Wing

You are quoting historical missions. That is not the say all. I was in Guam and in the Persian Gulf launching/recovering missions. Examples are given above in simple YT videos. For the love of God, stop arguing something that you literally have no experience at all with. And ontop of that, not recognizing this.

Again, please explain why you are so caught up on map size? I truly dont get it with you guys, other than just plain ignorance. Maps with applicability real world to B52 ops... DCS Nevada: DCS Persian Gulf: DCS Mariana Islands: I can continue to give thousands of examples, with combat/training mission history all launched/recovered within the dimensions of current and future DCS maps to come... But this is truly beating a dead horse at this point, and those that would rather be ignorant will always be as so.

B52s operate in the current map sizes real world. So again, quit spreading false narratives. Thanks! At this point, especially with this biased/uneducated poll, you are borderline trolling…

This has literally already been done... Quit spamming polls. And search the forum P.S. your poll options - are entirely biased and uneducated. Nice attempt tho!

This link (the poll shows interest): And the current DCS C130 mod community say otherwise. Also when it comes to the multicrew functionality of a B52 specifically, there are work arounds for lack of player crew slots. I.E. you can get away with a PILOT, and RNAV multicrew for a sortie, with the remaining crew stations AI controlled. Instead of being closed minded, why not have some faith for some sort of Heavy module someday? I dont get it with you keyboard warriors. Especially those that enjoy telling real world SMEs that worked the BUFF, that the current map sizes are not realistic. Gets exhausting with you guys...

Same was said about the F14 multicrew. Quit being a debby downer, and have faith.

It is not about whether or not ED will do it. We are more hopeful for a 3rd party to take on a Heavy module project.

Anything heavy/multicrew would be promising at this point...

Yeah, emulators seem a bit too laggy for me tho...

Really just a matter of a 3rd party becoming brave, and pursuing a heavy module for DCS. From my understanding at this point, THAT is all we are waiting on!

I am feeling fine, just dont make false claims of "Your points are valid for the B52 though " when you have literally no idea what you are actually talking about.

Almost like irl, Aircrew does not always launch with max fuel load or something... People just have this perceived motion that the B52 does not get utilized in a modern JTAC mission set. Getting frustrated seeing how misrepresented it is here by the community.

No, my personal experience in the Persian Gulf proves my point. Appreciate your false insight tho. Adds literally nothing to the conversation.

Also want to emphasize to EVERYONE here... as I am so sick and tired of hearing this. DCS MAP SIZES ARE NOT TOO SMALL for B52 OPS... Real world missions take place, and use the full capability of the aircraft in theatre launching & recovering all within the Persian Gulf map area/span. We saw it a couple years ago on deployment, DAILY. Regardless of the mission set that we were tasked with in the Middle East, and the countless JDAM strikes my deployment helped produce for continuous missions while my squadron was in the Persian Gulf - you guys are trying to tell everyone that is unable to be simulated in a simulator like DCS because the B52 was originally labeled a strategic bomber with strategic air command nuke missions 60 years ago? GET REAL. And stop posting this fallacy. Thanks! @Rick50 @bies @Svsmokey

Thats the issue tho, you are comparing apples to oranges. How does your comparison that a B52 cant "strategically" fulfill its "legacy" (whatever that is, because BUFFS have been doing missions other than 30+hr sorties since they were invented), within the DCS environment? You are reaching for anything you can on the vine, and continue to come back to map size being the main inhibitor preventing the user from experiencing the B52(H) model. Heck, they even trained back in the original days of the B52 to fly nap of the earth SAM avoidance tactical strikes. It has NEVER been COMPLETELY ALL ABOUT 30+hr nuclear mission strikes against Soviet Russia. So what "LEGACY" are you trying to find in the B52H that is not able to experience in DCS, that overrules making such an aircraft relevant in the DCS environment? We also need to keep in mind that we are talking about a jet that has a HUGE lifespan. Models differ ATON, but G and H model BUFFs are what would be most appealing to the DCS system ecosystem and customer base. Here’s another mission set example from G models several decades ago... `B-52Gs operating from the King Abdullah Air Base at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, RAF Fairford in the United Kingdom, Morón Air Base, Spain, and the island of Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territory flew bombing missions over Iraq, initially at low altitude.` Just going to continue to copy paste these replies, as its the same song and dance around here these days with "oh my, DCS is too small for a B52"... Give me a break. P.S. Strategic bombing does not mean 30hr mission durations/range.

Currently have a unused MS Surface sitting on my desk. Would I be able to use this app, or will there ever be functionality for a MS Surface windows tablet?

Would there ever be functionality to simply "copy paste" predetermined coordinates from a mission briefing into this program as well?

I am very aware of what distribution statements mean, and what documents are able to be released. Appreciate the feedback tho!

I would take the USMC Litening as thats actually factual to the DCS Hornets timeframe. To each his own tho...

The can of worms will open up again due to this... which is why we should keep things realistic to what was "OPERATIONAL" irl. ATFLIR was not operational for a 2005 Hornet. So this may be some "juju" so to speak

"The Marine Corps is at a crucial crossroads in its constant effort to remain technologically relevant. Currently, Marine F/A-18 Hornets are not authorized to employ laser-guided bombs (LGBs) when illuminating a target with its NITEHAWK targeting pod, due to the pod’s low fidelity and increased chances of target misidentification. As a remedy, the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as F/A-18 air forces around the world, are in the process of selecting and integrating a new targeting pod. The contenders are the LITENING AT, in service with Marine AV-8B squadrons, and the Advanced Tactical Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pod, in service with Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet squadrons. Current plans have the Marine expeditionary (land-based D model) Hornets slated to receive the LITENING AT, while the Marine carrier-based (A+ and C) Hornets will receive the ATFLIR. However, the Marine Corps should equip its carrier-based F/A-18s with the LITENING AT instead of the ATFLIR because the LITENING AT is equally capable, less costly, and more quickly available." As per a 2006 DOD report. Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a498288.pdf

Is it true, that the (ATFLIR) pod, was ONLY in service with Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet squadrons during the time period that the DCS Hornet is supposed to be simulating? Therefore - we technically should not even have the ATFLIR pod for our DCS Hornet currently... as during that era only Super Hornets had the ATFLIR TGP operational? Please correct me if so, I am not certain on this.

CH Products rudder pedals

@Beamscannerwhy are you not hired by ED, and implementing this into the DCS core yet?

Beautiful