive combat in Normandy. I feel like its a very realistic module to add considering the theatre we have...

[Gunfreak]

17 hours ago, SkyhawkDriver said:

With the maps getting bigger, why hasn't there been a realistic discussion on bringing on tactical bombers such as the B-26? This would be a dream for me in DCS!

We have all these fighters in the game right now, but not a single player controlled tactical bomber. The B-26 saw extensive combat in Normandy. I feel like its a very realistic module to add considering the theatre we have...

Probably not enough money in it.

Other sims, can have bombers as they come in packs. But I don't think there's a market for a $50-80 bomber.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

Probably not enough money in it.

Other sims, can have bombers as they come in packs. But I don't think there's a market for a $50-80 bomber.

Bombers can builded on DCS, on fact, the Mosquito has a Fighter Bomber, Missing the B Mk IV the frontal bomber cockpit and a more big bomb bay. a A-26 / B-26 has feasible.

Meanwhile the "other" sims never has build a hardcore bomber, only simplified aircrafts without realistic systems.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[Hispanus]

At least, I would like to see more AI aircraft, we only have the Ju 88 for axis, we need more, what about a HE 111?

[Gunfreak]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Bombers can builded on DCS, on fact, the Mosquito has a Fighter Bomber, Missing the B Mk IV the frontal bomber cockpit and a more big bomb bay. a A-26 / B-26 has feasible.

Meanwhile the "other" sims never has build a hardcore bomber, only simplified aircrafts without realistic systems.

 

Mossie is a fighter bomber as you say.

Can be operated by 1 person.

I would like more fighter bombers like Me110 or Baufighter.

I would even like B26, B17 etc. But I don't think those would sell.

49 minutes ago, ÆsirHunter said:

At least, I would like to see more AI aircraft, we only have the Ju 88 for axis, we need more, what about a HE 111?

They should really expand the AI assets for ww2.

Stuka, 109Gs, 109Fs, He111, Me110 and Typhoon to name the most obvious. 

[Hispanus]

hace 42 minutos, Gunfreak dijo:

They should really expand the AI assets for ww2.

Stuka, 109Gs, 109Fs, He111, Me110 and Typhoon to name the most obvious. 

Agree, the more there is, the better

[SkyhawkDriver]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

Mossie is a fighter bomber as you say.

Can be operated by 1 person.

I would like more fighter bombers like Me110 or Baufighter.

I would even like B26, B17 etc. But I don't think those would sell.

They should really expand the AI assets for ww2.

Stuka, 109Gs, 109Fs, He111, Me110 and Typhoon to name the most obvious. 

 

With DCS getting better AI crew, I can see a tactical bomber, such as the B-25 or B-26 being able to be operated by a single pilot. I also believe a WW2 multicrew experience can bring a lot of people into the WW2 scene. But of course as we all pointed out there really needs to be a expansion of the WW2 AI Assets, and furthermore I think they should be a little bit more assessable to the rest of the DCS Player base... Honestly if they would make WW2 Assets free, I could care less, it would bring more people into WW2. 

[Callsign112]

I can't get over how the Stuka as both a module and Ai is still not a thing here. But all of the requested/suggested Ai aircraft listed above should be added to the Assets pack. I think what would help bring more people to DCS WWII though is if it would break out of the June 6 to July 9 1944 mold.

But going back to your request for Ai bombers, I think it is a great idea and a much needed one at that. But one of the problems this community faces IMO is the "needs to be a expansion of the WW2 Assets pack" doesn't align well with the "make WW2 Assets free" part.

I think a better way to draw more people into DCS WWII would be to make it more accessible in terms of the time period covered, keep expanding the paid for Assets pack to continue increasing its value, and then ask the people running the WWII MP servers to increase use of the Assets pack in their missions.

[DD_Fenrir]

The reason the Stuka is not a thing in DCS is because it’s massively irrelevant to the chronology of the maps or the bulk of the current plane set. 

Should ED or another partner choose to to model maps and aircraft types from the Barbarossa-Plan Blau time frame on the Eastern Front to compliment the I-16 then you’d be warranted.

In the interim, there are many, many other types that deserve incorporation into DCS ahead of the a Stuka, some of which you have already mentioned.

[Doughguy]

Stukas still flew in 45 as tank busters to my knowledge. Mostly escorted by doras.

If wed go strictly in chronological order with maps/planes alot of modules wouldnt happen in the first place anyway. Also older models werent simply discarded because they were old. New tech vs old tech did happen.

One can argue about current battlefields... but to be blunt, from 25k ft a field looks like a field. Doesnt matter if german french or russian. Germans didnt had their fields in fancy swastika patterns. So its indistinguishable anyway for the most time. To be frank id be happy with a generic simple vast strecht of terrain with generic fields from that respective era.

Cause if ones so strict with "historical accuracy" each mission would have its outcome set anyway... so wheres the fun in that...

Edited August 4, 2022 by Doughguy

[Skewgear]

If you want to expand DCS WW2 you need a group prepared to put time and effort into building a community around a new server. Project Overlord / 4YA WW2 is what it is because it's got an active vibrant community who enjoy what's on offer and make the whole experience fun and rewarding for others.

There's a few PVE multiplayer servers out there but they have no community so there's no reason to join them and fly. Thus all those servers are dead. A random YouTuber might mention one and give it a brief blip of users but that effect lasts about 2-3 days max. Without a community there's nothing worth sticking around for.

 

On topic: The B-26 has a crew of 5 made up of pilot, co pilot, bomb aimer, gunner, radio operator. That's a lot of slots to fill in one go but as it works with the Huey, maybe it would work on a WW2 bomber?

[Gunfreak]

Well saying stukas doesn't fit into the time line in DCS is irrelevant.  There is no time line in DCS ww2. By random chance and commitment to kickstarter the German planes are all 44-45. But the spit and mossie go back to late 42. The Normandy map can be used from 1939 to September 44. While the channel map while can be used for later periods. Is actually most suited for 39-42. By expanding channel into the low countries, the map would be useful for 39-45  but right not it's most suited for early period.

 

[DD_Fenrir]

Whilst I kind of understand that argument, I also don't - cognitive dissonance is a b**ch!

4 hours ago, Doughguy said:

Stukas still flew in 45 as tank busters to my knowledge. Mostly escorted by doras.

They did? I though all the Stuka Geshwader had converted to Fw 190As, Fs and Gs by that time. Besides, that's Eastern Front WW2, and the only aircraft from that set currently is the I-16, and even that does not fit the timescale you offer. No maps for that chronology....

4 hours ago, Doughguy said:

If wed go strictly in chronological order with maps/planes alot of modules wouldnt happen in the first place anyway.

It's not chronological order, it's coherence.

And why? One leads to another. P-51 led to Dora led to 109 led to (illogically - should have been Dutch/Belgium/German Border) Normandy, et al, over period of 5-6 years. It was an iterative process. 

4 hours ago, Doughguy said:

One can argue about current battlefields... but to be blunt, from 25k ft a field looks like a field. Doesnt matter if german french or russian. Germans didnt had their fields in fancy swastika patterns. So its indistinguishable anyway for the most time. To be frank id be happy with a generic simple vast strecht of terrain with generic fields from that respective era.

First part true...ish. But when you're dogfight has descended from that 25kft to the weeds or you're putting warheads on foreheads the environment starts to matter. A lot. Seeing 6 lane highways, or a modern semi-trailer or a Eastern Bloc architecture block of flats when your on the deck in a Mosquito doing a low level precision raid only exposes and reinforces the artifice of the endeavour. 

Then there's topography; this drives tactics, especially in air-to ground but to a limited extent, in air-to-air also. These varied from theatre to theatre even for same/similar aircraft types because of the vastly different terrain forms; desert plains to desert mountains or canyons, open sea or gentle rolling hills and valleys, hilly jungles, craggy temperate mountains or glacial fjords, all bring their positives and negatives in terms of terrain masking, camouflage or even attack profiles and adjusting your weapons delivery and ingress/egress strategies to suit was necessary to maintain a reasonable level of survivability.

Given that, let us say we never got the Normandy or Channel map, but we got the Mosquito, any attempt to replicate the true to life exploits of these aircraft, their crews and most importantly their tactics is pretty heavily restricted.

We ask for (and generally get) for the most accurate FM's, system modelling, damage models for our virtual aircraft; we ask (within reason) the most accurate maps that a modern PC can perform in a combat flight sim, and demand AI behave as realistically as possible; why oh why then are some people so willing to compromise on that standard when it comes to scenarios?

4 hours ago, Doughguy said:

Cause if ones so strict with "historical accuracy" each mission would have its outcome set anyway... so wheres the fun in that...

That's a logical fallacy; firstly the desire is to replicate the scenario, not the outcome, BIG difference.

Secondly, the desire is to attempt some small understanding of the challenges the real aircrews faced, to better understand the restrictions, limitations and excitement or anxiety that those dry summaries that so often filled the combat reports of the time rarely are able to invoke.

Just for example. I am attempting to recreate the Amiens Prison Raid, a mission flown in the worst weather imaginable for flight and under some of the most exacting type of tactical flying; low level high speed navigation, with little more than a compass, directional gyro and stopwatch. 

It as closely as possible replicates the actual route flown on the Channel Map and straight away you garner a whole new appreciation for the crews on the real raid as you try a lift off in a blizzard. Then trying to find the specific turn point on a wintery map at 1,000ft when every village looks just like the next and one line of rolling hills quickly becomes another, then another, then another till you're not entirely sure whether it was the third or fourth line of hills you just crossed and wasn't the turn point coming up after the fourth...?.

Then you cross the Channel trying to fly at 50ft altitude and maintain your heading, but the Directional Gyro has wandered - it needs to be checked against the compass every 15 minutes, and the compass (thanks to magnetic declination) is out by 9 - or was it 10? - degrees, north (was it or south...?), but all your map bearings are given in true.... Better not fly above 100ft whilst you mess around adjusting the compass and DG else you could alert the Luftwaffe and find a cloud of FW 190s awaiting you over Amiens....

Then approaching the French coast, was it this cluster of trees or that cluster of trees or that cluster of trees on the clifftops that's supposed to mark my turn point - if I get it wrong I'll be in range of light flak guns to the east or west of my desired track... is it that village or that village that is my next turn point?

Hope I don't get my course wrong enroute and overfly a V-1 site heavily defended by light flak.

Then there's picking up the tree-lined road that runs down into Amiens, trying to make sure I don't fly my wingmen, into a particularly tall poplar tree or a telephone pole. Having the Prison appear in the near distance as you crest a small rise and you feel the rising anticipation in your stomach. Get as low as the terrain and trees allow before attempting a bomb-release that requires split-second precision and that won't leave you enough time to clear the prison building if you delay for a second longer than necessary.

I admired the actual crews a vast amount already. Even having flown it now a number of times I can say my respect and admiration has grown further; what they achieved in terms of airmanship is phenomenal.

You might say "I could make a similar mission on any map"... and you'd be right. But having the right units and structures almost exactly where they should be with the sight lines they really had, and knowing the navigational landmarks correlate as closely to what the actual crews saw, that, is the icing on the cake that takes DCS away from the description of game or entertainment software and it becomes a true simulator.

Edited August 4, 2022 by DD_Fenrir

[DD_Fenrir]

Anyway, we have strayed from the point. 

I too would very much like to see a flyable B-25 or B-26 in DCS. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by DD_Fenrir

[Doughguy]

vor 51 Minuten schrieb DD_Fenrir:

And why? One leads to another. P-51 led to Dora led to 109 led to (illogically - should have been Dutch/Belgium/German Border) Normandy, et al, over period of 5-6 years. It was an iterative process. 

As said. Just because one type was "outdated" doesnt mean it didnt fly anymore. Antons flew in 45. And correct me if im wrong but so did the spitfire model we have atm in dcs.

Ao did the pony and so did the k4. So that part is "correct", even if people dont like the fact, merely from a "balance" pov... which in rl no one cares. You want your machine to be better and stronger etc. Same discussion as i  p51 vs dora... there were alot of dora pilots that brought down mustanga. It aint worthloss because its "unbalanced".

So in that respect its mostly just a subjective thing.

 

People whish for a lot of things. But it takes time. Especially for a small team. And from a business point of view you want to reach as many clients as possible and not a niche only. Thats how it is. And i was a dev for 10 years.

Also many people just enjoy flying a warbird. They dont mind 6 lane highways. Even tho there are none on the normandy and channel map.

I do understand your pov and the enthusiasm but you have to understand that by being very specific in your "historical accurate missions" youre narrowing down the spectrum of possibilities to basically having to create a mod on your own. Which you are free to do so. I did so myself 15 years ago. It aint hard. It just takes time.

The dev team has to think economical. If everyone would get their whish itll take even longer as its now just to even get past basic modelling.

Apart from that most maps are far from finished.. vast expanses of "nothing". So wait out. And if you cant, start modding.

"You might say "I could make a similar mission any map"... and you'd be right. But having the right units and structures almost exactly where they should be with the sight lines they really had, and knowing the navigational landmarks correlate as closely to what the actual crews saw, that, is the icing on the cake that takes DCS away from the description of game or entertainment software and it becomes a true simulator."

Like ive said. I know its an example  but would narrow down the scope of things to do so that its a fully fledged "scenario mod". Whereas it sure would be nice to have for some, most might simply not care as you can test your skills in similar scenarios but with just different settings.

And yeah a 25/26 would be nice. But then one hast to look carefully of its in historically coherent. 

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Doughguy

[SkyhawkDriver]

3 hours ago, Skewgear said:

If you want to expand DCS WW2 you need a group prepared to put time and effort into building a community around a new server. Project Overlord / 4YA WW2 is what it is because it's got an active vibrant community who enjoy what's on offer and make the whole experience fun and rewarding for others.

There's a few PVE multiplayer servers out there but they have no community so there's no reason to join them and fly. Thus all those servers are dead. A random YouTuber might mention one and give it a brief blip of users but that effect lasts about 2-3 days max. Without a community there's nothing worth sticking around for.

 

On topic: The B-26 has a crew of 5 made up of pilot, co pilot, bomb aimer, gunner, radio operator. That's a lot of slots to fill in one go but as it works with the Huey, maybe it would work on a WW2 bomber?

I think it can work. Realistically you have have the AI Gunners function like in the Huey and the Bombardier and Radio Operator like the Jester AI. Im in the firm belief that it can work for any of the WW2 tactical bombers such as the B-26 and any other bombers of relative size. 

[Callsign112]

On 8/4/2022 at 7:46 AM, DD_Fenrir said:

The reason the Stuka is not a thing in DCS is because it’s massively irrelevant to the chronology of the maps or the bulk of the current plane set. 

Should ED or another partner choose to to model maps and aircraft types from the Barbarossa-Plan Blau time frame on the Eastern Front to compliment the I-16 then you’d be warranted.

In the interim, there are many, many other types that deserve incorporation into DCS ahead of the a Stuka, some of which you have already mentioned.

 

On 8/4/2022 at 11:03 AM, DD_Fenrir said:

Whilst I kind of understand that argument, I also don't - cognitive dissonance is a b**ch!

They did? I though all the Stuka Geshwader had converted to Fw 190As, Fs and Gs by that time. Besides, that's Eastern Front WW2, and the only aircraft from that set currently is the I-16, and even that does not fit the timescale you offer. No maps for that chronology....

It's not chronological order, it's coherence.

And why? One leads to another. P-51 led to Dora led to 109 led to (illogically - should have been Dutch/Belgium/German Border) Normandy, et al, over period of 5-6 years. It was an iterative process. 

First part true...ish. But when you're dogfight has descended from that 25kft to the weeds or you're putting warheads on foreheads the environment starts to matter. A lot. Seeing 6 lane highways, or a modern semi-trailer or a Eastern Bloc architecture block of flats when your on the deck in a Mosquito doing a low level precision raid only exposes and reinforces the artifice of the endeavour. 

Then there's topography; this drives tactics, especially in air-to ground but to a limited extent, in air-to-air also. These varied from theatre to theatre even for same/similar aircraft types because of the vastly different terrain forms; desert plains to desert mountains or canyons, open sea or gentle rolling hills and valleys, hilly jungles, craggy temperate mountains or glacial fjords, all bring their positives and negatives in terms of terrain masking, camouflage or even attack profiles and adjusting your weapons delivery and ingress/egress strategies to suit was necessary to maintain a reasonable level of survivability.

Given that, let us say we never got the Normandy or Channel map, but we got the Mosquito, any attempt to replicate the true to life exploits of these aircraft, their crews and most importantly their tactics is pretty heavily restricted.

We ask for (and generally get) for the most accurate FM's, system modelling, damage models for our virtual aircraft; we ask (within reason) the most accurate maps that a modern PC can perform in a combat flight sim, and demand AI behave as realistically as possible; why oh why then are some people so willing to compromise on that standard when it comes to scenarios?

That's a logical fallacy; firstly the desire is to replicate the scenario, not the outcome, BIG difference.

Secondly, the desire is to attempt some small understanding of the challenges the real aircrews faced, to better understand the restrictions, limitations and excitement or anxiety that those dry summaries that so often filled the combat reports of the time rarely are able to invoke.

Just for example. I am attempting to recreate the Amiens Prison Raid, a mission flown in the worst weather imaginable for flight and under some of the most exacting type of tactical flying; low level high speed navigation, with little more than a compass, directional gyro and stopwatch. 

It as closely as possible replicates the actual route flown on the Channel Map and straight away you garner a whole new appreciation for the crews on the real raid as you try a lift off in a blizzard. Then trying to find the specific turn point on a wintery map at 1,000ft when every village looks just like the next and one line of rolling hills quickly becomes another, then another, then another till you're not entirely sure whether it was the third or fourth line of hills you just crossed and wasn't the turn point coming up after the fourth...?.

Then you cross the Channel trying to fly at 50ft altitude and maintain your heading, but the Directional Gyro has wandered - it needs to be checked against the compass every 15 minutes, and the compass (thanks to magnetic declination) is out by 9 - or was it 10? - degrees, north (was it or south...?), but all your map bearings are given in true.... Better not fly above 100ft whilst you mess around adjusting the compass and DG else you could alert the Luftwaffe and find a cloud of FW 190s awaiting you over Amiens....

Then approaching the French coast, was it this cluster of trees or that cluster of trees or that cluster of trees on the clifftops that's supposed to mark my turn point - if I get it wrong I'll be in range of light flak guns to the east or west of my desired track... is it that village or that village that is my next turn point?

Hope I don't get my course wrong enroute and overfly a V-1 site heavily defended by light flak.

Then there's picking up the tree-lined road that runs down into Amiens, trying to make sure I don't fly my wingmen, into a particularly tall poplar tree or a telephone pole. Having the Prison appear in the near distance as you crest a small rise and you feel the rising anticipation in your stomach. Get as low as the terrain and trees allow before attempting a bomb-release that requires split-second precision and that won't leave you enough time to clear the prison building if you delay for a second longer than necessary.

I admired the actual crews a vast amount already. Even having flown it now a number of times I can say my respect and admiration has grown further; what they achieved in terms of airmanship is phenomenal.

You might say "I could make a similar mission on any map"... and you'd be right. But having the right units and structures almost exactly where they should be with the sight lines they really had, and knowing the navigational landmarks correlate as closely to what the actual crews saw, that, is the icing on the cake that takes DCS away from the description of game or entertainment software and it becomes a true simulator.

 

@DD_Fenrir, I get your point, and I actually fully support it. I think being able to recreate historical events is a very important part of any SIM. But it doesn't have to be the only feature. Many people use DCS world in many different ways. Recreating historical battles is just one of them.

For example, you have put a lot of life into a very interesting story, and you gave good reason why assets/planes/maps with a chronological significance should be released. But releasing something like the Stuka, or another plane/vehicle/map would take nothing away from the assets you used to make the mission you just described.

ED will have to break out of the D-Day invasion scenario if they want to make DCS WWII more relevant. And adding an asset/module that doesn't fit precisely to June 6 1944 would do nothing to hinder your mission, it just simply gives you more options in terms of the type of mission scenarios you can create.

So yeah, at the moment we all have to use another map if we want to simulate a mission scenario around N. Africa/Germany/E. Front,  but that doesn't affect the fact that we can use the Normandy map to recreate battles that actually took place there.

[Silver_Dragon]

Meanwhile the assets pack was very influenced by the old KS, the actual WW2 has not centred on 1944 / 45. Any 3rd party can build new maps and assets. 

[Callsign112]

Regardless of what influenced it, I for one very much appreciate the WWII Assets pack, and get a lot of use out of the Assets Pack/Combined Arms tech packs.

I also very much look forward to any improvements in Ai/infantry, as well as any additional assets we get. But to break out of the June 44 mold, it would be nice to not only see more planes, but armored vehicles that were pre-Tiger tank. We don't have a single PzIII variant including the Ausf. N which was widely fielded by D-Day. And there are no light German tanks which formed a large part of the tank forces fielded at least up to 1942. The PzII Ausf. L was one of the most interesting armored recon units of WWII, but not present in DCS  WWII.

I look forward to building out my library of modules in DCS including the jet age stuff, but I really hope we also see improvements in ground units/infantry.

[_Hoss]

Years ago when they had the Kickstart for getting the WWII ball rolling for the P-47, Spit, 109, 190, 262..etc... the asset pack was part of that kickstart. No Swallow yet though. With the tactical nature of the sims flyable WWII and later planes, (jets) getting one with more than two crew members might be slim. I would love to see the A-20G, and Beaufighter. IMHO, the P-38 is a glaring omission in the Allied line up, the Typhoon and Tempest as well. Assets should come with the map, if it's a Pacific Map, and the IJN, IJA are on the Island, most weapon systems they used to defend it should be in the package. At this rate most of the community will be nickled and dimed to death or into the poor house. 

[Callsign112]

"We are pleased to inform you that work is progressing on a range of infantry animations. In the above animation, you can see a work-in-progress animation of a soldier climbing to a higher surface. The new control system will allow units to behave in a more complex and realistic manner.

It also requires the solution of applied problems, such as overcoming obstacles and improved path finding. In some cases, the unit can overcome a situation just by stepping over an obstacle. There are different types of such surfaces that can be up to 1 meter in difference.  The second animation option is for higher obstacles of 1.5 to 2 meters. In this case, the unit will have to climb up the obstacle and then jump off the other side.

As part of our larger effort to improve older AI units, work is underway on texturing the new AI B-1B model. Most of the rivets, screws, and aircraft skin sheets are already drawn. The aircraft is painted in standard USAF colors. Material surfaces have also been created. Next, the chassis, chassis niches, bomb bay, and cockpit will be painted. We will also apply dirt, dust, traces of aircraft wear and identification marks / technical inscriptions."

 

I am all for ED keeping it competitive to help drive more people in. But I think it would be unfair for the community not to recognize that ED has done, and is doing this continually. And probably to a much higher degree than any other game platform I use and know.

The italicized text above is taken from the most recent OFFICIAL NEWS update. Can anyone here attach a number for the amount of man-hours it will take to complete that work? This is just an example, but I think as a community we should all realize that it is being done for free. I think we should also recognize that the level of detail/added improvements are largely being driven by the community itself.

As I said, I think it is great that ED and its partners have provided a number of assets/maps for free in order to make DCS World more attractive, but the bottom line is if we want to continue seeing improvements in a timely manner with level of detail in models, maps, and Ai behavior, I think we as a community should appreciate what ED and its partners are able to provide for free, but also respect what it can't.

I want the Ai updates and added assets needed to improve my use of DCS, and I accept that will probably mean for the most part that I will have to pay for them.