The B-17

[Steel Jaw]

I still have Microprose's B-17 around. At the time I flew it maybe 5 hours from the flight deck...BORING. Worse than commercial heavy aviation like my payware birds in FSX.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Mower

[arthuro12]

I think Dcs would earn more from adding more AI aircraft into its world to make it more alive.

[nervousenergy]

Highly doubtful IMHO.

 

Much bigger market for single seat tactical aircraft, than there will ever be for bomber flying.

I agree about the market, but I still do think a B-17 would sell well enough to be worth it as long as the devs didn't blow an enormous amount of money/time on the non-flying stations. The vast majority of the time the plane would be flown by one player, switching between the pilots seat and the bomb sight. I don't think a B-17 pit would be any more difficult to model than the Huey pit, and I'd also be very surprised if the B-17 didn't sell more than the Huey.

 

Yes, it would be super-nifty to be able to get 10 guys/gals together and simulate a complete 8th AF daylight bombing raid over Germany just to try and get more of a sense of what the real vets went through to deliver their ordinance, but I don't see doing it more than a couple of times. ;) It'd be nice to have a turret or two you could jump in, but I'd buy it with just piloting and a bomb sight.

 

I miss the old says in AEP/PF/1946 when you'd see a bunch of the [HVY] squad guys join the server, as you'd know you were about to see some serious high-alt bomber runs to try and roll the map. It was about the only time everyone on the server would know you could get some hi alt fighting in, either defending or attacking.

[Cowboy10uk]

I would buy a DCS b17 in a heartbeat. I love the A2A B17 in FSX, and of course I spent many many years flying B17, and B17 the mighty eighth way back in the day, was a absolutly stunning experience.

 

when I've used multiple crew aircraft in MP games, it is a great sense of achievement when you complete the mission together.

 

Rise of flight has achieved this quite well, utilising either 2 seaters upto large Gotha Bombers.

 

Keeping my fingers crossed, that we may see this one day in the future.

 

Cowboy10uk

[Decibel dB]

I think Dcs would earn more from adding more AI aircraft into its world to make it more alive.

 

What I am not sure I follow you here. We don't need more AI, we need more Human (we) are the one who will fill the server not the AI, we are the one who will make it live. For that you need aircraft and for me a B17 is a win.

 

o7

[NineLine]

What I am not sure I follow you here. We don't need more AI, we need more Human (we) are the one who will fill the server not the AI, we are the one who will make it live. For that you need aircraft and for me a B17 is a win.

 

o7

 

We need both, we need quality AI bombers and fighters, etc, at the same time, the idea of having a flight of fully manned B-17s, well that would be awesome....

[weta904]

Agree with the sentiment that we need to have AI and human capability for bombers. For us southern hemisphere players the severs are not as populated as our northern counter-parts at prime game playing time. So without AI it would be pointless.

 

Would be great to have player multi-engine WW2 aircraft in DCS.

[MiloMorai]

We need both, we need quality AI bombers and fighters, etc, at the same time, the idea of having a flight of fully manned B-17s, well that would be awesome....

 

Yes it would be awesome to find 100+ people to man a squadron of B-17s for hours.

[NineLine]

Yes it would be awesome to find 100+ people to man a squadron of B-17s for hours.

 

I sense a little sarcasm there, maybe I am just reading it wrong, but for this sim, the Flight could be 4 - 6 aircraft, and even if some gunner positions were AI controlled, it would still be a lot of fun... no, I cant imagine we are anywhere near being able to field a historical bombing campaign, completely manned by real players...

[Decibel dB]

I sense a little sarcasm there, maybe I am just reading it wrong, but for this sim, the Flight could be 4 - 6 aircraft, and even if some gunner positions were AI controlled, it would still be a lot of fun... no, I cant imagine we are anywhere near being able to field a historical bombing campaign, completely manned by real players...

 

Of course not I am totally with you, human pilot that can swap seat if need be and have the rest of the position manned by AI's.

 

Happy New Year to all

o7

[OutOnTheOP]

We need both, we need quality AI bombers and fighters, etc, at the same time, the idea of having a flight of fully manned B-17s, well that would be awesome....

 

Agree. In fact, I'm rather surprised that the servers don't have WAY more AI fighters on them: the massive, swirling 20-on-20 furball is just so WW2. ... It would also help keep players from getting bored, as there would actually be targets they could find, and it would make for interesting "maintain your situational awareness and conserve your energy so you don't get bounced while target fixated" tactical problems

[arthuro12]

What I am not sure I follow you here. We don't need more AI, we need more Human (we) are the one who will fill the server not the AI, we are the one who will make it live. For that you need aircraft and for me a B17 is a win.

 

o7

 

The budget needed to create a fully crewable B17 would be immense.

Maybe in the future, but I strongly believe DCS should focus on the whole ww2 setting/world first.

 

Buildings, towns, airfields, ground vehicles and Ai bombers for example.

 

Maybe a bit too much wishful thinking DB my friend.

You have to realize the ammount of work they put into a single seater is already a lot.

[Decibel dB]

It doesn't need to be fully crew-able, so one human pilot could go with full AI crew. I of course can't grab all the cost involve. But one thing for sure, because of the nature of bombers plane and their missions, it will drag more people on board DCS and in time would fly fighter also.

 

Will the cost be offset by more people coming in, I don't know for sure. What I know is that 1 guys out of 2 that I know who sim, will buy a B17, some will even buy 2 or 3 and give as gift to there friends.

 

Athuro wanna be my friend LOL.

[arthuro12]

Arthuro wanna be my friend LOL.

 

Want me to make you a new signature DB?

 

It's Black034 from ATAG forums;)

 

~ontopic~

 

I'd love to see a flyable B17 one day, but I really don't think it should be a priority right now.

Especially with Edge coming up and all the other fighters announced since the whole Kickstarter campaign.

And I don't think you can pull off an estimate on the number of potential customers based of your own friends list.

Hell the entire concept of DCS: WW2 is still rather vague.

 

Also, what would you bomb in something as complex and task-specific as the B17 without a heap of groundtargets and accurately modelled cities?

That's what I mean with creating a breathing living world, not the just the Client controlled vehicles DB.

Edited January 1, 2015 by arthuro12

[fastfreddie]

Agree. In fact, I'm rather surprised that the servers don't have WAY more AI fighters on them: the massive, swirling 20-on-20 furball is just so WW2. ... It would also help keep players from getting bored, as there would actually be targets they could find, and it would make for interesting "maintain your situational awareness and conserve your energy so you don't get bounced while target fixated" tactical problems

 

I don't know ... been playing on servers with alot of ai fighters lately and its gets pretty boring quick. I'd love to have massive furballs with players but having 7 to 8 ai mixed with a few humans on each side isn't cutting it. With that said I haven't seen alot of great furballs(6 or more) with human players on maxed servers. It seems that half are usually lost, a few are crashing their planes, mustangs are either hugging the deck so they can't be spotted, or people avoid flak zones because they offer a huge disadvantage.

[Decibel dB]

@ Arthuro I was going to write ....wanna be my friend since we have the same signature artist...

 

LOL there you go you got your B-17 bro.

 

Happy NY

Edited January 1, 2015 by Decibel dB

[Decibel dB]

Want me to make you a new signature DB?

 

It's Black034 from ATAG forums;)

 

~ontopic~

 

I'd love to see a flyable B17 one day, but I really don't think it should be a priority right now.

Especially with Edge coming up and all the other fighters announced since the whole Kickstarter campaign.

 

 

100% with you but I am on the long term for my retirement DCS flying ;)

[gavagai]

It seems that half are usually lost, a few are crashing their planes, mustangs are either hugging the deck so they can't be spotted, or people avoid flak zones because they offer a huge disadvantage.

 

So true! And don't forget team-shooting, and people strafing the runways because it's the only place where they can find the enemy.:music_whistling:

 

I agree that fighting the AI isn't that great either, but when I host it gives me something to do while I wait for humans to show up.:noexpression:

 

Oh, sorry for OT. Maybe B-17s would help here so that there would be more to do besides CAS.

[MiloMorai]

By the end of 1943, with the development of long-range fighter escort and radar aid, the formation system was used much less for defensive firepower. 12 aircraft squadrons flew in 3 squadron Groups with each Group spread out at 4 mile intervals. This formation was used successfully until the end of the war.

 

If there was one 'pilot 'for each squadron, or even each flight, the number of people would be reduced. The 'pilot' would control the squadron, or flight.

 

Only 12 'pilots' would be required for a group.

 

The 'pilot' could switch to either nose or tail guns and control the upper or lower turret depending on where the attack was coming from in azimuth. Forget the waist guns as they were basically useless like the radio compartment gun. The 'pilot' would control all the guns in the squadron or flight.

 

The above would reduce the amount of modelling required.

 

I would also let the 'pilot' switch a/c if his primary a/c was shot down.

[OutOnTheOP]

 

If there was one 'pilot 'for each squadron, or even each flight, the number of people would be reduced. The 'pilot' would control the squadron, or flight.

 

Only 12 'pilots' would be required for a group.

 

The 'pilot' could switch to either nose or tail guns and control the upper or lower turret depending on where the attack was coming from in azimuth. Forget the waist guns as they were basically useless like the radio compartment gun. The 'pilot' would control all the guns in the squadron or flight.

 

The idea has merit; it would be fantastic to have a flight of aircraft the player controlled, and have the player switch to another aircraft in the flight if shoot down, rather than respawning on the airfield. It's even a good idea for fighters.

 

That said, I don't think a player could effectively control the guns on anything but his own aircraft; it is basically a HUGE convergence issue. Also, the DCS crowd tend to prefer immaculate detail; they would want gun positions individually modeled.

 

But for a B-29, that's EXACTLY how the real gun director system works.

[MiloMorai]

The immaculate detail could be added later. I was thinking more in getting a flyable bomber quicker.

 

Also a B-24J would be better than a B-17G for gunnery with its turrets giving a much larger field of fire. I think a way around the convergence could be found.

[OutOnTheOP]

The immaculate detail could be added later. I was thinking more in getting a flyable bomber quicker.

 

Also a B-24J would be better than a B-17G for gunnery with its turrets giving a much larger field of fire. I think a way around the convergence could be found.

 

A way around the convergence issues of controlling multiple turrets on the same aircraft, sure. They are always in the same relative position to each other. But to control ship 2's guns from ship 1... I don't see how. The convergence angle would have to be dynamically computed as the bombers moved relative to each other. ... which would be pretty sloppy, still. I can see nominating targets for other aircraft, but even if the option was there I suspect it would be task saturation for the player. Easier just to let the AI do it's thing controlling the other ship's defensive fire

[Decibel dB]

By the end of 1943, with the development of long-range fighter escort and radar aid, the formation system was used much less for defensive firepower. 12 aircraft squadrons flew in 3 squadron Groups with each Group spread out at 4 mile intervals. This formation was used successfully until the end of the war.

 

If there was one 'pilot 'for each squadron, or even each flight, the number of people would be reduced. The 'pilot' would control the squadron, or flight.

 

Only 12 'pilots' would be required for a group.

 

The 'pilot' could switch to either nose or tail guns and control the upper or lower turret depending on where the attack was coming from in azimuth. Forget the waist guns as they were basically useless like the radio compartment gun. The 'pilot' would control all the guns in the squadron or flight.

 

The above would reduce the amount of modelling required.

 

I would also let the 'pilot' switch a/c if his primary a/c was shot down.

 

Can you imagine the level of concentration that was needed to fly those formation for that amount of time.

 

o7 very impressive

[Vinny002]

Hi, guys!

 

I would like to fly the B-17 in DCS WWII! Thanks!

 

Cheers,

Vincent

[fastfreddie]

I've pretty much given up any hope of this plane being made in a full scale flight model. It's just incredibly complex (4 engines, bombing station, DM, gun platforms) and maybe wish instead that they model in the gunners positions so some people could hop around in those slots. Ai controls the flight operations keeping everything in a tight formation and slot a B17 gunner slot kind of like they do the ground operations.