will we ever see a flyable B-52

[Wing]

15 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

 

HUh?!?

 

Most DCS maps are roughly 500km by 500km. 

 

B-52 has an unrefueled combat range in excess of 8,800 miles (14,080 kilometers).  

 

Soooo...  you take off... then fly circles. Around the very edges of the map. For 7 laps.  At some point you drop yer ordnance. And when you are truly bored to tears of just sitting there, looking out the window for another few hours of circling the map, you land.

 

Add 7 more laps if you do air tank refueling. How many very long hours is that?

 

It would be like using a main battle tank... on an indoor pistol range. Or starting up a Littlebird, in your barn. 

 

Edit: ok I just checked. During the Vietnam war, B-52's were stationed at Andersen AFB in Guam, in the Mariannas Islands. They flew bombing missions to Hanoi in North Vietnam. Unless they were battle damaged and leaking lots of fuel, air refuling was unessisary. They could (didn't but could) have flown direct to Hanoi, then south to Saigon, then to Darwin Australia and back to Guam without landing. Or, more realistically, they could have flown direct to Hanoi, (well, avoiding China's Hainan Island of course, don't wanna start another war by navigation accident!) and returned with 1/3 fuel remaining.

 

LEt's put this in context of DCS maps: you take off from Dover in the Channel map, fly to the furthest point in the Caucasus map, then fly down to Abu Dabi in the Persian Gulf map, and fly home, still have enough fuel for 4000 kilometers when you land. And that's if you count all the distance and fuel burn in between those maps. Or how about the other way around, you do a mission only on the Syria map with your B-52, take off from the furthest point to the furthest you can pick a target. And when you return, you need to dump a great many tons of fuel, because you only burned 18% of fuel capacity.

 

 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.

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Wing

[Wing]

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

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Wing

[Svsmokey]

Your own map belies your point . But that's ok . Scream all you want if it makes you feel better , but...it's Nevah . Gonna . Happen .

[Wing]

1 minute ago, Svsmokey said:

Your own map belies your point . But that's ok . Scream all you want if it makes you feel better , but...it's Nevah . Gonna . Happen .

 

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

[Northstar98]

Plus talking of ranges and map sizes, there's nothing stopping you from taking less than maximum fuel.

 

The F-111 also has a much longer range than most DCS map sizes...

 

Ultimately we have a load of AI aircraft (including the B-52H), and the size of our maps certainly doesn't stop me from using any of them, so I don't see why it would stop a player controlled aircraft.

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Northstar98

[Wing]

Just now, Northstar98 said:

Plus talking of ranges and map sizes, there's nothing stopping you from taking less than maximum fuel.

 

The F-111 also has a much longer range than most DCS map sizes...

 

 

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.

[Svsmokey]

Glad you're feeling better .

4 minutes ago, Wing said:

 

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

 

[Wing]

Just now, Svsmokey said:

Glad you're feeling better .

 

 

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. 

[SharpeXB]

Question answered here

 

[Rick50]

16 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

The current maps might be too small, but remember we're about to get a huge map once South Atlantic is released, if it were any larger we'd be able to fully replicate Operation Black Buck!

 

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

[Rick50]

10 hours ago, Furtherexplination said:

They also can accomplish maritime surveillance and sea control over vast areas, laying mines if necessary, with two bombers covering 140,000 square miles of ocean in two hours. And their ability to remain airborne for many hours makes them candidates for conducting reconnaissance or electronic jamming in support of other forces.

 

 

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?

[Rick50]

8 hours ago, Wing said:

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... 

GET REAL. And stop posting this fallacy. Thanks!

@Rick50 @bies @Svsmokey

 

 

 

 

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.

[Rick50]

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Plus talking of ranges and map sizes, there's nothing stopping you from taking less than maximum fuel.

 

The F-111 also has a much longer range than most DCS map sizes...

 

Ultimately we have a load of AI aircraft (including the B-52H), and the size of our maps certainly doesn't stop me from using any of them, so I don't see why it would stop a player controlled aircraft.

 

 

 

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.

[SharpeXB]

47 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

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.

ED indeed said in that video interview that they have no interest in making “heavy” aircraft like a B-52

Edited May 29, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Rick50]

 

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!

Edited May 29, 2021 by Rick50

[Hammer1-1]

who wants to fly 30 hour missions in DCS? Bet its a small list, and good luck coming up with the 4 man crew for it who know what they are doing. not knocking it, but even it it was an option not many people have that kind of time.

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

4 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

who wants to fly 30 hour missions in DCS? 

[Tank50us]

2 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

who wants to fly 30 hour missions in DCS? Bet its a small list, and good luck coming up with the 4 man crew for it who know what they are doing. not knocking it, but even it it was an option not many people have that kind of time.

 

For starters, as has been said several times, that's not the only mission profile the B52 flew. B52s that pummeled North Vietnam took off from bases in Cambodia if I understand correctly. They typically took off after Lunch, and were back by Lunch.

[Northstar98]

7 hours ago, Rick50 said:

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.

 

But you can do the same thing with a player aircraft.

 

7 hours ago, Rick50 said:

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.

 

Doesn't this apply to most maps in DCS? Is it not kinda silly that all these western aircraft operate on the Caucasus map in DCS?

 

7 hours ago, Rick50 said:

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.

 

Can't you say the same thing about basically every aircraft?

 

Why Strike Eagle if you can do the same mission from the F-16 or F/A-18? Or any other aircraft?

[Tippis]

11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

ED indeed said in that video interview that they have no interest in making “heavy” aircraft like a B-52

 

No they didn't. Don't put words in the developers' mouths.

 

12 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s amusing how the wishlist arguments always continue past the point where ED has clearly said they don’t have plans to do whatever the wish is.

It's equally amusing that people always skip past the point where ED has clearly changed their plans to match what people are interested in. And as your link shows, and as you are so fond of pointing out whenever it's in your favour, the polls show a huge interest in this. So guess what that means for the plans in question…

[Rick50]

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

[Tippis]

15 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

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

I'm just ribbing SharpeXP because has a huge fondness for appealing to forum polls as “evidence” against some wishlist idea he doesn't like. In this case, though, said poll is massively in favour of the idea he wants to stomp into the ground and it's kind of funny how he didn't bring it up and instead had to misrepresent a dev statement to support his point…

 

As it happens, this idea has a fair amount of support and there's not a whole lot of reason not to do it other than that they'd need a new engine simulation. But then, that's the very reason they made the Yak-52 and CE2: to introduce new engine simulations. So all that comes down to is that someone contracts them to do one, and they can turn around and put that into heavy aircraft. The “plans” they don't have at the moment basically boil down to the fact that no-one has asked them to… yet. You can bet that the second someone does, the “plan” goes out the window because that's what always happens to those.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Tippis

[Tippis]

As for not sharing your opinions, let's just put that into perspective, right from the moderators' mouths:

 

[SharpeXB]

28 minutes ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

 

If you were oboard and not completly clueless you knew they also said they wont make the D version of apache yet they made it cuase we asked for it and lets not even mention harm thing for viper after a huge wishlist.

 

Just pointing out what they said. Put whatever meaning you like to it. 
For what it’s worth, the stuff that ED is actually working on takes years to accomplish. So the stuff they say they have no plans to do?

The reasons they give are relevant too. Some of those reasons can be overcome some aren’t so easy. In the case of heavy aircraft one reason he gives is that these are simply the domain of another sim. So that reason won’t change no matter what players wish for. 
According to Simon’s opinion, the Apache fits within the ethos of what DCS does. The heavies do not. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Wing]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s amusing how the wishlist arguments always continue past the point where ED has clearly said they don’t have plans to do whatever the wish is. 

 

 

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.