B17 looks too small

[Lion Heart]

so yea whats up with the B17? it looks tiny, i get that they dont want to have the same kind of payload as the real one but it seriously looks a bit stupid, a bigger bomb bay would be so much better. the Flying Fortress should be big and beastly. i mean it has a larger crew and more guns in the game so why keep the bomb payload so small that it looks like a stunted idiot?

[static]

The B-17 was only slightly larger (~6 feet longer, wingspan 1 foot wider) than the Lancaster.

The Lancaster was a bit heavier and had a much greater bomb capacity, being able to carry 14,000lbs of bombs without breaking a sweat, while the B-17 typically carried between 4,500-8,000lbs of bombs depending on the length of the mission.

[Lion Heart]

Originally posted by static:

The B-17 was only slightly larger (~6 feet longer, wingspan 1 foot wider) than the Lancaster.

The Lancaster was a bit heavier and had a much greater bomb capacity, being able to carry 14,000lbs of bombs without breaking a sweat, while the B-17 typically carried between 4,500-8,000lbs of bombs depending on the length of the mission.

im not comparing it to the Lancaster. i was saying that the B17 in the game looks smaller than it should

[Crawdad]

Both bomber models are scaled innacurately, to be fair. If this were a simulation game in which game play were focused on the managing the aircraft-- for example,War Thunder-- a short and stumpy B-17 would be problematic.

This game is more focused on managing the Crew. Which is why the Devs chose the "bobble-head" look for the crew; they appear larger and are thus easier to click on than if they were anatomically correct. For much the same reason, the Devs chose to render the in-game planes short and stumpy relative to their real-life counter parts. For a properly-scaled plane to entirely fit, nose to tail, within the screen while in internal view, the camera (or player's viewpoint) would have to be set farther away from the plane. The crew would appear even smaller and thus be harder to manage in a hectic situation. True, you could--just as you can now--zoom in even further to make local crew management easier, but doing so means losing sight of what's going on in the rest of the aircraft.

So, since they decided to condense the scale of the B17 for sake of gameplay, they then had to decide which section of the plane to shorten. All while cramming in: 9 crew stations; 7 gun positions; 4 equipment racks; the hydraulic, electrical, and oxygen systems; the first aid station; Bomb bay; and escape hatches. Mind you, judging from the video they even couldn't find room for the ammo box, and have placed smaller ones next to the guns themselves. So that's probably why the bomb bay looks tiny; it was the next logical place to cut after nixing the co-pilot, omitting the chin turret and radio operator's gun, and sorting the ammo problem.

The one thing they could have done would have been to: shorten the radio room, and place the first aid station across the central corridor from the radioman's station. But that would have placed the radioman too close to the aid station, which would have led to players accidentally selecting the radioman instead of sending wounded crew to heal. So basically you wind up with more dead crew and a worse UI, all for a nicer looking Bomb bay.

[REAPER]

They need to buff these things because they are sucking

[static]

To be fair, only the last version of the B-17 (G) had a remotely operated chin turret as standard equipment, and Bomber Crew is choosing to depict an earlier version (early F model) that still relied on the famous “cheek guns” in the nose. It’s not exactly an omission by the developers, more of a historical choice.

In terms of appearance, the B-17 F is the iconic version of the aircraft, partly due to the famous B-17F "Memphis Belle" being among the first US heavy bombers to survive its 25 mission tour of duty. The later G version was the most widely produced B-17 version, but achieved somewhat less fame among the public.

[Crawdad]

Originally posted by static:

To be fair, only the last version of the B-17 (G) had a remotely operated chin turret as standard equipment, and Bomber Crew is choosing to depict an earlier version (early F model) that still relied on the famous “cheek guns” in the nose. It’s not exactly an omission by the developers, more of a historical choice.

In terms of appearance, the B-17 F is the iconic version of the aircraft, partly due to the famous B-17F "Memphis Belle" being among the first US heavy bombers to survive its 25 mission tour of duty. The later G version was the most widely produced B-17 version, but achieved somewhat less fame among the public.

https://twitter.com/davemillerdev/status/1022150023671422979

Read the tweet. They initially tried to make it a G model, with chin turret; it was unworkable. Instead they went with an F model that has a G tail turret.

[static]

Originally posted by Crawdad:

Originally posted by static:

To be fair, only the last version of the B-17 (G) had a remotely operated chin turret as standard equipment, and Bomber Crew is choosing to depict an earlier version (early F model) that still relied on the famous “cheek guns” in the nose. It’s not exactly an omission by the developers, more of a historical choice.

In terms of appearance, the B-17 F is the iconic version of the aircraft, partly due to the famous B-17F "Memphis Belle" being among the first US heavy bombers to survive its 25 mission tour of duty. The later G version was the most widely produced B-17 version, but achieved somewhat less fame among the public.

https://twitter.com/davemillerdev/status/1022150023671422979

Read the tweet. They initially tried to make it a G model, with chin turret; it was unworkable. Instead they went with an F model that has a G tail turret.

The end result is the same: the DLC is essentially depicting the famous F model, with the addition of the Cheyenne tail turret. Nothing wrong with that in my book.