Jet Set ;)

[GeneralMatt]

Just to note that there are a lot of aircraft in Snafusmith's modern warfare mod, I am not sure how many jet bombers but there was a few.

 

[Wolfshanze]

The Tu-22M can be found in the Diversica mod and the Air Forces v0.3 mod. The modified B-1B-turned-Tu-160 can be found in the same Air Forces mod. The custom-made Tu-160 can be found in the MaxRigaModBTS.

Thanks for the info... I found all these units... though there's no "useable" Tu-160 IMHO... the B1 skin... is well... a B1 skin (not a Tu-160), and the Tu-160 model... well... it needs work!

I did get the rather nice Tu-22M though. Thanks.

Oh... and there's not much in Snafu's Modern Warfare mod for jet bombers... mostly just the B-52, Tu-95, Canberra and IL-28s.

 

[Xenomorph]

the B1 skin... is well... a B1 skin

There's also several small but noticeable differences between the two aircraft that people who are familiar with them will pick out (like the canards on the B-1)

Oh... and there's not much in Snafu's Modern Warfare mod for jet bombers... mostly just the B-52, Tu-95, Canberra and IL-28s.

I don't think the last two could be considered very "modern."

 

[Wolfshanze]

There's also several small but noticeable differences between the two aircraft that people who are familiar with them will pick out (like the canards on the B-1)

Well, you're probably quite right... my problem is that I'm a 20-years of service retired USAF veteran. I spent my whole life knowing the differance between things like B-1s and Tu-160s, so it's very, very noticeable and annoying to me to call a B-1 with a red-star on it a Tu-160... kinda like watching Iron Eagle II and seeing F-4 Phantoms with red stars on them called MiGs.

I can't in good concious put a red-star treated B-1 in my game and call it a Tu-160. That's just against everything I lived for in my career.

I don't think the last two could be considered very "modern."

Can't argue that... neither the Canberra or IL-28 are exactly young pups... but at least both were widespread exported and saw an extensive service life from the 50s to the 80s at the very least... which (in Civ4 game terms) makes them more suitable for use then a lot of other jet aircraft.

The Tu-16 and B-58 would probably be nice additions to Civ4 jet bombers, as both saw some extensive use and are a little newer then the Canberra and IL-28.

 

[asioasioasio]

So what units you propose for EARLY (late 40's and early 50's) Jet Bombers - I've put some on to do list but i want to know your proposition before i start working on them.

 

[Wolfshanze]

So what units you propose for EARLY (late 40's and early 50's) Jet Bombers - I've put some on to do list but i want to know your proposition before i start working on them.

Well the IL-28 was introduced in 1950 and the Canberra in 1951 and both saw widespread use... oh wait... we've already got those!

I'm at work right now, so I don't have a lot of time to ponder early jet bombers, but I'll do some digging later tonight.

I still like the Tu-16 (1954) and B-58 (1960). Of course if you don't like the B-58, you could always go with the B-47 (1951) which was a mainstay bomber of the 1950s.

 

[asioasioasio]

I have those 3 in plans (for 1939 Mod), the rest i would use is already available on the forum (IL_28, AR_234, HO_229, E_E_CANBERRA)

MARTIN_B_57 (change of texture of Canberra available on CFC)
YOKOSUKA_TENGA
BOEING_B_47_STRATOJET

 

[Wolfshanze]

Yeah... I didn't list the B-57 since it's just a license-built Canberra, and we already have the Canberra.

Here's another idea besides the Tu-16 Badger... you might try the B-4 Bison... first flew in 1955... an interesting bomber.

Some other early Soviet designs...
Yak-26, Yak-28

Early Western designs...
B-45 Tornado
B-70 Valkyrie

 

[Xenomorph]

Yeah... I didn't list the B-57 since it's just a license-built Canberra, and we already have the Canberra.

Here's another idea besides the Tu-16 Badger... you might try the B-4 Bison... first flew in 1955... an interesting bomber.

Some other early Soviet designs...
Yak-26, Yak-28

Early Western designs...
B-45 Tornado
B-70 Valkyrie

The problem with the M-4 was that it was a failure. It didn't have anywhere near the range of the Tu-95 due to excessive fuel consumption and only spent a few years as a bomber, later being converted to a tanker. They only built 93 units, whereas the Tu-95 has had more than 300 produced.
As for the Yak designed, the Yak-26 had only 10 units builts, and was a variant of the Yak-25 jet fighter. It'd suggest going with the Yak-28 instead, as there were over 400 units built in a bomber configuration (Yak-28B/28L/28I), reconnaissance (Yak-28R), EW (Yak-28PP), interceptor (Yak-28P), and trainer (Yak-28U). The Russians sure got their money's worth out of the design.

As an alternative to experimental aircraft (XB-70) or quickly replaced bombers (B-45), why not some other nations aircraft, like the Sud-Ouest S.O. 4050 Vautour, the Blackburn Buccaneer, any of the three V-bombers (Avro Vulcan, Vickers Valiant, or H.P. Victor), or the Dassault Mirage IV. While the S.O. 4050 is the only one there that was actually produced in numbers during the '50s, most of the other ones were being designed and tested during the mid to late '50s.
If you want to expand your definition of 'bomber' to include strike fighters and fighter-bombers, I have several other suggestions.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Hey, I wasn't saying my list was exclusive and MUST be used... he asked for suggestions, I threw a few out there. By no means was my list the only list or one that must be used... he asked for suggestions, I threw a few out.

As for the M-4 Bison, how can you say "only 93 built" is not important? Do you have any idea how many B-1 bombers America has in service? He asked for EARLY Jet Bombers... the M-4 Bison may not have had the longevity of the B-52 or Tu-95, but it was important for awhile, and earlier then most other aircraft. Heck, the M-4 Bison had a longer life of service then a lot of Civ4 aircraft models already out.

As for the Tu-95... why talk about it? We already have it for Civ4.

I find the B-70 intriguing because of possibilities... other experimental aircraft have been created for Civ-4, I only listed it as a cool option that someone might not have thought of.

Anyways, he asked for suggestions, I gave a few, and tried to keep it to earlier aircraft (even the B-70 was proposed in the 1950s, though it didn't fly till later).

You offered some good suggestions too... I like the Buccaneer and Vulcan.

 

[Xenomorph]

Sorry, I didn't mean to seem an ass. I really love my aircraft and prefer to see ones that saw full use.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Sorry, I didn't mean to seem an ass. I really love my aircraft and prefer to see ones that saw full use.

Depends on your definition of "full use"... the M-4 was in-service longer then the Me262 for instance... yet everyone loves having the Me262... It also matches his request for early 1950s bombers.

 

[asioasioasio]

Thx for all your sugestions

About M-4 - i think to early cold war scenario better fits Il-28. The great plus of Il-28 is it's popularity - it saves tones of works for many minor countries and i don't need to do it because it's already made

Reading all your suggestions i see this list 'todo' like this:
MARTIN_B_57 (change of texture of Canberra available on CFC- both units would save a lot of work for minor o****ries)
YOKOSUKA_TENGA - it was prototype (if i'm correct only on paper) but i need something for mod in case the japan won't loose the war.
BOEING_B_47_STRATOJET - popular
SUD_AVIATION_VAUTOUR - i think French should have something unique like rest of mayour countries

Perhaps in future i (or someone else) would like to make other units from this list of your suggestions.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Thx for all your sugestions

About M-4 - i think to early cold war scenario better fits Il-28. The great plus of Il-28 is it's popularity - it saves tones of works for many minor countries and i don't need to do it because it's already made

Understood on the "already made" thing...

Dang... as a 20-year Air Force man, I can't help but notice the huge differance between a 4-engine long-range strategic bomber like the M-4 Bison, vs the 2-engine short-range medium bomber that is the IL-28. They fill completely differant roles, and the M-4 Bison may not have been the long-term solution for the Soviets but it was a critical aircraft for them during the early Cold War and filled a very important role (that the smaller IL-28 was not designed for).

Not arguing, but just comparing a similar line-of-thought... in an early cold-war scenario, to not create the M-4 Bison because you already have the IL-28 is like saying "well, I won't create the B-17 bomber because we already have the B-25". Yes, the IL-28 and M-4 are both early Cold War jet bombers, but they filled completely differant roles.

Plus, that's just cool...

M-4 Bison


For what it's worth, I still like the thought of making the Tu-16 as well...

Tu-16 Badger

It was used in a lot of countries besides the Soviet Union... and how can 1,507 Tu-16s be ignored? (not counting the licenced copies the Chinese made).

Why do I push for the M-4 or the Tu-16?

Because so-far as I know, we're missing true heavy bombers of the jet age... we have models for (to my knowledge):
B-52
B-1
B-2
Tu-22M
Tu-95 (not a jet though)

Three Western/American heavy strategic jet bombers and only one Eastern/Soviet heavy strategic jet bomber. The Canberras and IL-28s are short-range medium bombers. The M-4 and Tu-16 fit in roles that all the other models existing or proposed don't fill, especially for the early Cold War (unless you're just going to use the Tu-22M, but it's a much-later development then the M-4 or Tu-16).

Oh well... it's your time and your talent... certainly it's your choice what to work on... I lack the ability to make it, so I'll go sit in my corner and be quiet!

 

[Xenomorph]

Dang... as a 20-year Air Force man, I can't help but notice the huge differance between a 4-engine long-range strategic bomber like the M-4 Bison, vs the 2-engine short-range medium bomber that is the IL-28. They fill completely differant roles, and the M-4 Bison may not have been the long-term solution for the Soviets but it was a critical aircraft for them during the early Cold War and filled a very important role (that the smaller IL-28 was not designed for).

A role that the Tu-95 filled instead. They entered service very close to each other, and the original M-4 was soon converted to the M-4-2 in-flight refueler, which wasn't withdrawn from service until 1994.

Three Western/American heavy strategic jet bombers and only one Eastern/Soviet heavy strategic jet bomber.

The Tu-95 may not be jet, but it is a turboprop, which is nothing more than a turbojet with a gearbox attached to the turbine. Turboprops are popular because they have even better fuel economy than a turbofan, and even with the top speed limit imposed by their use of props, the Tu-95 had a comparable speed to the B-52, the Tu-95's contemporary. I know you're trying to give ideas for early long-range jet bombers, but I find it somewhat annoying that people keep discounting the 'Bear' just because it uses props rather than a straight jet engine. The role of early Soviet jet-bombers would be filled just fine by the Tu-95 and the addition of the Tu-16.

And there's one other Soviet bomber that everyone is neglecting... the Tu-22 'Blinder.' Don't be fooled by the name, it was a fairly different aircraft from the Tu-22M3 'Backfire.'

 

[Wolfshanze]

A role that the Tu-95 filled instead. They entered service very close to each other, and the original M-4 was soon converted to the M-4-2 in-flight refueler, which wasn't withdrawn from service until 1994.

I'm still trying to figure out why you have such a huge problem with someone adding/making an M-4 Bison aircraft for the game. You seem to go out of your way to shoot down the idea at every opportunity, yet there are plenty of less-used, hypothetical, fewer-produced, aircraft models that already exist for Civ4 then the M-4 Bison.

Why not ask that the less-used models that already exist be removed from the database instead of campaigning so hard to prevent the M-4 Bison from being created?

What's wrong with having more models... if you don't like it so bad, just don't download it if/when it becomes available.

 

[asioasioasio]

Calm down ppl

 

[Ekmek]

asioasioasio,

where are you getting your models from? any chance you can do these that I requested?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6277638&postcount=837

 

[asioasioasio]

I model them - i recommend starting tutoriaals - modelling isn't the thing it can be explain in couple of words (before starting to model i watched a lot tutorials).

There are aso tutorials on fanatics explaining much how to get units working in civ4 (animation setup in model etc) - i recommend sharick's one (it's for 3ds max, but you can use aldo free blender for modelling), but you need basics first.

I always can help you explaining harder parts and i encourege you to try

About those units - i don't recommend to use it - they are high poly (it is recommended to have less than 1000 triangles, but < 2000 could be acceptable)- couple of those units in game and your pc will sllllooooowwwww down

About creating them - i'm quite busy right now - working on some projects and request right now. Maybe i can take a look on predator, but i don't promise anything - if i would make it i would just put it to cfc.

 

[phungus420]

Yay for necros!!!

This is a great pack, all low poly beutifull units, and with buttons! Rock Asio, thanks for including the poly count and button.