Rick50

considering how incredibly demanding DCS customers are, would the buyers of said module... be just fine with two crew stations modeled? And let the remaining stations be purely AI controlled? Or would that create anger and animosity? Genuine question, because I'm not sure how buyers would react to that. Similarly, those mostly unused crew stations (in the game anyway, not real life), how much cost in development time and money, would be required? I think our best bet would be to draw heavy inspiration from the Anubis C-130J Super Hercules mod, which features detailed working cockpit, loadmaster station, copilot station, and I think a few other stations that can be manned... and make a very awesome mod. Sure, it would not model as many systems as a full fidellity paid module, but I bet it gets to a downloadable state in perhaps 1 year, and that then draws upon more people with skills to further develop systems and wpns to add to it. Plus since it's free, a lot more people would get it. If progress is amazing, then this might be worth then turning into the full paid module dev team... maybe.

Ok I edited the poll a bit, added a few more options too. I don't think it'll make anyone happy, but I did try.

Yes, that's a limitation of the forum polling function that I was unaware of when I made it.

I do think that some people in the very early stages WERE being honest, trying to find a cheap jet that could do the basics well with cheap stealth. But I also think a few involved were "yea just say whatever bedroom whispers it takes to get the politicians to buy it, get it going... we'll bolt on all the expensive and REALLY pricey stuff once it's too late to cancel!" So it's worth considering the state of mind of defense industry in the mid-90's: war seemed unlikely. Well, big wars anyway, little 3rd world civil wars were then of little interest to big defense contractors (so that seems to have changed a lot!). This is just a few years after the end of the Cold War, and after 'Murica Desert Stormed the sh1t out of the sandbox. So much of the public was wondering why we still needed to spend so much on the military. "surely we could cut back %25 and still be able to blast any enemy in just a week, be home in time for the weekend! Beer's on me!". Many probably wondered why the USAF had to have so many aircraft. And so expensive. So, with tech having proven itself the best and only edge needed (we know better these days, but in those days that was the common thought on the subject), why spend on expensive to repair and maintain older jets, when these guys over here promise a cheap little hotrod that does the important bits for less money and more stealth? That's... attractive. Of course, then the buyers get worried that if they don't stick their favorite system on the JSF, their system won't fly, won't get funding. So it gets stuck on the little jet. He was counting on his project to keep his career going. And to give him a nice bribe/kickback he can hide through his brother's construction company. And a nice post-military cushy job offer at the contractor/. Ten years later the JSF isn't so cheap anymore, and now it's carrying around everything but the kitchen sink. And now some desk jockey wants to put kitchen sinks on them too. Contractor knows all this extra is not only billable, but it's where he makes the best profits, so he just LOVES this. Add another decade, costs balloon... and you get to where we are today.

I wasn't doing the comparo, that's how the idea of the JSF was being marketed in around `1995 when it was nothing more than a few cool paintings. They also felt it would be cheaper to maintain too. I think the reason the "price per jet" contracts are all different in what support, parts, training is offered... is kept different for each customer, so as to fully conceal the true unit price of the product, from the deadliest enemy able to shoot down any jet 100%: the taxpayer.

Hardly. I was genuinely curious at what people actually want. And this is very early in this poll, the other one got 500 or so people voting over 2 years. I voted for the $250 all variants, I'm not trying to stop such a project. I'm just pessimistic about it getting to Early Access, I hope to be proven wrong. Not sure why that makes me the baddie, but so be it. One more consideration: by the time a BUFF is ready for EA, the maps might be large enough for full fuel mission, or even full global scenery. Maybe 7 years from now.

Then why didn't you step up to the plate and make your own "perfect poll" ? At least I tried. You want a B-52 module? Or a Hustler? Or anything else? Then hype it. Promote the idea. Make a better poll than mine, better than polls in the past. Start many mulitple polls with details you feel are relevant. Increase support, create a campaign to grow that support. Show us that huge support, measure it, show it, quantify it. Do some preliminary market research for the dev owner. Show us how much people would be willing to spend on it. Show us not only that it CAN be done, but that it will be a guaranteed profit. "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"

If you read the thread about the heavies, rather than just looking at the poll, people were saying they'd like a Hercules, a TU-22 and so on. Just because 400 people clicked on "yes for heavies" isn't a guarantee that all 400 would buy a BUFF at any price. But it's all those details that a business owner NEEDS in order to decide to do a project. The buiness owner is biased, in favor of commercial success, and if he doesn't have a very EXTREMELY clear idea of just what people will and won't pay for, EXACTLY what they want and don't want, the project will either fail, or fail to start. Market research requires a lot more than one single answer. The masses are flakey. They tell you one thing, but when you drill down for specifics, suddenly many get cold feet. Ikarus, thanks for participating. It does matter to realize the goal of a BUFF module. Smokey, why would I include a $0, when the poll is about paid modules, not free mods? Do you really think a BUFF modulel of even a single variant, would be cheaper than $80 ?!?

I was going to add a few more questions, but it limited me to just the 3. I am biased, as you and everyone else is. But if you don't participate, then a dev seeing this will conclude there's little support for a BUFF. By the way, I answered it: 1. when map sizes grow 2. $250 for all variants 3. all variants

No it hasn't. "any heavy" is NOT THE SAME as "B-52" and "specifically what would you pay and for what variant" The questions are different. Also, that poll is 2 years old. Maybe we want to see if the current DCS players still feel the same, or maybe support has increased/decreased. But go ahead, push hard for demanding a BUFF module and don't participate in a poll that might convince a dev team that they could succeed at it.

Ok gentlemen, put your mouse clicks on the line, I've started a poll about a hypothetical B-52 module, so go vote, and then promote the poll to others who aren't in this discussion yet! Let's see how much support, and real dollars, such a project would get. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/272719-boeing-b-52-stratofortress-as-a-full-fidellity-paid-module-would-you-buy/

In another thread the discussion is going on debating this topic, but how many people would pay full module cost, for a B-52 module? And what would you want with it?

The polls ? Must be a different thread. How many people participated in the poll?

True, but there was more in that interview. Nick talked a bit about how he really only got the opportunity to start ED largely because he made great money from a totally different business. I got the impression that ED didn't even make much money for a long time, was more self-sustaining for much of its' existence. And that Nick had invested further into ED on a few occasions. I don't think ED was really a giant money-making sucess, but rather more like Nick's really expensive hobby, a passion project. Now, today, with lots of maps, lot's of planes and helis, it may be quite healthy financially today, maybe. But... getting here probably required some very careful decisions about what the product line should look like. What would sell well, what would sell HUGE. Give the people what they want, and they'll reward you with big sales. After the Hornet was well underway, ED deciding to make the Viper, instead of say a BUFF, was like Disney deciding to do another superhero blockbuster, instead of making a tiny indie movie about a love triangle, that will be watched only by a few thousand people at a film festival, and not even break even. That was wise, because it was pretty much a guaranteed sales sucess (even accounting for the buggy mistakes early on), a highly desired jet. That profit solidifies the company, pays for future development, pays the bills, makes the effort worth something. Remember what they said in the movie about test pilots? "No bucks, no Buck Rogers!" it's true for spaceflight, military aviation, and business generally too. Heck, it's kinda true for many aspects of life. You guys want a BUFF module? then figure out the business case for it, or it doesn't happen. I won't stand in your way, I'll encourage it. If you do a kickstarter, I'll put up a bit of money too. That might just be a great way to gauge real actual support for this product, get your first seed money!

This was a long time ago so memory a little fuzzy. But I think they were talking a bit generally about military aircraft pricing. They seemed to try to suggest that the JSF would be CHEAPER to produce and buy, than say a similar single engine multi-role fighter. Meaning, slighting cheaper and much faster to build, than a 1990's era F-16C, but with inexpensive stealth features, thus rendering the F-117 Nighthawks overly expensive and not needed anymore. Part of their arguement was that robotic and CNC type manufacturing in a rapidly-reconfigurable factory floor, would eliminate a lot of the human craftsmanship in making parts for and assembling fuselages, wiring things up, and so on. Thus faster cheaper. You know, think of a modern car factory today, more robot arms than a space shuttle. They even made several paintings depicting these cheap stealthy JSF factories, presumably to sell the idea of a cheap affordable fighter that would make taxpayers very happy... I knew back then it was a bad joke. "Cheaper than a Falcon-C ? I'm calling BS, never happen!!" But... I never, ever imagined that it would be such an insane cancerous growth that would turn into "too big to fail, too big to cancel" and grow wildly from there. Evenually the F-35 may well prove itself useful and good. But that pricetag... a lot is riding on this jet.

Cool pic! Bet that bring back a few memories! It's odd, but when I see pics of my army time, it looks older than my memory tries to lie to me! Did you use a bungee and a soup can?

Of course you can and would take less than full fuel. The AI arguement, I don't quite agree, because with mission design you can assign routes that "originate" from much further away than the edge of the map. Nothing wrong with that. And I'm not saying you shoudn't fly a B-52 even on these tiny maps. I'm just saying it's... inappropriate. Silly. Goofy. Fun maybe. Or maybe not. The CAS examples for Afghanistan/Iraq GWOT scenarios... what's stopping someone from enjoying such fancy ordnance on the Hornet and Viper? Add some drop tanks and KC tankers if you want to extend your endurance. Look, I'm not against this, I just think dev team owners would see this differently, from a business perspective, and I don't want everyone to get too excited over something unlikely to happen.

How about no? It's not my fault you are sick and tired of other people having opinions that don't match yours exactly. Everyone here has a right to many opinions. You and I both, and everyone else. I disagree that it's a fallacy, I feel it's PART of a larger discussion about whether the effort required to bring a full fidelity B-52 module to market, even makes ANY sense at all from a business perspective. It's one thing to WANT others to make you something. It's a very different thing, for a business owner or manager to assess a customer request, and consider if doing said request would sell like cheetos at a weed store, or result in the financial ruin of the developer team. So I ask you: is wrecking a dev team with a project that won't sell in large numbers, is that worth persuing? Or would it be a better use of their time and efforts to make something that 100x more people will enjoy? Look, if you think that a full fidellity B-52 paid module, say at $80, will sell very well, then I suggest you do it. Find some talent to join your quest, preferably a few who have developed for simulations and flight in the past. Develop a plan, what variants of the plane, what weapons, what era, that kind of thing. Source as much documentation and SME's that you can. Is it enough data to be CERTAIN you can make it work EXACTLY like the real B-52. It better work EXACTLY like the real deal, or you'll get raked over the coals by the rivet counters and 'x-pertz", and actual retired operators, ground crew, maintenance crew... Good? Ok good. Learn a bit about starting and running a business. Because if you want DCS players to pay you, you are in business. Better know at least as much about that as you do about the B-52. Learn about marketing, and how your marketing plan would help your product best. Get a buiness license. Register your company name. Now mortgage your house so you can actually start developing the module. Hire that talent you found. Give them assignments to complete. Wait, this person thinks they aren't a good fit for that task. That person has issues with this person, but doesn't want to talk about it. The other person wants to know when he'll get paid. Manage your people, it's a lot like running a daycare. Figure out your burn rate. That's the speed at which you are losing money, and from that you'll figure out the deadline where you finish off the money you are using. Better be making sales by then, or you'll be at the mercy of your wife. And maybe your brother, cousins, parents. If sales skyrocket, and you look like you have a massive hit, then maybe go get a brochure from the Lamborghinni dealership. The brochure is the only Lambo you can afford for the next few years, likely. But chin up, brighter days may be on the way. Once you have made a comfortable profit, make a plan for how much you want to reinvest in a second product, and what that follow-on product/project might be. Will this new one make less money or more money than the first? If if makes less money, will that be the end of the company, or is long term company survival important to you? If sales... are sluggish, then learn about guerrilla marketing and try to drum up some new hype, take those rookie numbers and pump them up. If sales remain sluggish, no profits... you might not even get a full return on your investment. And maybe the bank starts eyeing up the house. But I'm sure that you are right and I am wrong, so go for it, start the B-52 module business. I'll buy it from you, promise (not joking, I would buy it from you if the reviews are decent). I hope you can and do prove me wrong, as that would indicate a growing and strong market for flight simulations. I believe in supporting businesses that I benefit from. Before you embark upon that, you might want to have a VERY careful listen to what Nick Grey has to say about his experience with ED, I think it was in one of the interviews with GR. Read between the lines of what he's saying. Your own financial future may depend on it if you become a flightsim developer.

Sure, sure. But... does that make for compelling gameplay? Do you think that will generate sales to compete with the Hornet? Viper? Hind? Picture it: 9 hours of game play... resulting in some splashes of water, RTB and land. Three weeks later a popup tells you a mine you dropped sunk a fishing vessel... meanwhile, the other modules have flown 9 separate action-packed missions, 'splosions, enemies bounce you and you dive and extend. Which is going to get the sales, and which will sell 50 units?

Is it? I haven't heard what the map size will be for that map....

So I drove by the CF-5 today... and was blown away... durn thing changed color on me!!! From overcast morning when it looked like grey with medium green (as my memory told me), to very bright afternoon, where it was lighter shades of grey!! I don't get it. How does green turn grey in high light levels?? Is me memory failing me? Poor eyesight? Sneaky Canadian Ninja paint? Early Stealth experiment gone wrong/right? A tear in the spacetimecontiuum ? Too many midichlorian tachyons in my coffee?

YEa, a Tucano without the Super! Somehow the basic Tucano looks even nicer with that beautiful bubble canopy! No guns in wings though...

ok well not sure why he brought up the Hustler then, but anyway... Thing is, my post does highlight at least one reason why the B-52 is kinda silly with today's map sizes. I'm not saying such a plane couldn't be FUN though, for shorter missions even on these tiny maps, but it wouldn't be realistic if you can't overlook pure realism. I do think I understand the appeal of the B-52, but I think the best route would be for a free mod, and aim for a single crewman to be able to do the mission alone, with some compromise between realism and "playability". Buy a large civilian throttle quadrant, a flight yoke, turn on the rear radar guided defensive gun, and fly some cool missions! But to expect a business to put it's future in the prospects of a pure realism B-52 is to not understand the effort required, nor the market reaction. Not your reaction, but the reaction of "most players".

Back in 1996 when I first heard of the program that became the F-35, it was called the JSF, Joint Strike Fighter. The big "feature" they were marketing it as, was that it would be INEXPENSIVE both to develop and to manufacture each plane. Clearly they let things go wrong.

I say you'll need: • The R-60M air-to-air missile. Because you'll need to shoot down the SeaHawks and Hornets that will be eyeballing you LONG before you can detect the Perry! You'll also need lots and lots of Chaff, to keep the Standard missiles from blasting your airframe into thousands of pieces. Then load up with a heavy load of "luck", because without it the mission is not happening!