Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[csThor]

Disclaimer: Please ignore the Daidalos signature for this post for what I'm going to say is my very personal opinion.

Before anyone should waste a thought about a flyable B-17 or B-24 he should spend them either on a few other types which would be a lot more benfitial to gameplay as a whole (i.e. Blenheim Mk I and Mk IV, Ki-21 and/or Ki-48, B-25C, B-26 or Il-4) or on the right environmental factors that would make such strategic bomber types useful for any player and not just for the DF servers online (such as viewing distances, target categories the engine will understand, AI command and control and AI as a whole) for nothing of that is presently possible in the game. And if you look at what I posted you'll surely see that the latter option is a lot more work than the former, and that is without taking the workload for such a large plane as a B-17 or B-24 into the consideration.

[Red Dragon-DK]

Originally Posted by csThor

Disclaimer: Please ignore the Daidalos signature for this post for what I'm going to say is my very personal opinion.

Before anyone should waste a thought about a flyable B-17 or B-24 he should spend them either on a few other types which would be a lot more benfitial to gameplay as a whole (i.e. Blenheim Mk I and Mk IV, Ki-21 and/or Ki-48, B-25C, B-26 or Il-4) or on the right environmental factors that would make such strategic bomber types useful for any player and not just for the DF servers online (such as viewing distances, target categories the engine will understand, AI command and control and AI as a whole) for nothing of that is presently possible in the game. And if you look at what I posted you'll surely see that the latter option is a lot more work than the former, and that is without taking the workload for such a large plane as a B-17 or B-24 into the consideration.

Salute csThor.

Im both a fighter and a bomber pilot. Im aware that a lot of guys are only flying to get a fast and easy kill - like the missions you can get on M4T "2 min to target" But in the same time you are using time and effort to make slow It plane and biplane that have the same effekt. No one fly them. They are fun to try out and are very well done - no quistion there.
What Im asking, when you brought it up yourself is. Why not make those high altitude bombers we have been asking for year after year. Is it becarse you dont want to fly them yourself, or what are holdong you (speaking at the team) back?

We are some (actually a lot)who at least try to do it in a way, the bombers did it. I have been taken Joint Obs ABS3 (Advanced Bomber School) with some realy talent pilots and learned a lot. Good instruktors that have provide us a lot of very usefull knowledge. And Im greatfull for that. But this SIM need high altitude bombers. We have medium and low altitude bombers, but not realy any for high altitude.

Please take this in your thoughts. We actually like flying. Even if it is over a longer stretch.

Cheers

[csThor]

As I said: I do not speak for Daidalos when I say this and I have said this for far longer than Daidalos exists.
I see what is there in Il-2, I see what the engine can and what it can't and I am firmly of the opinion that strategic bombers are better off in the hands of the AI and not worth the considerable effort which could be directed into one or even two projects for tactical bombers. Simply for the fact that we have an engine that lives and breathes for low-altitude frontline air support, which has an issue with map size and viewing distances (both graphics-wise and AI-can-notice-things-wise) and doesn't know fixed structures as targets. There are a lot of things that would have to be redone before high-altitude bombing could be a viable thing in this engine - and I don't mean just online. Offline is as important as online and ignoring the issues an offline player couldn't evade isn't particularly smart in my book.

[Feathered_IV]

Originally Posted by csThor

Before anyone should waste a thought about a flyable B-17 or B-24 he should spend them either on a few other types which would be a lot more benfitial to gameplay as a whole (i.e. Blenheim Mk I and Mk IV....

Please don't tease me with suggestions of the Blenheim... unless you know something we don't.

[csThor]

No, I don't know more. Just my personal opinion.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Red Dragon-DK

Salute csThor.

Im both a fighter and a bomber pilot. Im aware that a lot of guys are only flying to get a fast and easy kill - like the missions you can get on M4T "2 min to target" But in the same time you are using time and effort to make slow It plane and biplane that have the same effekt. No one fly them. They are fun to try out and are very well done - no quistion there.
What Im asking, when you brought it up yourself is. Why not make those high altitude bombers we have been asking for year after year. Is it becarse you dont want to fly them yourself, or what are holdong you (speaking at the team) back?

We are some (actually a lot)who at least try to do it in a way, the bombers did it. I have been taken Joint Obs ABS3 (Advanced Bomber School) with some realy talent pilots and learned a lot. Good instruktors that have provide us a lot of very usefull knowledge. And Im greatfull for that. But this SIM need high altitude bombers. We have medium and low altitude bombers, but not realy any for high altitude.

Please take this in your thoughts. We actually like flying. Even if it is over a longer stretch.

Cheers

I fly bombers more than I fly fighters these days... especially online... but csThor makes some extremely valid points that a lot of people like to wave off. The game engine wasn't designed for a great high altitude strategic bombing type of experience. If you wanted to simulate a proper strategic bombing raid from start to finish then there are problems with maps that are too small, fundamental engine issues that make identifying targets at high altitude impossible, and a simple MASSIVE amount of work required to build the internal guts of just one heavy bomber.

Compare a A-20C:
- Pilot position
- Bomb sight position in nose
- Top rear flexible .30cal
- Bomb rear flexible .30cal

So that is four positions that have to be modeled with accuracy.

With a B-17G:
- Pilot position
- Bomb sight position
- Forward turret
- Top turret
- Ball turret
- Rear turret
- Waste positions (2)

Pretty much double the work. Now... I would still LOVE to see a heavy bomber as it would be fun. But the simulation aspect would be somewhat limited by some limitations that cannot be overcome.

I would be perfectly content with some more usable and practical medium bombers. There are great aircraft like the B-25, A-20, G4M, He-111, Ju-88A-4, and Ar-234 which are all great bombers to use and more practical in an online tactical environment. I'm not saying that everyone is like this but I've had some conversations with people who are "demanding" a B-17 but in the meantime refuse to fly great medium bombers on level bombing runs... I don't really get it.

I suppose the solution is this. If someone wants to organize a third party team that would build a B-17 interior to IL-2 specifications I seriously doubt that Team Daidalos would reject such an effort. But in 10 years nobody has done that... not beyond the starting stages anyways. Everyone who has tried has found that the effort is significant.

[CKY_86]

Originally Posted by robday

Thanks for the reply CKY 86. I sort of knew what 6DOF meant, but not that it related to TrackIr.

No prob

[Avimimus]

There are also the basic issues with map size and the altitude cap - which make it hard to simulate late war bombing tactics.

I'd personally love an Il-4. I hadn't taken much notice of it until it was made flyable with a hack and then my opinion of it changed completely.
- It has adequate performance, good handling and the the dorsal and ventral gunners have very good fields of fire (making them among the most effective pre-1942 defensive positions).
- It was also mass produced and has a diverse bombload that is considerably larger than the Pe-2. This adds a lot of capability to the RKKA pilots (as the Pe-2 can't carry much more than an Il-2 in overload).

So, I hope that cockpit gets finished...

[ElAurens]

With the upcoming intoduction of "The Slot" map being made an official part of IL2/46 we will have a map of the proper proportions to support large bombers. I have been flying on this map for some time using a mod pack and it will change the way people see the sim. Or it should anyway. I have flown multi hour missions on this map in the mod B-17 and H8K "Emily" flying boat. It is a different, and rewarding way to fly.

CS_Thor, overall I agree with you, the smaller and medium bombers should take priority, but the Japanese in particular are very short on bombers of any kind. Making the H8K a flyable would be a good thing for the sim, as it was uesd in every operational area of the Pacifc war, and would help "flesh out" a rather week Imperial Japanese plane set.

The Slot map is a work of art, those of you that have yet to see it will be gob struck.

[Billfish]

Well, for as long as I can remember I've been stating how heavy bombers have little place in the sim. IL2, ground attack.....Yet more so in that quite frankly most don't want to fly them as a heavy in that they get flown as strafers or stuka's, and for every 1 person who likes to take the time to get to altitude, fly to the target and saturation bomb, 10 people will take that same aircraft and try to fly it like an IL2.

There comes a point where though every aircraft would be welcome, you need to say "what do we have time for, what fits, and what will mess up the works"......Though heavies would be great, fact of the matter is most simply will not fly them as intended. So it becomes a wasted effort, in fact even harmful to grant the very few what they would make "good" use of.

K2

p.s.....No more fighters.....ground attack is what is needed so the sim can get back to its intentions.