View Poll Results: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • B-17

    16 76.19%
  • B-24

    5 23.81%
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

  1. #1
    Ace Mysticpuma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Worcestershire, UK
    Posts
    4,793
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    1.05 GB

    If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    I do hope that TFS manage to get to TF6, even if it is to add a US four engine bomber either B-17 or B-24, a P-51B/C and a P-47 Razorback (along with a few others no doubt).

    One thing that CloD does really well is Multiplayer code and as such the addition of a Bomber could open up a huge new aspect of flight simming especially if an easy access Co-Op interface is added.

    I say B-24 or B-17 becuase CloD has the possibility of running large bomber streams and if a P-51B/C or P47 Razorback could be created in conjunction with a four engine bomber.....a lot of players would be greatly excited, especially if they could man the turrets, bomb aimer, navigation, engineer,gunners, pilot and co-pilot positions.

    I imagine a group of Ai bombers and 5-6 human crews among them. One long bomber mission, Ai enemy and flak and getting to the target, being damaged and working as a team to try and get back. Should this be done online, against human players, they would not know which of the bomber stream contained the human crews and this would add a level of cat and mouse to any attack. The thought of a team playing as a bomber crew along with a large formation of Ai almost opens up a huge new window of opportunity for players who want to Co-Op a single bomber playing all parts of the crew together, as a team.

    With that in mind, which four engine bomber would you prefer if TF6 ever gets greenlit? B-17 or B-24? Cheers, MP
    "The needs of the Flight Sim Community outweigh the needs of the one or the few"

  2. #2
    Team Fusion Cybermat47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    2.63 GB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Lancaster

    Download the Blood in the Skies 1 mission pack here: https://theairtacticalassaultgroup.c...downloadid=106

  3. #3
    Manual Creation Group ATAG_Vampire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Lincolnshire, ENGLAND
    Posts
    1,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    95.47 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cybermat47 View Post
    Lancaster
    +1

    No contest. It would have to be the Lancaster.

    07
    "We are still masters of our fate. We are still captain of our souls." - Winston Churchill

    My Rig: CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz Quard -Core Processor, Motherboard: Asus ROG MAXIMUS VIII HERO ALPHA ATX LGA1151, RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4x 8GB) DDR4- 3000
    Video Card:MSI GeForce GTX 1080 8GB GAMING X 8G OS: Windows 10

    Joystick: Virpil T50 Base with T50 Mongoose stick Throttle: Virpil T50 VPC HOTAS Monitor: Asus ROG Swift PG348Q Ultawide Rudder Pedals: Slaw Device RF DORA

  4. Likes ATAG_Laser, 9./JG52 Meyer liked this post
  5. #4
    Combat pilot Ekko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by cybermat47 View Post
    lancaster :-p
    +1

    b-17
    Last edited by Ekko; Feb-11-2019 at 06:18.
    Even a blind mosquito can find a lover

  6. Likes 9./JG52 Meyer liked this post
  7. #5
    Novice Pilot
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    53
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    954.13 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    one more Lancaster

  8. Likes 9./JG52 Meyer liked this post
  9. #6
    Manual Creation Group ATAG_Marlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Marlow, Buckinghamshire, England
    Posts
    866
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    As an Englishman, I would love to see the Lancaster in game but, being greedy, it would be great to have a B17 also, to keep our American friends happy. This is probably a huge ask because wouldn't the work involved be colossal? Salute!

  10. Likes ATAG_Kulea, Gingerbread liked this post
  11. #7
    Team Fusion ATAG_Pattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,137
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    276.76 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Most of us Aussies would go the Lanc too I reckon, but day time missions B17 for mine.

    I would be happy for the TFS magic wand to bring out both.

    I too hope 5.0 smashed it out in the market and future theatres become the norm for years to come.

  12. Likes ATAG_Kulea, ATAG_Vampire liked this post
  13. #8
    ATAG Member ATAG_Snarglepuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Lethbridge, Alberta Canada
    Posts
    373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    In keeping with the historical time frame of our current maps and the soon to come North African ones, my vote would be B24.
    The RAF did have access to some B17s in 1941 and did attempt a raid on Wilhelmshaven. The B24 was available during
    the North African campaign and was used to bomb Tobruk and (I believe) Bengazi. It was also used to good effect by Coastal Command
    during the same time frame.

    The huge 8th Air Force penetrations into Germany as well as the Bomber Command night time raids took hours upon hours to complete.
    I do not see any of us having the time to sit through a 6 to 10 hour raid online. It may be possible to have players come and go as a raid progresses
    ie. jumping into a bomber over the North Sea and popping back in over Breman after dinner.....but in the mean time......short transit time and
    quick action pays the bills.....

  14. Likes ATAG_Kulea, ATAG_Knight, ATAG_Marlow, Kayo liked this post
  15. #9
    ATAG Member ATAG_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Great Yarmouth UK
    Posts
    825
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    201.55 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Lancaster for me, but I also love the B17

  16. #10
    Novice Pilot
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    53
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    954.13 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by ATAG_Snarglepuss View Post
    In keeping with the historical time frame of our current maps and the soon to come North African ones, my vote would be B24.
    Yeah, right but... four Merlins, FOUR Merlins!

    Ok you are of course right, Liberator in Coastal skin for all the Wimpy cannot do!

  17. #11
    TF Leadership RAF74_Buzzsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    9,339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    306.59 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    First I would say that we need to see that TF 5.0 is a success.

    2nd, hopefully everyone understands creating a 4 engined bomber is a HUGE task and would take a long time.

    So while MP may go ahead and post his poll, it is not official, TF will not be bound by it, and there are no guarantees.

    Re. Historical use:

    Both B-17's and B-24's were used in the Desert and Mediterranean in late 1942 and 1943.

    B-17's were also used on the Channel front... around the time of the Dieppe Raid... first raid August 17th of 1942. Raid was relatively short ranged... inside the dimensions of existing map.

    The first daylight attacks on the Ruhr by B-17's were escorted by RAF P-51A's... the only aircraft with the range... although they had poor performance at higher altitude.
    Last edited by RAF74_Buzzsaw; Feb-11-2019 at 18:14.

  18. Likes Gingerbread liked this post
  19. #12
    ATAG Member ATAG_Flare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Interior BC --> Kingston ON
    Posts
    2,491
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1
    Total Downloaded
    315.55 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Another vote for the Lanc of course Halifax would be fun to see as well.

  20. #13
    Ace Mysticpuma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Worcestershire, UK
    Posts
    4,793
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    1.05 GB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw View Post
    First I would say that we need to see that TF 5.0 is a success.

    2nd, hopefully everyone understands creating a 4 engined bomber is a HUGE task and would take a long time.

    So while MP may go ahead and post his poll, there are no guarantees.

    Re. Historical use:

    Both B-17's and B-24's were used in the Desert and Mediterranean in late 1942 and 1943.

    B-17's were also used on the Channel front... around the time of the Dieppe Raid... first raid August 17th of 1942. Raid was relatively short ranged... inside the dimensions of existing map.

    The first daylight attacks on the Ruhr by B-17's were escorted by RAF P-51A's... the only aircraft with the range... although they had poor performance at higher altitude.
    Just asking
    "The needs of the Flight Sim Community outweigh the needs of the one or the few"

  21. #14
    Team Fusion
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    142
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    607.63 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Lanc

  22. Likes ATAG_Flare liked this post
  23. #15
    Manual Creation Group
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Heidelberg
    Posts
    795
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    197.20 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Just my 2 cents:
    Yes 5.0 will be a tremendous success and we will have 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 and so on

    This said:
    Considering how many different stations would have to be created for a 4 engine bomber, I'd rather have them as AI only. As far as I understand, if you want a B-17 with 10 crew it takes about as many hours for creation as 10 different single seat fighters.
    Yes, it would be great to have one, but maybe as a seperate (paid for?) add-on/patch , once there is some spare time, not central to a normal new release.

    As flyable I would love a Marauder or (even more) a Mitchell. Medium bombers that saw a lot of action, with a lot of punch and only half the crew. Also I think medium bombers offer more posibilities for mission builders, online and offline.

    If I may speculate that CloD is going to expand in a rather logical way to Sicily and Italy, then for allies only Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Lightnings and (hopefully) Mossies would be needed, plus the later versions of Spitfires.
    For the blue side it would be the 109 G and different FW 190 versions.
    This is quite a lot already ...

  24. Likes farley, ATAG_Flare, ATAG_Marlow liked this post
  25. #16
    Supporting Member BOO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    5 mins from the Red Arrows, 1 min from a good pub.
    Posts
    2,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    5
    Total Downloaded
    982.32 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by DerDa View Post
    Just my 2 cents:
    Yes 5.0 will be a tremendous success and we will have 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 and so on

    This said:
    Considering how many different stations would have to be created for a 4 engine bomber, I'd rather have them as AI only. As far as I understand, if you want a B-17 with 10 crew it takes about as many hours for creation as 10 different single seat fighters.
    Yes, it would be great to have one, but maybe as a seperate (paid for?) add-on/patch , once there is some spare time, not central to a normal new release.

    As flyable I would love a Marauder or (even more) a Mitchell. Medium bombers that saw a lot of action, with a lot of punch and only half the crew. Also I think medium bombers offer more posibilities for mission builders, online and offline.

    If I may speculate that CloD is going to expand in a rather logical way to Sicily and Italy, then for allies only Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Lightnings and (hopefully) Mossies would be needed, plus the later versions of Spitfires.
    For the blue side it would be the 109 G and different FW 190 versions.
    This is quite a lot already ...

    I know nothing of the dark arts but i do remember reading a comment by Jason Williams about the BOX Spitfire V in which he said something like "we considered using the Clod model but...yadeya".

    That being the case I presume a 3Dmodel is a 3Dmodel and can be imported into pretty much anything. So given the majority of the Med and Italian Theatre 109s and 190s basically exist already and that good chunks of P38, P47 and P51s will also exist within BOX AND that both titles are owned by the same set up, unnessesary duplication of the same basic airframes seems rather futile if there is no other good reason for it.

    Going on from there and as MP points out, CLOD is good at netcode. Something BOX isnt, at least at this stage. So there is perhpas some sense in developing medium to heavy aircraft for primary use within the Clod engine where the calcs and the numbers can be handled. An AI or full version of could also be used in a more limited way with BOX.

    But a single heavy is one hell of a task. As derda points out the mediums would be more flexible and more in line with the mission durations the majority of players fly online and off. Here again BOX will have a B25 in AI from the off.

    All this said, I never saw JU88s, Bennis or 111s stacked full of breathers in every position despite the ability to do so within Clod for years. So i doubt sommat silver will change that on MP as is dreamed. The possibly of a mixed breather/AI co-op mission is an intruging possiblity that some squad players may find to be an appealing alternative to the usual squad night action though although again i think its appeal would be limited.

    Perhaps there is some secret master plan in resource/talent sharing in the ClodBox multiverse that already has this in mind - i hope so. Sadly i rather think Mr Copyright may stamp all over that dream.
    My Rig: Samsung 40" TV, Asus Z170 Pro Gaming Mobo, I5 6600K @ 4.4Ghz on a Coolermaster 212 Evo, MSI GTX1080 Gaming X, 16B Vengeance DDR4 RAM @3000Mhz, Couple of meh SSDs, Corsair 550W CX PSU, MFG Crosswinds, TM WH Throttle, Virpil Mongoose T50CM w/100mm extension, TIR5, EDtracker pro.


    " Better a thorn on the outside than a prick on the inside"

  26. #17
    TF Leadership RAF74_Buzzsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    9,339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    306.59 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by BOO View Post
    I know nothing of the dark arts but i do remember reading a comment by Jason Williams about the BOX Spitfire V in which he said something like "we considered using the Clod model but...yadeya".

    That being the case I presume a 3Dmodel is a 3Dmodel and can be imported into pretty much anything. So given the majority of the Med and Italian Theatre 109s and 190s basically exist already and that good chunks of P38, P47 and P51s will also exist within BOX AND that both titles are owned by the same set up, unnessesary duplication of the same basic airframes seems rather futile if there is no other good reason for it.

    Going on from there and as MP points out, CLOD is good at netcode. Something BOX isnt, at least at this stage. So there is perhpas some sense in developing medium to heavy aircraft for primary use within the Clod engine where the calcs and the numbers can be handled. An AI or full version of could also be used in a more limited way with BOX.

    But a single heavy is one hell of a task. As derda points out the mediums would be more flexible and more in line with the mission durations the majority of players fly online and off. Here again BOX will have a B25 in AI from the off.

    All this said, I never saw JU88s, Bennis or 111s stacked full of breathers in every position despite the ability to do so within Clod for years. So i doubt sommat silver will change that on MP as is dreamed. The possibly of a mixed breather/AI co-op mission is an intruging possiblity that some squad players may find to be an appealing alternative to the usual squad night action though although again i think its appeal would be limited.

    Perhaps there is some secret master plan in resource/talent sharing in the ClodBox multiverse that already has this in mind - i hope so. Sadly i rather think Mr Copyright may stamp all over that dream.
    - 3D models are not the same over all games... CoD's 3D models differ considerably from those in BoX... in particular for the internals and damage modeling which are more complex. The only thing which might be similar is the outer shell... but that is only a small part of the overall model.

    - the CoD engine is very good at netcode... and we are able to support large numbers of aircraft online... we can do BoB scenarios, so there is nothing to prevent us from doing a later war mass aircraft scenario like the USAAF in the Med or the Channel front.

    - if we did a B-17/B-24, we would not make all the gunner's positions mannable... (we are not making the waist gunner positions mannable in the Wellington IC) ...too much work. Would do the rear turret, nose turret, ball turret and upper turret. There is actually not that much difference in the workload between doing a B-17/B-24 and a B-25/B-26 when you limit the number of manned turrets... a Boston III/A-20 is less.

    - we won't be doing a Lancaster for TF 6.0... apologies to all those who want one, but the Lancaster was used almost exclusively at night, and our night environment is not where we want it now.

  27. #18
    ATAG Member ATAG_Highseas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Peurto del Slade, UK
    Posts
    5,187
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    526.76 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    How about a Four Engined Autogyro?

    a boaty one that floats on water.

    one engine up front

    One pusher at the back...

    and then a couple of outboard motors for the "floatyboaty" element.


    I have done some crayon blue prints....

    which i am happy to post.


    - ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-E - i7-8700k - ASUS GTX 1080 Ti ROG STRIX OC - 32GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3000MHz -
    - CORSAIR 850W RMx Series PSU - Noctua NH-U14S CPU Cooler -
    - Virpil T50 Mongoos with Warthog Grip plus Extension Set -
    - TM Warthog Throttle -
    - Slaw Device 109 Cam Rudder Pedals -
    - HighseasPeripherals(tm) - Engine Switch Panel - Munitions Switch Panel - Throttle Quadrant Trim Box - Helicopter Collective - Analogue Brake Lever -

    (Operated by a 1972 Standard Issue Talking Monkey)

  28. #19
    Manual Creation Group III./ZG76_Ezzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Short stirling anyone...? Anyone....

    Might off on a tangent but i wonder if a B-25 might be a better option noting this is a wishful thinking thread? Has all the same sort of features as the -17/24 less 2 engines (ie multicrew, bomb sight, turrets etc) and flew a wider range of sortie types. Add the 75 mm antiship gun (-25J?) and lots of fun perhaps.

    Ezzie

    Edit - ooops didnt see der da's earlier post before i posted. I agree with der da re mediums!
    Last edited by III./ZG76_Ezzie; Feb-12-2019 at 02:57.

  29. #20
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    377
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by ATAG_Vampire View Post
    +1

    No contest. It would have to be the Lancaster.

    07
    +100

  30. #21
    Team Fusion Werwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    84
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    162.28 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?


  31. #22
    Veteran Combat pilot Hurricane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    South West Wales
    Posts
    359
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    1.51 GB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Stirling
    Halifax
    Lancaster


    Mike.
    Last edited by Hurricane; Mar-21-2019 at 19:31. Reason: My spelling is bollocks
    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

  32. #23
    Supporting Member IIJG27Rich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,665
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    29.63 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    B-17

    Even though it's impossible to shoot down without 30 mms
    "It's not pretty. It's not "your girlfriend". It's not comfortable.....but it is extremely cool"

  33. #24
    ATAG Member ATAG_Flare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Interior BC --> Kingston ON
    Posts
    2,491
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1
    Total Downloaded
    315.55 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by IIJG27Rich View Post
    B-17

    Even though it's impossible to shoot down without 30 mms
    It could be done.

    I remember seeing that a rule of thumb was that for a fighter you needed 1 or 2 30mm hits to bring it down, or ~5 20mm hits. For a bomber it was more like 5 30mm hits or 20-30 20mm hits.

  34. #25
    Team Fusion Werwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    84
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    162.28 MB

    Re: If they ever get to TF6 what four engine bomber would you prefer?

    Quote Originally Posted by ATAG_Flare View Post
    It could be done.

    I remember seeing that a rule of thumb was that for a fighter you needed 1 or 2 30mm hits to bring it down, or ~5 20mm hits. For a bomber it was more like 5 30mm hits or 20-30 20mm hits.
    I think in fact that was from a Luftwaffe study.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •