Official 1C Company forum

Official 1C Company forum (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/index.php)
-   Daidalos Team discussions (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/forumdisplay.php?f=202)
-   -   Luftwaffe bombers (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=38710)

gaunt1 02-15-2013 01:30 PM

Luftwaffe bombers
 
As the japanese, I think germans also lack bombers, especially later ones.
True, we already have lots of models, Ju-87, Ju-88, He-111, Do-217. But, most of them are early war planes.

So this is what I suggest:

Absolutely needed, and not so hard to make:

He-111:
H11, OR preferably a H16. By 1943, most of the He-111s were from these variants, either new or rebuilt. I'd also suggest to take a look at this pack. http://forum.aviaskins.com/showthread.php?t=1471&page=5 The author did a good job to upgrade the existing variants, maybe adding a later H6 with C1 stand would be useful too.

Ju-88:
A14, a dive bomber, mainly used in anti shipping role in the mediterranean and english channel theatre, but also used on the eastern front (KG51 for example)
C6a. a Zersörer, but as far as I know, there is a cockpit done, would be a shame to let it fade into oblivion.

Would be great, but may be hard to make:

Do-217:
Maybe it was the best bomber of LW, too bad its quite overlooked.

Manuals on Pg 3!

K1, already ingame, only needs a cockpit. Dont know how good is this one http://forum.aviaskins.com/showthread.php?t=2744, but still better than the stock He-111 cockpit.
M1, same as the K1, except DB603 engines. One of the fastest in its class.

E2/E4, early variants, but still with great performance and heavy bomb load. There are lots of original documentation available on the net, with lots of useful pictures of its cockpit.

He-177:
Fortunately WIP :)

Ju-188:
Not that important as the planes above, but was still widely used, although only on the channel front. So maybe pointless to make.

Me-410:
Yes, I know its a heavy fighter/zerstörer, but was also used as a bomber, by KG2.

KG26_Alpha 02-15-2013 02:12 PM

I asked Oleg for more bomber variants years ago, the response was along the lines of as they are not popular so no need for them.
..........................^^^..................... .....
I hope this is not the Modus Operandi of DT :)

D 17
D 217

Some decent Ju88 skins here also.
http://www.adlerhorst-hangar.com/ju88.html

Problem is unless they are a straight forward conversion FM/DM from existing models I cant see them getting in if they need a complete new aircraft

Nil 02-15-2013 02:55 PM

I agree with you Gaunt1
As a consequence, Being a bomber pilot in the late war is actually very disavantaged because of we tend to use early/mid war bombers which are completely exposed to fighters due to their speed and weak defensive weapons.

KG26_Alpha 02-15-2013 05:57 PM

Also a rework of the JU88 lower gunner is needed it's almost useless with the poor views in the current model.

gaunt1 02-16-2013 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha (Post 497502)
Also a rework of the JU88 lower gunner is needed it's almost useless with the poor views in the current model.

Agree, but the B-stand is even worse, you can move the MG only a few degrees, then the camera isnt following the crosshair, so aiming is impossible.

IceFire 02-16-2013 12:50 PM

Bombers are a lot of work which is one of the reasons why we see more fighters but... seeing as I love mud moving myself... I can see two on the list above rapidly rising to the top.

The Do217 and the Me410. Reason being is high degree of use and high degrees of flexibility.

The Me410A and B with a couple of sub variants including the bomber and destroyer variants would be perfect... gives us a late war heavy fighter, important aircraft in bomber interception, and a strike bomber all in one effort. It was fairly widely used on both East and West and depending on the effort involved... the Me210 was even involved in North Africa.

The Do217 is the same thing. Used widely across all theatres, capable of carrying and being configured in a number of different ways. It can be modified to night interceptor, bomber, guided missile carrier, etc. Best of all it's already modelled externally.

I can see both of those going very far.

The He177 is completely fascinating and possibly one of the most advanced bombers (next to the B-29) but the only problem is its limited use and scope in the war. If it arrived as a fully flyable... I'd have no arguments but if it was a choice between types then I'd rather the Do217 get the attention. Too pragmatic? :)

hafu1939 02-16-2013 07:03 PM

Not only later Luftwaffe bombers are missing in Il 2 now. A bomber plane, which is absolutely essential for the period before and in the first years of war, is Dornier Do 17. The Do 17Z-0 and Do 17Z-2 already exist as mods. What about adopting these in the next version?

majorfailure 02-16-2013 07:47 PM

IceFire,

couldn't have put it better.

And I think it will not be possible because it's against TD policy -but as bombers are such massive work with all of their stations - would it be possible to get some more bombers in the game where only pilot and bombardiers position are playable thus requiring less work?
I mean high-quality pits for gunners are nice - but honestly how much time do players really use them - I bet most of the time is spent in the "important" positions.

gaunt1 02-16-2013 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hafu1939 (Post 497574)
Not only later Luftwaffe bombers are missing in Il 2 now. A bomber plane, which is absolutely essential for the period before and in the first years of war, is Dornier Do 17. The Do 17Z-0 and Do 17Z-2 already exist as mods. What about adopting these in the next version?

I deliberately didnt include that plane in my list. Do-17 is in CoD, so we cant have that plane in official patches. Only mods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceFire
The Me410A and B with a couple of sub variants including the bomber and destroyer variants would be perfect... gives us a late war heavy fighter, important aircraft in bomber interception, and a strike bomber all in one effort. It was fairly widely used on both East and West and depending on the effort involved... the Me210 was even involved in North Africa.

The Do217 is the same thing. Used widely across all theatres, capable of carrying and being configured in a number of different ways. It can be modified to night interceptor, bomber, guided missile carrier, etc. Best of all it's already modelled externally.

completely agree with you. A Me-410 would be awesome, even without player controlled rear guns.
A flyable Do-217 would be also great in the game, especially if the M1 (K1 with DB603) and the earlier E2/E4 would be included too. Although the K/M variants were better, but personally I like the E much more. It could perform dive bomber missions (E2) too, and the had much heavier forward firing firepower than the K/M, a flexible MG-FF and a fixed MG151/20 (E2) or MG-131 + MG151/20 (E4). There are also much more documentation available for the E2/4, although I dont know if they are still available or not. But I would upload them gladly if somone needs them...
Regarding night fighter variants, (J/N) those wouldnt be useful at all in the game, even if we would have radar systems modeled. They were very very bad planes, pilots hated them. They were probably the worst night fighters of the war, their flight performance was actually worse than the bomber variants! Plus relatively few were built.

IceFire 02-16-2013 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 497583)
I deliberately didnt include that plane in my list. Do-17 is in CoD, so we cant have that plane in official patches. Only mods.



completely agree with you. A Me-410 would be awesome, even without player controlled rear guns.
A flyable Do-217 would be also great in the game, especially if the M1 (K1 with DB603) and the earlier E2/E4 would be included too. Although the K/M variants were better, but personally I like the E much more. It could perform dive bomber missions (E2) too, and the had much heavier forward firing firepower than the K/M, a flexible MG-FF and a fixed MG151/20 (E2) or MG-131 + MG151/20 (E4). There are also much more documentation available for the E2/4, although I dont know if they are still available or not. But I would upload them gladly if somone needs them...
Regarding night fighter variants, (J/N) those wouldnt be useful at all in the game, even if we would have radar systems modeled. They were very very bad planes, pilots hated them. They were probably the worst night fighters of the war, their flight performance was actually worse than the bomber variants! Plus relatively few were built.

Seems like if we had the Do217K-1/K-2 modelled internally it would be no difference to have a M-1... just engine differences.

I wouldn't completely rule out the Do17. The Wellington is also in Cliffs of Dover but it will be in 4.12... that said, the Do17 is fairly limited in use to maps and scenarios we already have. Unless I'm seriously mistaken... they had their heyday in 1940 and were replaced by other bomber types including the Do217 later on. I've done a lot of campaign scenarios now and I don't think I've ever been wanting a Do17 to fill in a gap somewhere.

Really after 1940 the usage would be Finland's 15 aircraft but I'm not sure how extensively those were used. I've read more about the Finland modification to the Ju88 that was used than the Do17.

Interesting about the Do217 and the night fighter being really bad. I didn't know that.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar 02-16-2013 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceFire (Post 497587)
I wouldn't completely rule out the Do17. The Wellington is also in Cliffs of Dover but it will be in 4.12...

The Wellington in 4.12 is a MK.III - a bit out already of the BoB phase. ;)

IceFire 02-16-2013 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar (Post 497589)
The Wellington in 4.12 is a MK.III - a bit out already of the BoB phase. ;)

True that! And definitely not a BoB only type aircraft... Wellingtons used throughout the war. When they were retired from Europe operations they were still over other theatres and in Burma.

hafu1939 02-16-2013 11:02 PM

I honestly disagree. Do 17 wasn`t present only in the BoB. SCW (E, F, P), Poland (E, M, P, Z), Norway (P), BoF, Balkans, Eastern front – Do 17s were flown in all these campaigns.
Do 217E-2, E-4 – +1.

IceFire 02-16-2013 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hafu1939 (Post 497593)
I honestly disagree. Do 17 wasn`t present only in the BoB. SCW (E, F, P), Poland (E, M, P, Z), Norway (P), BoF, Balkans, Eastern front – Do 17s were flown in all these campaigns.
Do 217E-2, E-4 – +1.

Of those mentioned we have only a tiny piece of Norway and lots of Eastern Front. But it's more than just being flown... was it a major or significant type in a huge way? I could be wrong... I was about the G3M Nell bomber but my understanding is the the Do17 design had reached the end by 1941 and was replaced. I can't find any significant actions it fought. Perhaps Finland used the Do17 the most after 1941.

Again... if faced with a decision between types. I'd rather have the one that saw more use across a greater range of dates and scenarios rather than the more obscure one that isn't easily used as a historical type. A Do17 would be cool... don't get my wrong. But a Do217, it's direct successor, would be so much more useful as a flyable aircraft - IMHO. I just see it as a matter of a lot of time invested in doing a project... I'd love for it to be maximally useful. And if we're going by the premise of the OP... then we already have the Ju88 and the He111 representing two excellent early war Luftwaffe bombers. We have a lack of mid and later war bombers available as flyable. Exception being the Ar234.

ElAurens 02-17-2013 12:27 AM

Please correct me if I'm wrong in this, but won't most German bombers pretty much grounded in 1944 as scarce fuel was allocated to fighters for home defense?

If so it seems like a waste of resources to model late types.

IceFire 02-17-2013 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElAurens (Post 497597)
Please correct me if I'm wrong in this, but won't most German bombers pretty much grounded in 1944 as scarce fuel was allocated to fighters for home defense?

If so it seems like a waste of resources to model late types.

Not all. KG/100 for example used guided rockets (I forget which type) on bridges around the time of the Seelow Heights battle... just before the Belorussian Front moved on Berlin. They were flying the Do217.

Some Me410s would have been in operation fairly late on as well... but you're right that the priority was for the fighter defenses by that point. But I think by late bombers were talking about types that were fairly active and busy during 1942 and 1943 with some more limited use in 1944 and 1945.

Juri_JS 02-17-2013 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElAurens (Post 497597)
Please correct me if I'm wrong in this, but won't most German bombers pretty much grounded in 1944 as scarce fuel was allocated to fighters for home defense?

If so it seems like a waste of resources to model late types.

The torpedo bombers from KG-26 based in Norway were also active in early 1945. The planes flown were the Ju 88A-17 and the Ju 188A-3. I think the last combat mission against an Allied convoy was in February 1945.
The reconnaissance squadrons in Norway were also using the Ju-88 and Ju-188. They even had a few Ar-234.

Fenice_1965 02-17-2013 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceFire (Post 497594)
Of those mentioned we have only a tiny piece of Norway and lots of Eastern Front. But it's more than just being flown... was it a major or significant type in a huge way? I could be wrong... I was about the G3M Nell bomber but my understanding is the the Do17 design had reached the end by 1941 and was replaced. I can't find any significant actions it fought. Perhaps Finland used the Do17 the most after 1941.

Again... if faced with a decision between types. I'd rather have the one that saw more use across a greater range of dates and scenarios rather than the more obscure one that isn't easily used as a historical type. A Do17 would be cool... don't get my wrong. But a Do217, it's direct successor, would be so much more useful as a flyable aircraft - IMHO. I just see it as a matter of a lot of time invested in doing a project... I'd love for it to be maximally useful. And if we're going by the premise of the OP... then we already have the Ju88 and the He111 representing two excellent early war Luftwaffe bombers. We have a lack of mid and later war bombers available as flyable. Exception being the Ar234.

Btw Icefire is right from another point of view. It is rare to use the Do17 because we lack the early war planes usually needed to make a scenario around it (early spits and 109 first). I agree on the fact that it would be' cool to have it.

gaunt1 02-17-2013 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceFire (Post 497587)
Seems like if we had the Do217K-1/K-2 modelled internally it would be no difference to have a M-1... just engine differences.

Yes, exactly. The M was the same as the K, but with DB-603A engines. It boosted the top speed from 515-520 to 560, so it was the fastest bomber of LW built in significant numbers.

Furio 02-17-2013 12:45 PM

I know that we’re talking of a sim, so we should not look for “balancing”, but mid-war period is overall more playable. Luftwaffe bombers had not much meaningful use after the beginning of 1944, and exactly the same can be said for the Japanese. However, the Do217 entered service in late 1941, so it would make a lot of sense to have it.

Xilon_x 02-17-2013 02:57 PM

ITALIAN DO217 J2
http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/st...pozzolo_tn.jpg

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/6302/doitaly217j.jpg

majorfailure 02-17-2013 05:21 PM

Why should Team Daidalos or others model a bomber which most players will not use? -which imho the Do-17 would be - given the durable and well armed He-111 or the fast and versatile Ju-88 are available in the same timeframe -and both can exceed the bomb capacity of the Do-17.

The Do-217 and the He-177 outperform the currently available bombers in at least one aspect, so they would be a welcome addition -and the would get at least some attention from the players - which planes get the most attention of the players now? - Usually its the "better" performing ones -right?

IceFire 02-17-2013 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 497619)
Yes, exactly. The M was the same as the K, but with DB-603A engines. It boosted the top speed from 515-520 to 560, so it was the fastest bomber of LW built in significant numbers.

Interesting! That would be valuable. A fast, heavy hitting bomber type for the Luftwaffe useful across a variety of date ranges and in a number of scenarios. I can see the Do217 as a flyable adding a lot to the mix.

SPAD-1949 02-18-2013 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by majorfailure (Post 497641)
Why should Team Daidalos or others model a bomber which most players will not use? -which imho the Do-17 would be - given the durable and well armed He-111 or the fast and versatile Ju-88 are available in the same timeframe -and both can exceed the bomb capacity of the Do-17.

To shoot at...

[URU]BlackFox 02-18-2013 10:55 AM

Historical significance maybe...

gaunt1 02-18-2013 12:10 PM

It looks like lots of people here (including myself) would like to have a Do-217 as a flyable plane, so maybe we should gather as much info as possible about it. Maybe then someone would start to model the cockpit or other versions (E2/4 or M1). What do you think?

Fortunately, there are huge amount of documentation available for free, I dare to say its the most documented bomber of the LW! The manuals are full of useful information, plus tons of pictures of the cockpit, from almost any imaginable angle.

So I'd start with this:

Do 217 E-1, E-3 Bedienungsvorschrift-Fl
http://www.scribd.com/doc/120347364/...l-Oktober-1941
Kennblatt für das Flugzeugmuster Do 217 E-1/E-2 mit BMW 801 A-1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/120341821/...ach-Japan-1941
Do 217 K-1 Bedienungsvorschrift-Fl
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51456919/1...svorschrift-Fl
Do 217 K-1 Flugzeug-Handbuch Teil 8D & 8E, Sondereinbauten & Nebelanlage
http://www.scribd.com/doc/106942585/...ge-August-1943
Do 217 E-2, E-4 Flugzeug-Handbuch Teil 8D Sondereinbauten
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50870396/1...ondereinbauten
Do 217 E-2, E-4 Flugzeug-Handbuch Teil 8A Schusswaffenanlage
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50195253/1...sswaffenanlage
Do 217 E-2, E-4 Flugzeug-Handbuch Teil 8B Abwurfwaffenanlage
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50194022/1...rfwaffenanlage

Fenice_1965 02-18-2013 05:20 PM

Didn't know that Regia Aereonautica used them. Do you have infos about their operational use if any ?

IceFire 02-18-2013 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenice_1965 (Post 497757)
Didn't know that Regia Aereonautica used them. Do you have infos about their operational use if any ?

From Wikipedia:
Quote:

Twelve Do 217 J-1 and J-2 variants were acquired by Italian Regia Aeronautica between September 1942 and June 1943 for night fighter operations.[118] One Italian unit was equipped: 235a Squadriglia of 60° Gruppo (41° Stormo). Based at Treviso San Giuseppe, then at Lonate Pozzolo, the unit performed poorly. The unit shot down only one enemy aircraft, and lost one of their own, after nearly a year of activity.[119][120]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_217

So really nothing much from the sounds of it..

Xilon_x 02-18-2013 06:29 PM

Quote:

fenice Didn't know that Regia Aereonautica used them. Do you have infos about their operational use if any ?

the first photo is original color is italian pilot whit dornier 217 is really.


The REGIA AEREONATICA received twelve Do 217, between September 1942 and June 1943 versions of J-1 and J-2 night fighters.Only Italian unit was equipped with the Dornier night fighter: the 235 Squadron of the 60th Group (41 º Stormo BT), commanded by Captain Aramis Ammannato. The unit, first based in Treviso San Giuseppe, he moved to the most appropriate facility Lonate Pozzolo, October 21, 1943. Because of the training hasty, wear of the first machines delivered, radar equipment worn out, the unit almost a year of operation only managed to bring down a plane, when, on the night of 16-17 July 1943, Captain Ammannato with a Do 217 J-1 does not have a radar, intercepted an Avro Lancaster of the RAF, returning from the bombing of hydroelectric Cislago (near Varese). The British bomber crashed on the banks of the Ticino, at Vigevano. On 31 July 1943, the squadron had supplied another 11 Do 217, five operational and the other six being repaired or unemployable

_1SMV_Gitano 02-18-2013 08:52 PM

If I recall correctly the 235a Squadriglia used also some second-hand Luftwaffe Bf 110Cs for training.

panzer1b 02-19-2013 02:05 AM

id love some late war german bombers/attack craft to give me a reason to actually use one in later war scenarios, sure the he111s and ju88s are USEABLE, but they are just at a immense disadvantage around 1943 and later. i mean its getting to the point it is absolutely no fun to fly a bomber in any map that has late war planes, cause allied planes even ones that are not that strong or have huge guns will just tear you apart easily, only a luckshot with those useless 81s or 15s will light em or more likely damage/jam engine up at best, at worst do nothing whatsoever.

now personally id love to see at least a he111 or ju88 with a late war loadout (mg131s/20mm cannons to give us a bit more of an edge). preferably a do217 which is already an ai plane, and was used late war in at least a few occasions if i am corrrect.

still if no new pits are to be made id have to settle with the late war he111s (just replace the mg15s with mg131s which are already modeled on the he111 with the rockets), and i believe the nose mounted 20mm remained the same, and the window guns may have been mg81s but im not entirely sure on that, all im pretty sure of is the top and bottom rear gunners were 131s. not that mg131s are a huge threat but at least they could do some damage to a pursuer that otherwise could just park themselves on your 6.

a late ju88 would be nice or even better a attack version with forward mounted guns and the solid metal nose which was used as both a night fighter, day fighter, bomber, and straffin craft which would easily be a great addition to the game.

also id love a flyable me210 or 410, they were very good planes, far superior to the not so good bf110s (which although quite potent and fast initially, quickly becomes a easy kill).

allied bombers are at least somewhat resistant to fighters, by no means immune as a fw190 is certain doom to them, but at least 13 or so 50cals can put up quite a good fight...

Nil 02-19-2013 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panzer1b (Post 497799)
id love some late war german bombers/attack craft to give me a reason to actually use one in later war scenarios, sure the he111s and ju88s are USEABLE, but they are just at a immense disadvantage around 1943 and later. i mean its getting to the point it is absolutely no fun to fly a bomber in any map that has late war planes, cause allied planes even ones that are not that strong or have huge guns will just tear you apart easily, only a luckshot with those useless 81s or 15s will light em or more likely damage/jam engine up at best, at worst do nothing whatsoever.

That is exactly what I am takling about.
I fly regulary in a virtual squadron always as a bomber pilot and I always have this problem.
The result is that the pleasure is missing a lot
As others stated, a do217 would be more than very welcome!
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/3474/do217.jpg

ECV56_Guevara 02-19-2013 10:36 AM

Good news to the bombers lovers: He177 3d model is finished (if I translated correctly from SVK community forum). Now DT will make FM, so hopefully for 4.13 we will see this beauty. Thanks to all SVK community members involved for this!!!

gaunt1 02-19-2013 11:25 AM

Quite impressive performance for an 1940-41 plane! The K (1942) and especially the M (1943) are even better!

http://htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/1yz...00656c7c68.jpg

Xilon_x 02-19-2013 11:46 AM

DORNIER 217 ITALIAN camouflage(skin):
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/445/pics/32_1.jpg
Do.217J-1
Unit: 235 Squadriglia, 60 Gruppo, 41 Stormo
Serial: 235-8
Treviso San-Giuseppe, winter 1942-1943. Note: White Balkenkreuze above and below wings; Swastika on fin painted over.
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/445/pics/32_1_b1.jpg
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/325/pics/32_3.jpg
Do.17Ka-3
Unit: 1 Centro Sperimentale
Serial: br.3362
Experimental Flying Center, Guidonia, June 1941.
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/325/pics/32_1.jpg
Do.17Kb-1
Unit: unknown
Serial: unknown
This aircraft was shot down over Volkhov, Western Yugoslavia.

DORNIER 217 CAPTURED FROM ENGLAND:
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/445/pics/9_1.jpg
Do.217M-1
Unit: ex KG 2
Serial: AM107 (ex U5+??, W.Nr.56158)
This aircraft was flown from Schleswig to Farnborough on 13th October 1945.
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/445/pics/9_2.jpg

Unit: unknown
Serial: AM7 (ex KF+JN, W.Nr.0040)
This aircraft was captured as Flensburg in 1945. Fitted with Dornier Do.317 style fins and rudders.
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/325/pics/9_1.jpg
Do.17Ka-3
Unit: 102 MTU, RAF
Serial: br.3348
Heliopolis, Egypt, May 1941.

U.S.A.
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/325/pics/3_1.jpg
Do.17E-2 "Axis Sally"
Unit: unknown
Serial: FE-2000 (W.Nr.2095)
Circa 1945.

SWIZERLAND:
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/325/pics/121_1.jpg
Do.17Z-3
Unit: ex Stab III./KG2
Serial: ex U5+BD
Pilot - Lt.Von Der Groben. Bale-Birsfelden, on 21st April 1940.

ALSO:
BULGARIA (5)
HUNGARY (3)
SPAIN (11)
FINLAND (6)
CROATIA (9)
YUGOSLAVIA (14)

JtD 02-19-2013 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 497827)
Quite impressive performance for an 1940-41 plane! The K (1942) and especially the M (1943) are even better!

Just marginally, if at all. The K model didn't have more power, and while the M did, the handbook lists the same speeds while Rechlin tested it with 495 km/h, max.

T}{OR 02-19-2013 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nil (Post 497817)
That is exactly what I am takling about.
I fly regulary in a virtual squadron always as a bomber pilot and I always have this problem.
The result is that there the pleasure is missing a lot
As others stated, a do217 would be more than very welcome!

Seconded. Which squadron if I may ask?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ECV56_Guevara (Post 497818)
Good news to the bombers lovers: He177 3d model is finished (if I translated correctly from SVK community forum). Now DT will make FM, so hopefully for 4.13 we will see this beauty. Thanks to all SVK community members involved for this!!!

Bloody Hell! Couple that with B-24 and we are talking bomber pilots Heaven when 4.13 is ready... :-o

hafu1939 02-20-2013 05:47 PM

1 Attachment(s)
I think the idea of collecting sources of info on Do 217 is great!
Let me resume existing and available models of Dornier bombers for Il 2. We have Do 217K-1 and Do 217K-2 as AI only in stock Il 2, Do 17Z-0 and Do 147Z-2 as a flyable mod by Ranwers/SAS~Crazyflak (http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph...c,21566.0.html) nowadays.
IMHO at first it would be easier to redesign these planes as flyable or compatible with stock Il 2 than build up Do 217E afresh.
This is why I personally prefer to think of Do 17 too. We can fly Poland and somehow France with maps in stock Il 2, and we can fly the Eastern front, so we have enough possibilities for using Do 17. As far as we don’t reduce our point of view only at faster or more durable types, but want have historically corresponding choice of planes, though.
Gaunt1 expressed the expectance that the gathering of data on Do 217 can move someone to start work on cockpits or new versions. From my point of view refusing of existing projects which simultaneously means to ignore the work of their designers, could be a little unhappy in this context.
But I agree that the Do 217E is fundamental, this plane covered the period between the years 1941 and 1942, before coming of Do 217K in 1943.
More, I agree that Do’s 217M-1/11 (different wing in the same way as Do 217K-1/2) were the fastest 217 (aside from reducing of range and/or bomb-load capacity on account of higher consumption of DB 603 engines) but also carrying load-outs up to 4000 kg, more than He 111 or Ju 88/188. And, what more, they had this strange touch of „ugly prettiness“, which was so attracting.

gaunt1 02-20-2013 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hafu1939 (Post 497929)
I think the idea of collecting sources of info on Do 217 is great!
Let me resume existing and available models of Dornier bombers for Il 2. We have Do 217K-1 and Do 217K-2 as AI only in stock Il 2, Do 17Z-0 and Do 147Z-2 as a flyable mod by Ranwers/SAS~Crazyflak (http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph...c,21566.0.html) nowadays.
IMHO at first it would be easier to redesign these planes as flyable or compatible with stock Il 2 than build up Do 217E afresh.
This is why I personally prefer to think of Do 17 too. We can fly Poland and somehow France with maps in stock Il 2, and we can fly the Eastern front, so we have enough possibilities for using Do 17. As far as we don’t reduce our point of view only at faster or more durable types, but want have historically corresponding choice of planes, though.
Gaunt1 expressed the expectance that the gathering of data on Do 217 can move someone to start work on cockpits or new versions. From my point of view refusing of existing projects which simultaneously means to ignore the work of their designers, could be a little unhappy in this context.
But I agree that the Do 217E is fundamental, this plane covered the period between the years 1941 and 1942, before coming of Do 217K in 1943.
More, I agree that Do’s 217M-1/11 (different wing in the same way as Do 217K-1/2) were the fastest 217 (aside from reducing of range and/or bomb-load capacity on account of higher consumption of DB 603 engines) but also carrying load-outs up to 4000 kg, more than He 111 or Ju 88/188. And, what more, they had this strange touch of „ugly prettiness“, which was so attracting.

Well, in my opinion, the first should be the Do 217K1, since there is a cockpit mod for it. I dont know how good is that mod, but judging from the pictures, I think already looks nice. Of course some areas need better details/textures, but still, a really good starting point. With the manuals, Im sure it could be corrected/enhanced. Next, maybe the M1, because its the same as the K, except the engines. And finally, the E2/E4. K1 external model would be a good base, only the nose is different. However, the cockpit would be a massive work, even though the rear part is almost the same as the K/M.
The Do-17, I agree its a nice plane, but as far as I know TD cant add it simply because its in CloD.
The 217 would fill the gap between the already ingame He-111/Ju88 and the upcoming He-177. Would be fun both to fly it and to fly against it, a really important german bomber I think.

IceFire 02-20-2013 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ECV56_Guevara (Post 497818)
Good news to the bombers lovers: He177 3d model is finished (if I translated correctly from SVK community forum). Now DT will make FM, so hopefully for 4.13 we will see this beauty. Thanks to all SVK community members involved for this!!!

Exciting news!

Blaf 02-22-2013 11:48 AM

By the way, SVK community is now consolidating money for He-177 cockpit and gunner seats...
http://www.panzerkampfwagen.cz/forum...393&rowstart=0

gaunt1 02-22-2013 02:43 PM

Awesome... :)
If google translated it properly, it looks like they need references too... I hope the authors read these forums, I can provide links for the books that may be useful. Most are A-0 and A-1 versions, but fortunately there are two for A-3. Fortunately, the last book has lots of useful images about the gunner seats.

He 177 A-0 Flugzeug-handbuch Teil 12, Bewaffnung, Allgemein:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/124594451/...-Dezember-1941

He 177 A-0 Flugzeug-handbuch Teil 9A, Heft 5 Enteisungsanlage:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/124593173/...September-1941

He 177 A-0 Flugzeug-handbuch Teil 12B, Abwurfwaffenanlage:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/124700312/...-November-1941

He 177 A-1 Flugzeug-handbuch Teil 12A Schusswaffenanlage:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100868624/...lage-mit-FA-3A

He 177 A-1 Flugzeug-handbuch Teil 12G Rüstsatze:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/124702483/...atze-Juni-1943

He 177 A-3 Flugzeug-handbuch Teil 9A Allgemeine ausrüstung:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/124704840/...September-1943

He 177 A-3 Flugzeug-handbuch Teil 12A Schusswaffenanlage:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/124706304/...September-1943

Fergal69 02-22-2013 04:06 PM

One thing I like about 1946 is that some of the unusually aircraft are modelled. Look at the German jet like ME262 & variants, HS129, ME109Z, etc.

I would like more German bombers, but I would like to see an official release of the BV141.

Pursuivant 02-22-2013 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fergal69 (Post 498120)
I would like more German bombers, but I would like to see an official release of the BV141.

I'd be very interested in flying a well-done model of the Bv-141 in the game.

But, will the IL2 game engine accurately model the performance of an asymmetrical plane?

hafu1939 02-25-2013 08:33 PM

I’d be glad to see some German trainers in Il 2 in the future, e.g. Bücker Bü 181 (actually existing as a mod), Arado Ar 96B or Siebel Si 204D(E).
Well, now back to the topic of this thread: it isn’t much important, how anybody of us perceives priorities or possibilities – Do 17 yes or no or anything like this. These are questions of personal taste and opinion.
We’ll have a good chance to fly He 177 in approximately 2 years, if the effort of the SVK community is successful. In the same time we can try to found a project of cockpit for the Do 217K, perhaps in the same or similar way as the SVK does.
From my point of view this is the most useful course of our next thinking.

Pursuivant 02-26-2013 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hafu1939 (Post 498413)
I’d be glad to see some German trainers in Il 2 in the future, e.g. Bücker Bü 181 (actually existing as a mod), Arado Ar 96B or Siebel Si 204D(E).

Another idea is to have planes which nobody sane would consider flying in combat modeled as static objects. If you look at Western Allied gun camera films of strafing runs, you see a lot of hapless Luftwaffe training, liaison and transport types in the gun sights. Likewise, if you look at pictures of shot up Soviet airfields, you see a number of similar aircraft.

Static aircraft would be easy to model, would be a great way to add eye candy/targets to missions, and could possibly eventually be upgraded to actual flying (or flyable) models if there is interest.

Blaf 02-26-2013 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaf (Post 498094)
By the way, SVK community is now consolidating money for He-177 cockpit and gunner seats...
http://www.panzerkampfwagen.cz/forum...393&rowstart=0

And here is complete price list... quite more than i expected :shock:
http://www.panzerkampfwagen.cz/forum...20#post_199784

gaunt1 02-26-2013 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaf (Post 498446)
And here is complete price list... quite more than i expected :shock:
http://www.panzerkampfwagen.cz/forum...20#post_199784

Why dont they look for an another modeler? That guy is rather greedy. Those prices are insane!

Compare it with this model of a russian radar truck:
http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/...d-model/571529

More than 270.000 polygons, looks incredibly detailed and only 160 USD!

Anyway, looks like they still need references. Can anyone link this page to them? The books above contain everything they need for gunner cockpits.

JtD 02-26-2013 11:29 AM

I'm pretty sure if the modeller can sell the cockpits 10, 20 or even 50 times, he'll lower his prices accordingly.

SPAD-1949 02-26-2013 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 498448)
Why dont they look for an another modeler? That guy is rather greedy. Those prices are insane!

Compare it with this model of a russian radar truck:
http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/...d-model/571529

More than 270.000 polygons, looks incredibly detailed and only 160 USD!

Anyway, looks like they still need references. Can anyone link this page to them? The books above contain everything they need for gunner cockpits.

Thats not the fault oft the first guy.
10 or 20 hours of work are gone easily

SaQSoN 02-26-2013 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 498448)
More than 270.000 polygons, looks incredibly detailed and only 160 USD!

Can he make it with less, then 10 000 triangles without any loss of visual quality? Can he make it exactly to the tech.specs, so it would export in the game engine smoothly? Does he knows what LODs are?

No? That's the point. And this is just a few of a lot more "can he...?" questions. High-polygon modeling of a random subject is a completely different thing, then making a low-polygon model of a specific subject according to a strict technical requirements and high accuracy to the RL prototype.

He-177 cockpit models (7 work stations, if I am not mistaken) made to the "IL-2" game standards would require about 160-200 men-hours per each cockpit model. What is a cost of 1 work hour in your country? How much 7x160 would cost then? Do you still think, this guy is greedy?

SaQSoN 02-26-2013 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JtD (Post 498449)
I'm pretty sure if the modeller can sell the cockpits 10, 20 or even 50 times, he'll lower his prices accordingly.

And that's another point.

gaunt1 02-26-2013 04:24 PM

Quote:

Can he make it with less, then 10 000 triangles without any loss of visual quality? Can he make it exactly to the tech.specs, so it would export in the game engine smoothly? Does he knows what LODs are?
Ask him, not me. But Im sure he would be able to do it.

High poly modeling is harder than low poly. I know someone who does both.
And yes, I STILL think 3500 USD is greedy. Very greedy.

JtD 02-26-2013 04:48 PM

Maybe you should make an offer yourself, it sounds like you're convinced it is an easy way to make money. Think of it, you only need to buy a licensed 3D software, invest a few dozen hours of training on it, get acquainted with the Il-2 standards, work through dozens of references for an aircraft and then spend a couple of hundred hours for making the actual objects and after only half a year of work you'll immediately get 3500$. Or 3499$, because 3500$ is the competition. Does this sound tempting to you?

SaQSoN 02-26-2013 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 498487)
Ask him, not me. But Im sure he would be able to do it. High poly modeling is harder than low poly. I know someone who does both.

And I seem to know someone, who doesn't have a clue. And since it is your idea, I urge you to ask him yourself. Or, may be you can find someone, who can do that job, working for free? Go on, why hesitate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 498487)
And yes, I STILL think 3500 USD is greedy. Very greedy.

So, you say, 3500 USD for 1120 hours of work is too greedy?! Tell me again, how much is 1 hour of work costs in your country? I guess, it should be something like 0.3 USD/hour, if you think, that 3,125USD/hour is too greedy. Or, better, tell us, did you ever worked yourself? Or are all your toys still paid my mom and dad?

Just for comparison: Minimum wage in the United States

This guy charges more then twice less, while qualification, required for such job is times higher, then what is needed for the minimum wage.

Luno13 02-26-2013 07:09 PM

So, where can I donate?

hafu1939 02-26-2013 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pursuivant (Post 498436)
Another idea is to have planes which nobody sane would consider flying in combat modeled as static objects. If you look at Western Allied gun camera films of strafing runs, you see a lot of hapless Luftwaffe training, liaison and transport types in the gun sights. Likewise, if you look at pictures of shot up Soviet airfields, you see a number of similar aircraft.

Static aircraft would be easy to model, would be a great way to add eye candy/targets to missions, and could possibly eventually be upgraded to actual flying (or flyable) models if there is interest.

Who's talking about combat flying? There are DH-82 Tiger Moth and Miles Magister in HSFX. I think there is an interest. BTW, not all the people were sane in the time of WWII (Bücker 181 with Panzerfausts). Those times weren't sane. I'm afraid those similar planes on strafed Soviet airfields in 1941 were, sadly, first-line combat types.

SPAD-1949 02-27-2013 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaQSoN (Post 498497)
And I seem to know someone, who doesn't have a clue. And since it is your idea, I urge you to ask him yourself. Or, may be you can find someone, who can do that job, working for free? Go on, why hesitate?



So, you say, 3500 USD for 1120 hours of work is too greedy?! Tell me again, how much is 1 hour of work costs in your country? I guess, it should be something like 0.3 USD/hour, if you think, that 3,125USD/hour is too greedy. Or, better, tell us, did you ever worked yourself? Or are all your toys still paid my mom and dad?

Just for comparison: Minimum wage in the United States

This guy charges more then twice less, while qualification, required for such job is times higher, then what is needed for the minimum wage.

I'd do it for 75$/hr... But I havent worked with 3DS since 1996.
If I could do it with a program I'm fitter on, I'd take 120 bucks.
So let us be grateful for the work of all the modders and all in front for the great work TD does just out of enthusiasm for the community.

Blaf 02-27-2013 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luno13 (Post 498506)
So, where can I donate?

It seems the guy which started the thread on SVK forum is also present here, so you may try to ask him directly...
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/member.php?u=53613

Pursuivant 02-27-2013 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hafu1939 (Post 498516)
Who's talking about combat flying? There are DH-82 Tiger Moth and Miles Magister in HSFX. I think there is an interest. BTW, not all the people were sane in the time of WWII (Bücker 181 with Panzerfausts). Those times weren't sane.

True on both points. But, having static models of aircraft might be a first step towards flying models, which is a step towards having flyable models.

gaunt1 03-01-2013 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaQSoN (Post 498497)
So, you say, 3500 USD for 1120 hours of work is too greedy?! Tell me again, how much is 1 hour of work costs in your country?



Im not interested in minimum wages in the US. Im from India, here people arent as rich as you. And I dont know how do you know how much time it takes to model a cockpit.
But enough of this.

ECV56_Guevara 03-01-2013 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 498686)
And I dont know how do you know how much time it takes to model a cockpit.
But enough of this.


Gaunt.....He knows because he modelled many things that are already in Il-2 ;) ....

SaQSoN 03-01-2013 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 498686)
Im not interested in minimum wages in the US. Im from India, here people arent as rich as you.

I am not from US either. But I don't see, why I, or anybody else should be paid hundreds of times less, then somebody in US for the same amount and quality of work. The reason, why I posted US minimum wages is because majority of entertainment software consumers are in the US, Japan and Western Europe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 498686)
And I dont know how do you know how much time it takes to model a cockpit.

From my personal first-hand experience. Building cockpits and other models for IL-2 game series since 2004.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 498686)
But enough of this.

Whatever.

Macwan 03-02-2013 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 498686)
Im not interested in minimum wages in the US. Im from India, here people arent as rich as you. And I dont know how do you know how much time it takes to model a cockpit.
But enough of this.

Ahah, we should set a reference salary per country. Then consider movements of currencies and local inflation, plus incentive policies (both private and corporate) and we should be able to say 'how much for a plane in IL2'.
Any volunteers ?

Otherwise we can also listen to pro modelers experience, and employers policy, actually. :cool:

Liz Lemon 03-03-2013 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaQSoN (Post 498483)
He-177 cockpit models (7 work stations, if I am not mistaken) made to the "IL-2" game standards would require about 160-200 men-hours per each cockpit model. What is a cost of 1 work hour in your country? How much 7x160 would cost then? Do you still think, this guy is greedy?

When you say it takes 160-200 man hours for a pit in a 177, what does that mean; Just the 3d model, or the textures as well? Is animation included?

IceFire 03-03-2013 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 498686)
Im not interested in minimum wages in the US. Im from India, here people arent as rich as you. And I dont know how do you know how much time it takes to model a cockpit.
But enough of this.

SaQSoN is not a minor contributor to the IL-2 series BTW... the guy knows his stuff. If he says it'll take X amount of time to do then it most certainly is the case.

SaQSoN 03-04-2013 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liz Lemon (Post 498868)
When you say it takes 160-200 man hours for a pit in a 177, what does that mean; Just the 3d model, or the textures as well? Is animation included?

It's modeling, texturing and engine conversion. Animation in IL-2 game is done via Java programing by rotating/moving respective parts around/along preset axles (which were set by a modeler) in a game's 3D world. So, animation is is not modeler's work in this game, so it wasn't included.

Also, it should be noted, that this is not just a simple modeling and painting textures. Since in many cases the references are scarce, some parts are often missing, or damaged on a reference pictures, etc., modeler would have to conduct a lots of research work, while building a model of a historical object. Which requires at least some knowledge of technology and structural design of such RL object.

Buster_Dee 04-10-2013 01:56 AM

I don't think high-poly models are over-priced for the work that goes into them, but I do question their usefulness. And, just because they are pretty does not always mean they are well-researched. Still, I guess it doesn't hurt to test the waters.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar 04-10-2013 07:44 AM

In fact, all of the models in IL-2 are low-poly (comparibly). And that would be reasonable for the whole game industry.

gaunt1 04-24-2013 11:28 AM

He-111 H11 from aviaskins.ru:

http://forum.aviaskins.com/attachmen...0&d=1366441354
http://forum.aviaskins.com/attachmen...1&d=1366441354
http://forum.aviaskins.com/attachmen...2&d=1366441354
http://forum.aviaskins.com/attachmen...3&d=1366441354
http://forum.aviaskins.com/attachmen...4&d=1366441354
http://forum.aviaskins.com/attachmen...5&d=1366441374
http://forum.aviaskins.com/attachmen...6&d=1366441374
http://forum.aviaskins.com/attachmen...7&d=1366441374

Looks great both inside & outside, would be great to have it in official versions! :)

SaQSoN 04-24-2013 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster_Dee (Post 501150)
I don't think high-poly models are over-priced for the work that goes into them, but I do question their usefulness.

In regard to gaming industry, very detailed high-poly models are often used to generate texture, shadow and normal maps for a low-poly variant of the same in-game character. This technique rarely used for mechanical objects, because in their case, it is easier to do by hand in 2D editor.
But for "organic" models, like humans, animals, etc. this hi-to-low-poly modeling is preferable technique. Plus, the "left-over" high-poly models can be used for making pre-rendered in-game cut scenes with those characters form the game.

And, offcourse, there are a lot of other applications for the high-poly models outside the gaming industry.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar 04-24-2013 02:13 PM

And for franchise and advertisment articels, box covers etc.

gaunt1 04-29-2013 05:56 PM

More from aviaskins.ru, this time the He-111 H12, with correct instrument panel::)


http://forum.aviaskins.com/attachmen...3&d=1366916644

hafu1939 06-20-2013 02:13 AM

Thanks for every new aircraft! We need them! Do-217M is beautiful (although a bit slower than she should be), we can look forward to the He-177 and renew the debate on the desirability of the Do-17 :)

Untamo 06-20-2013 11:51 AM

S!

Ju88 P -series would be nice :) .. Some heavy firepower :)

hafu1939 06-30-2013 06:53 PM

Dreaming of Ju 88’s versions, my favourite would be the Ju 88H-1, long-range reconnaissance aircraft for Atlantic theatre. Too difficult for implement in the sim – it would be completely new plane – 2,57 m longer fuselage, radial BMW 801 engines… but with its range of 5.150 km and on-board radar… A fifteen-hour mission, alone over the sea… I know, nobody wants try this:). On the contrary Ju 88P needs only simple weapon improvement – so it IS a reasonable wish, I think.

IceFire 07-01-2013 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hafu1939 (Post 505960)
Dreaming of Ju 88’s versions, my favourite would be the Ju 88H-1, long-range reconnaissance aircraft for Atlantic theatre. Too difficult for implement in the sim – it would be completely new plane – 2,57 m longer fuselage, radial BMW 801 engines… but with its range of 5.150 km and on-board radar… A fifteen-hour mission, alone over the sea… I know, nobody wants try this:). On the contrary Ju 88P needs only simple weapon improvement – so it IS a reasonable wish, I think.

The Ju88P would be interesting. I'd vote for the Ju88C-6a which is a heavy fighter gunship version with a trio of light machine guns and another trio of MG-FF 20mm cannons. These were used operationally at various points on the eastern front as train hunters and the like.

gaunt1 07-01-2013 10:40 AM

Quote:

I'd vote for the Ju88C-6a which is a heavy fighter gunship version with a trio of light machine guns and another trio of MG-FF 20mm cannons.
+1

And the A-14 too. Both versions were already done long ago, but Oleg rejected them... :(

http://www.ju88.equitatura.de/ju88c6.htm
http://www.ju88.equitatura.de/ju88a14.htm

Sita 07-01-2013 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 505991)
+1

And the A-14 too. Both versions were already done long ago, but Oleg rejected them... :(

http://www.ju88.equitatura.de/ju88c6.htm
http://www.ju88.equitatura.de/ju88a14.htm

and author lost it...

76.IAP-Blackbird 07-01-2013 11:58 AM

Ok, but Oleg should have the files so far?!

ECV56_Guevara 07-01-2013 12:08 PM

Oleg has left the building a long time ago.

76.IAP-Blackbird 07-01-2013 12:17 PM

I know, all il2 stuff was handed over to TD, sad the Ju is lost. But I still cant believe thats completly gone?!

Sita 07-01-2013 01:24 PM

as far i know DT was in contact with author ... and he gave to DT what he can ... all rest was lost

gaunt1 07-02-2013 05:38 PM

Still, I think it would be quite easy to add the A-14 version at least. For external model, only the MG-FF should be added to the nose of the A-4. For cockpit, the A-4 torpedo bomber version would be a good starting point, the torp equipment should be deleted, and the gunsight replaced by the Stuvi.

IceFire 07-02-2013 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 506094)
Still, I think it would be quite easy to add the A-14 version at least. For external model, only the MG-FF should be added to the nose of the A-4. For cockpit, the A-4 torpedo bomber version would be a good starting point, the torp equipment should be deleted, and the gunsight replaced by the Stuvi.

In terms of bang for our buck, what does the A-14 give us? Having a forward firing MG-FF is interesting (we have it in the torp version after all) but not immensely so. All I can see is that it has cable cutters and a MG-FF.

While I fully advocate for having a variety of sub models (i.e. a Ki-61-I Tei with the lengthened nose, revised armament configuration, etc.), sometimes it can be a lot of extra work for little gain. On the other hand... with things like Spitfire versions its relatively little work for lots of gain. Especially when the changes are engine related and entirely internal for example.

gaunt1 07-03-2013 09:47 AM

A-14 was primarily an anti shipping bomber, but was also frequently used on the eastern front. The MG-FF was especially useful for strafing trains and soft targets like trucks.

Wutz 07-08-2013 10:55 AM

http://www.fotos-hochladen.net/uploa...zwpi2lek8h.jpg
http://www.fotos-hochladen.net/uploa...ljku5r4dy2.jpg
http://www.fotos-hochladen.net/uploa...e2zuiq3r9b.jpg

This might interest some?

IceFire 07-09-2013 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 506139)
A-14 was primarily an anti shipping bomber, but was also frequently used on the eastern front. The MG-FF was especially useful for strafing trains and soft targets like trucks.

I think I'd go for the C-6a before the A-14... more bang for the buck in terms of giving us something we don't already have. The Ju88A-4/Torp and A-17 both give us essentially the same things. Unless the A-14, for example, has improved performance or defensive firepower.

Baddington_VA 07-09-2013 02:20 AM

Late war Luftwaffe bomber for missions and maps
 
Ideally the easiest option might be to work from existing models to add a JU88 S-3 in the future. The nose was streamlined and the gondola gun position removed. Loadout was lightened and only one defending gun was used.
The A17 is half way there already.

Building a late war mission in FMB, the A4 just seems out of it's place.

The above is a suggestion not a demand.

IceFire 07-09-2013 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baddington_VA (Post 506497)
Ideally the easiest option might be to work from existing models to add a JU88 S-3 in the future. The nose was streamlined and the gondola gun position removed. Loadout was lightened and only one defending gun was used.
The A17 is half way there already.

Building a late war mission in FMB, the A4 just seems out of it's place.

The above is a suggestion not a demand.

True! From what I've read, many of the KG squadrons were picking up a variety of aircraft in it's place... the Me410 and Ju188 in small numbers. I think many units were simply disbanded as the emphasis switched to fighters and fighter-bombers.

EDIT: And having looked at the Ju88S... that might be interesting. Has the kind of difference and performance boost that could be useful.

gaunt1 07-09-2013 02:53 PM

Yes, a Ju-88S would be really nice, especially because its incredibly fast compared to other variants including night fighters (610 km/h+ at altitude)
Problem is lack of cockpit pictures. A Me-410 would be far better in the schnellbomber role, because its multifunctional.

Quote:

In terms of bang for our buck, what does the A-14 give us? Having a forward firing MG-FF is interesting (we have it in the torp version after all) but not immensely so. All I can see is that it has cable cutters and a MG-FF.
Yes, I agree with you. Of course the C-6 would be much better, but if its cockpit is lost, A-14 is the only variant that could be added to the game without much work. Other benefit would be that this variant had slightly more armor than the A-4.

IceFire 07-10-2013 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 506522)
Yes, a Ju-88S would be really nice, especially because its incredibly fast compared to other variants including night fighters (610 km/h+ at altitude)
Problem is lack of cockpit pictures. A Me-410 would be far better in the schnellbomber role, because its multifunctional.


Yes, I agree with you. Of course the C-6 would be much better, but if its cockpit is lost, A-14 is the only variant that could be added to the game without much work. Other benefit would be that this variant had slightly more armor than the A-4.

Ahh, well more armor can be useful certainly :)

Although the C-6 cockpit apparently was lost, if there was time to work on something then I'm sure it could be recreated. But yes... the Me410 is probably one of the best projects that could be worked on because you can get quite a few versions and variants including the bomber version without much modification between them.

Fighterace 07-10-2013 08:12 AM

Could you make the Ju-88C6 from scratch?

Grach 07-11-2013 07:58 AM

Wasn't there a Ju-88A4 (late) in the works at one point too? (No dive brakes and heavier defensive MG81Z armament and armour?)

I agree a C6 would be the most useful to have although an S1 would also be a treat!

gaunt1 08-27-2013 01:56 PM

Not a big deal, but I think the armament of Fw-200C3/U4 is still totally off.

1; defensive MGs: currently, the aircraft has one MG-FF and 5 MG-15s, but on the real C3/U4, the side and rear top machineguns were replaced by MG-131s.
solution: fix the armament, OR delete the /U4 suffix from the name.

2; bombload: Way too high. 50% of the loadout options are far above the real 2100 kg.

Pursuivant 08-28-2013 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 508717)
Not a big deal, but I think the armament of Fw-200C3/U4 is still totally off.

The Fw-200 is overdue for some attention. It was one of the earlier planes in the game and the model shows it.

If TD is still interested in the "anti-shipping strike fighter" aspect of the game, it would also be a natural to become a flyable plane. It would be the perfect Axis counterpart to the B-24D.

Jure_502 08-28-2013 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pursuivant (Post 508725)
The Fw-200 is overdue for some attention. It was one of the earlier planes in the game and the model shows it.

If TD is still interested in the "anti-shipping strike fighter" aspect of the game, it would also be a natural to become a flyable plane. It would be the perfect Axis counterpart to the B-24D.

+1

gaunt1 08-28-2013 09:20 AM

Correct me if Im wrong, but I think someone modeled a cockpit for Fw-200 in the ancient times, but Oleg rejected it for some reason. Maybe TD has this cockpit?

Pursuivant 08-28-2013 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 508731)
Correct me if Im wrong, but I think someone modeled a cockpit for Fw-200 in the ancient times, but Oleg rejected it for some reason. Maybe TD has this cockpit?

That would be a start, but you'd also have to model all the other crew stations. So, multiply the work for a single seat plane by at least 5.

IceFire 08-29-2013 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaunt1 (Post 508731)
Correct me if Im wrong, but I think someone modeled a cockpit for Fw-200 in the ancient times, but Oleg rejected it for some reason. Maybe TD has this cockpit?

There were also cockpits for the B-29 and possibly a few others. I remember Oleg saying that the models were not easily importable into the game engine (didn't follow the rules) and that the team would basically have to rebuild from scratch rather than try and fiddle with them to make it work.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.