Wing

I agree, and the votes/interest is there as shown here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=250491

Very nice to hear! Want this module to be the best, across the boards in DCS - because its a legendary one!

I’m failing to see how that makes sense. We can drop nukes via the Mig21 ingame, and we’re worried about the ESRB rating for this “simulator”?... I’m honestly confused.

I understand priorities, but come on. It’s a matter of uploading a higher resolution image to the module files. Sure I can change it myself, but with every F14 update, it reverts the wallpaper back to the low resolution HB wallpaper. I would just expect something a bit better fitting when it comes to the quality of this module!

The F-14 module has been out for quite sometime now, and as expressed... the main menu wallpaper really should be updated for various reasons/leaves alot to be desired. Why has this not been updated yet? Surely it isnt difficult to include a newer Heatblur DCS F14 high resolution image as official module wallpaper in the next update?

Cobra, or any other Heatblur devs, any new word on this? I with tons of others would love to purchase a Heatblur Jolly Rogers TShirt :)

The poll has been posted here, and results are showing some solid user interest: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=250491 Hopefully one day, this will be acknowledged with developer interest. Thanks to all that participated in this threads discussion! Its been a pleasure these last couple days!

Welp fellas, those of you that are heavy aircraft fans, I tried, I really did. Hopefully this poll will help show that there is true interest. Going to post this thread link into the official Discord as well, in hope it catches a developers attention. If this never happens, its the effort that counts. Hopefully sometime in the next 30 years, we will eventually get a heavy aircraft study sim set inside the DCS environment. Thanks to all that participated with these discussions on this topic. Its been a pleasure the last couple days!

As stated countless times already within this thread, we do not need a "world map" for realistic B1, or B52 flights to take place. The Persian Gulf and Nevada map both are large enough, and in real life flown within that span of what DCS has modeled in real world combat and training sorties.

Appreciate you being in agreement with that, for whatever reason it seems like a trend around here that people believe USAF bomber aircraft are always flying strategic long range flights, and not low altitude short duration tactical range flights aswell.

Posted a more general question of if ANY heavy aircraft would be welcomed as a DCS module: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=250491

Could be anything, from a B-58 Hustler, C-130, KC-135, B-52 or a B-1. This is just to get a feel if anyone would be open to purchasing ANY sort of heavy multicrew module. The other thread was confused with just a B52. This is asking on a broad scale, about the heavy aircraft idea in general for DCS. Keep in mind, a new developer team could step up and take the plate with this idea... it doesnt necessary need to take time away from ED development resources.

Refreshing to see someone who actually understands these bombers are not all about strategic flights/and mass bomb dropping these days. Thanks for your real world experience. Having these bombers in game is actually a very realistic thing...

This isn’t just about the B52. It’s heavy aircraft in general, and yes there’s tons of more feasible options out there besides B52s and B1s

Probably would be better to edit this poll/ask for opinions about heavy aircraft in general with multicrew, not just the B52. As that was originally the topic at hand, being about heavy aircraft modules in general.

See, and with this train of thought we need to ask ourselves what is DCS really trying to do then? I’ve always been under the impression that this was trying to be a study sim, with the intentions to make military flight as simulated as we can get currently with the technology that is out in this generation? So with that, are we going to cater to Tom Cruise, or the actual real experience of military combat sorties? There’s games out there that simulate uboat/submarine crew actions in combat. Sitting in the “dark bowls” of a submarine staring at gauges and panels as well. If those games can have a following and make it work, I don’t see how heavy aircraft can’t in DCS. Also with your money figures, and opinions, ALOT of these systems that are setup on other various crew positions in the heavy aircraft are ALREADY developed. We have numerous of these systems, gauges, and coding already produced but put into the smaller confines of a fighter cockpit. MFCDs showing TGP footage, radar, navigation, with the higher complexity of tuning gauges and knobs to go with it wouldn’t be much more of a stretch to add into the multicrew seat positions on various heavy aircraft. So I feel like you’re completely over estimating how much more expensive a heavy aircraft module would be... sure the airframe itself is on a larger scale, but a lot of the fundamentals still are going to stay the same, with the systems we already have coded for DCS. Yeah it’s a niche, but I always thought this game would never get to the point where it was catering to the “masses” with every module that gets approved.

Naw, I’m getting defensive because this doesn’t just have to be a B52. There are tons of easier developed heavy aircraft that could be done, with even less crew seats. But I get defensive when you blatantly claim that it would be boring to simulate these other air crew seats that are involved inside these heavy aircrafts. Which is entirely your opinion, even tho you have no realization of the actual teamwork involved of other crew positions within these larger jets. It’s not just a mouth drooling looking at a panel position, but with your logic, let’s just forget ever having hope of a multicrew heavy jet aircraft for DCS. Because it’s “too boring”, and “not worth it”. That’s why I get defensive. There’s TONS of workload, skill, and procedure to dive into with other crew seats. Even in the transports, I.E. C130, C17, KC135, ect. But naw, let’s just be ignorant to the fact that people actually enjoy other seats and duties inside aircraft besides being behind the yoke. The entire point of this thread was to really dive into the technical side of things, not blanket statements from people who have no real world experience, and think that air crew just sits there staring at a dark wall of panels falling asleep, the entire sortie duration.

"Protip" you stating that multicrew members wont be involved in cockpit, and just be sitting there staring at a "boring" panel also doesnt reflect EVERYONES opinion on what actually is exciting for their simulation experience. Also when you sit there and say that the other crew seats are boring in such aircraft, yet have no idea what the actual tasks and checklists other crew seats are responsibile for equal just blatant ignorance to those that actually carry out these duties/or would like to simulate these duties as a study sim for DCS scenarios. And I will say again, not just the B52 but other heavy aircraft as well, the non pilot seat slots can be just as much fun for people. As they are in real life as well. And yes, they are all crucially important/involved with the combat scenario...

Also I would argue, that there is actually TONS more tasks for the air crew to provide, and carry out compared to what the Heinkel provides in the WW2 theatre. As you can only be a "gunner" for so long. Each seat in these bomber aircraft are legitimate USAF career fields, with TONS of learning/techniques to get the crew "in sync" while under stressful combat situations. Considering they are all unique career fields, saying that the seats would be "boring" besides pilot, and copilot station is literally just ignorant tbh...

From what I have experienced IRL, the flight deck of a B52 is actually very involved, and every crew member is involved in the cockpit. Whether it be looking out the cockpit glass, the TGP MFCDs, or their NAV/Radar MFCDs. So yes, every seat is involved in the combat. Another blanket statement with no real world experience.

So refreshing to see someone who understands! Oh yes, I totally agree there are tons of other options for a bomber module to break into the heavy aircraft dev side of things for DCS.

I understand your point, but then again I think back to all the bomber sorties flown on IL2 with fully loaded Heinkels. 6 slots of people online per aircraft. And it seemed to work awesome, in turn was such an enjoyable experience. We had coordinated bomber flights each week where we would have a squadron full of loaded bombers take off in formation and do a 2hr mission. If IL2 can bring that enjoyment, why can’t DCS on a larger scale?

Also I fail to see how a B52 loitering for JTAC/Lases to drop 1 or 2 JDAMs on target through its targeting pod is not practical or useable? B52s dont carpet bomb hundreds of bombs these days, they are taking out strategic targets in the middle east with smart bombs/coordinates/lase. So as always, dont just sit here and put a blanket statement such as that over the aircraft... when its not even true to how the aircraft is being used real world.

Although yes I agree, there are tons of other heavies to focus on besides the B52. Dont forget that the B52 IRL operates at times within the span of the Nevada map for Red flag, and Green flag - and the Persian Gulf map, launching out of the South, and with flight paths to hit norther Iran. So the entire map size arguement IS NOT warthunder... and its getting exhausting hearing that as a main reason to heavies. Real world there are actual Buff flights taking place within the span of these DCS maps. The B52 isnt always some incredibly long range bomber that you guys like to imagine. Real world sorties lately with current conflicts have been short flight paths in the Middle East. I see it every time we deploy to Qatar. So that is one of the reasons why I made this thread, to create awareness of that... it IS realistic within the current map theatres that we have, and I am sure as this simulation matures even larger maps will eventually surface. KC135s, AWACS, C130s, ect. can all comfortably operate within these theatres as well, as they do IRL.

I feel like people would enjoy more of the onstation JTAC/Lase support with the targeting pod and smart bombs with the B52. Its not all about dropping hundreds of bombs... surely you know this.