What is the true reason for no Heavy Aircraft Module devs?

[Tippis]

Agree, you can run your private party server and do whatever you like. Public servers wouldn't even allow you to fly it. They ban JSOW and CBU-97/105 because it's OP for such a small scale conflict, and they would for sure ban anything that can drop 150 bombs in one pass.

And?

 

 

Some servers might; others would not; and irrespective of what servers choose to do (or not do), we still have JSOWs and murderbots in the game. And given how the current damage model works, dropping 150 bombs in one pass would probably equate to... oh... 2-3 BMPs killed. :D

[Wing]

The answers almost doesn't even make any sense.

 

You would operate strategic bomber on 500x500km map. That fact alone is beyond any comprehension.

 

Good luck finding human crew and escort, or anyone wanting to play on that server that restarts every 15 minutes. What's next wish? DCS strategic nuke? Start server, press red button, rinse and repeat.

 

 

There are real world B52 flights taking place within the span of the Persian Gulf map. So I am failing to see your logic tbh.

[Wing]

Agree, you can run your private party server and do whatever you like. Public servers wouldn't even allow you to fly it. They ban JSOW and CBU-97/105 because it's OP for such a small scale conflict, and they would for sure ban anything that can drop 150 bombs in one pass.

 

 

 

 

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.

[Cotoi]

Agree, you can run your private party server and do whatever you like. Public servers wouldn't even allow you to fly it. They ban JSOW and CBU-97/105 because it's OP for such a small scale conflict, and they would for sure ban anything that can drop 150 bombs in one pass.

 

 

Going for "blow shit up in 15 min" it is hard to find enjoyment in DCS. The key word is in the title; DCS - s stands for SIMULATION. If you do not look to simulate real world operation and see what can be done, you may as well use TCP to spot hot girls on Kobuleti Beach :D (you could also do aerobatics, but you like dropping bombs so that is not for you ether). I suggest(and no I am not ironic in any way shape or form) to take your favorite plane, look at a documentary on youtube about it, and try to creat a mission that will focus on one aspects, then expand the mission, and as hint, do something that would actually make sense in real world. Sure you can't span 500 tanks and 200 MIGs, but triggers are on your side, and with a random element you will be surprised.

[Minsky]

Guys, can we please forget about the B52 for a minute? As much as I would love to have a heavy module in DCS, I don't think it was the best starting example.

 

I agree with Nikola and others that seeing a long-range bomber on a map that can be crossed in 30 minutes is indeed borderline ridiculous and WarThunder-esque. Do we need a module just because it looks badass and can drop a shitload of bombs? Or do we need something practical and actually useable in DCS?

 

A smaller multi-role aircraft (like C-130/KC-130/IL-76) should be far easier to sell than the enormous one-trick pony. It simply poses less risks for a developer.

 

P.S. Besides, B52 would probably never get a Redfor's counterpart: I vaguely remember ED saying that they won't be allowed to create a high fidelity Tu-160 or Tu-95.

[Wing]

Guys, can we please forget about the B52 for a minute? As much as I would love to have a heavy module in DCS, I don't think it was the best starting example.

 

I agree with Nikola and others that seeing a long-range bomber on a map that can be crossed in 30 minutes is indeed borderline ridiculous and WarThunder-esque. Do we need a module just because it looks badass and can drop a shitload of bombs? Or do we need something practical and actually useable in DCS?

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[Wing]

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.

[Mars Exulte]

Because the coordination and teamwork required to operate it is completely infeasible in a multiplayer environment, meaning the huge amount of work involved in doing it would be largely wasted. As others said, it's hard finding a reliable copilot/gunner and you want 6+?

 

B-52 ops would be cool, don't get me wrong, but from a practical standpoint dev for it would be a colossal amount of work, most of which would be wasted.

[Wing]

Because the coordination and teamwork required to operate it is completely infeasible in a multiplayer environment, meaning the huge amount of work involved in doing it would be largely wasted. As others said, it's hard finding a reliable copilot/gunner and you want 6+?

 

B-52 ops would be cool, don't get me wrong, but from a practical standpoint dev for it would be a colossal amount of work, most of which would be wasted.

 

 

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?

[SmoglessPanic]

Man I would pay double for the B-1 Lancer

 

+1

[Cotoi]

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?

 

yes it is realistic, BUT going with a plane like f-105 for bomber would be more versatile in DCS, plus we keep hearing about the Vietnam era, and if you want a heavy plane, we can go with A-130 and have it as cargo for the supply routes that are already implemented in DCS, or even create new game mechanics around transport units, AND a tanker variant,(I bet there are many of us that would love to fly tanker missions). Anyway, B52 does not make the most sense as a heavy aircraft. Maybe some AI at best.

 

The argument that something is not suited for Multiplayer is one of the worst arguments I heard in a while. Less then 30% do PvP, many of us play Single player or PvE, where you play for immersion not to be the best.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Cotoi

[Tippis]

I agree with Nikola and others that seeing a long-range bomber on a map that can be crossed in 30 minutes is indeed borderline ridiculous and WarThunder-esque. Do we need a module just because it looks badass and can drop a shitload of bombs? Or do we need something practical and actually useable in DCS?

One does not preclude the other, and by the same token, we should probably remove aircraft such as the A-10, the F-14, the F-15, the Su-27, and possibly the Mirage — the F-16 is definitely cancelled. Just because an aircraft can fly long ranges does not mean it must, nor that it always does.

 

Given the weaponry available today, it's also vastly more multi-role than an explicitly single-role tanker or cargo plane — to say nothing about being vastly more interesting since those two roles should never ever see any action. Rather, as previously mentioned, the problem is that you wouldn't be able to get your hold on the data needed to make it a full sim (and an FC3-level bomber would be even more silly), and the absolutely massive amount of work required to shore up the supporting AI.

 

That is what would make it “warthunder-esque” — the level of simulation — not its presence in any given amount of airspace. The frequent attempts to connect war thunder with location rather than detail just reveals how feeble that argument is (as is pretty much universally the case when that comparison is rolled out). Doubly so when the reality of the matter is that these type of aircraft do indeed operate in such small regions — if anything, leaving them out would be an example of an arcade-like simplification of the real deal.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Tippis

[Mars Exulte]

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?

 

That's true, it's not impossible, just infeasible. Takes an entire clan of very devoted people to man a couple of planes. Takes a small group of semi-devoted people to man one. Impossible? No, but a relatively small portion of the population among the already small multiplayer community will actually make use of it. Considering the complexity of the aircraft to develop vs actual likely usage...

 

Also, a 1940s Heinkel is much less complicated, and much more ''hands on''. You've got one guy as pilot, another as copilot/navigator, and then a bombardier, and a couple guys on the MGs. In a B-52, effectively everyone except pilot/copilot will be staring at a control panel, and only one or two of them will be involved in combat. Less, if they are engaged BVR (only the EWAR guy will be doing anything in that case). Additionally, each of those stations is apt to be ''learning intensive''.

 

So, you'll not only need a half dozen people, you'll need a half dozen people willing to learn very specific, yet somewhat boring jobs, while also cross training on several other stations that are equally intensive yet still somewhat boring. At least the gunners on a Heinkel can enjoy the view, and participate when shit gets real. Most the crew of a B-52 will be very uninvolved in what the aircraft is doing, especially from a ''exciting gameplay'' standpoint.

 

It can be done, but it's expensive and hard to develop and a very small number of people will ever make use of its full potential. As said, reliable crewmen for two seaters is already hard enough. Go to Arma and other games with simplified drop in vehicles and it improves only slightly.

[Wing]

One does not preclude the other, and by the same token, we should probably remove aircraft such as the A-10, the F-14, the F-15, the Su-27, and possibly the Mirage — the F-16 is definitely cancelled. Just because an aircraft can fly long ranges does not mean it must, nor that it always does.

 

Given the weaponry available today, it's also vastly more multi-role than an explicitly single-role tanker or cargo plane — to say nothing about being vastly more interesting since those two roles should never ever see any action. Rather, as previously mentioned, the problem is that you wouldn't be able to get your hold on the data needed to make it a full sim (and an FC3-level bomber would be even more silly), and the absolutely massive amount of work required to shore up the supporting AI.

 

That is what would make it “warthunder-esque” — the level of simulation — not its presence in any given amount of airspace. The frequent attempts to connect war thunder with location rather than detail just reveals how feeble that argument is (as is pretty much universally the case when that comparison is rolled out). Doubly so when the reality of the matter is that these type of aircraft do indeed operate in such small regions — if anything, leaving them out would be an example of an arcade-like simplification of the real deal.

 

 

So refreshing to see someone who understands!

 

 

yes it is realistic, BUT going with a plane like f-105 for bomber would be more versatile in DCS, plus we keep hearing about the Vietnam era, and if you want a heavy plane, we can go with A-130 and have it as cargo for the supply routes that are already implemented in DCS, or even create new game mechanics around transport units, AND a tanker variant,(I bet there are many of us that would love to fly tanker missions). Anyway, B52 does not make the most sense as a heavy aircraft. Maybe some AI at best.

 

The argument that something is not suited for Multiplayer is one of the worst arguments I heard in a while. Less then 30% do PvP, many of us play Single player or PvE, where you play for immersion not to be the best.

 

 

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.

[Wing]

That's true, it's not impossible, just infeasible. Takes an entire clan of very devoted people to man a couple of planes. Takes a small group of semi-devoted people to man one. Impossible? No, but a relatively small portion of the population among the already small multiplayer community will actually make use of it. Considering the complexity of the aircraft to develop vs actual likely usage...

 

Also, a 1940s Heinkel is much less complicated, and much more ''hands on''. You've got one guy as pilot, another as copilot/navigator, and then a bombardier, and a couple guys on the MGs. In a B-52, effectively everyone except pilot/copilot will be staring at a control panel, and only one or two of them will be involved in combat. Less, if they are engaged BVR (only the EWAR guy will be doing anything in that case). Additionally, each of those stations is apt to be ''learning intensive''.

 

So, you'll not only need a half dozen people, you'll need a half dozen people willing to learn very specific, yet somewhat boring jobs, while also cross training on several other stations that are equally intensive yet still somewhat boring. At least the gunners on a Heinkel can enjoy the view, and participate when shit gets real. Most the crew of a B-52 will be very uninvolved in what the aircraft is doing, especially from a ''exciting gameplay'' standpoint.

 

It can be done, but it's expensive and hard to develop and a very small number of people will ever make use of its full potential. As said, reliable crewmen for two seaters is already hard enough. Go to Arma and other games with simplified drop in vehicles and it improves only slightly.

 

 

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.

[Wing]

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...

[Baco]

Yes the B 52 as a study Si would be awesome. But didn´t we establish that Technically its not posible at least in the next five to ten years? and only if ED changes the core engine again....

 

So Yeah definitely a cool idea. Most Awesome study sim on its own merit. But a Chimera in my Opinion.

[Mars Exulte]

Protip, most people don't have 1st hand experience with B-52's, so no cool pointz for you for stating the obvious.

 

Nevertheless, how involved you are in RL with a REAL crew vs in a game environment does not necessarily equal the same. Regardless, the fact remains a relatively small number of people would actually utilise it properly vs the substantial development cost and time investment. So, it's highly unlikely to ever happen because, believe it or not, there are not silent hordes lined up waiting to stare at a control panel while NOT flying or shooting bad guys. It is niche within niche.

 

Real crew behavior and career opportunities do not equal the online multiplayer environment and whether it's worth it to invest a few hundred grand and five years building the thing.

[ilikepie]

I'd go a Lancaster, dambusters much?

[David OC]

yes it is realistic, BUT going with a plane like f-105 for bomber would be more versatile in DCS, plus we keep hearing about the Vietnam era, and if you want a heavy plane, we can go with A-130 and have it as cargo for the supply routes that are already implemented in DCS, or even create new game mechanics around transport units, AND a tanker variant,(I bet there are many of us that would love to fly tanker missions). Anyway, B52 does not make the most sense as a heavy aircraft. Maybe some AI at best.

 

The argument that something is not suited for Multiplayer is one of the worst arguments I heard in a while. Less then 30% do PvP, many of us play Single player or PvE, where you play for immersion not to be the best.

 

 

The A-130 and tankers would fit very well into MP and SP for logistics support roles.

 

The AC-130 Gunship would create a game within itself, online and off.

That mission in Call of Duty 4 was very cool and there is millions of people that possibly... would very much like to play a full SP or Dynamic campaign using the AC-130. We can also do co-op and throw in the A-10C like it is IRL.

 

[Wing]

Protip, most people don't have 1st hand experience with B-52's, so no cool pointz for you for stating the obvious.

 

Nevertheless, how involved you are in RL with a REAL crew vs in a game environment does not necessarily equal the same. Regardless, the fact remains a relatively small number of people would actually utilise it properly vs the substantial development cost and time investment. So, it's highly unlikely to ever happen because, believe it or not, there are not silent hordes lined up waiting to stare at a control panel while NOT flying or shooting bad guys. It is niche within niche.

 

Real crew behavior and career opportunities do not equal the online multiplayer environment and whether it's worth it to invest a few hundred grand and five years building the thing.

So, you'll not only need a half dozen people, you'll need a half dozen people willing to learn very specific, yet somewhat boring jobs, while also cross training on several other stations that are equally intensive yet still somewhat boring. At least the gunners on a Heinkel can enjoy the view, and participate when shit gets real. Most the crew of a B-52 will be very uninvolved in what the aircraft is doing, especially from a ''exciting gameplay'' standpoint.

 

 

 

"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...

Edited September 28, 2019 by Wing

[mkellytx]

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.

 

The BUFF's aren't carpet bombing anymore because the bad guys aren't kind enough to assemble themselves as a big area target. Rest assured, the last time they did this we gladly dropped 27 mk117's from the bay on them and kept the JDAM's on the wings for clean up. Sadly, they learned and now we play whack a mole with JDAMS and GBU's...

 

Former BUFF aircrew here.

[draconus]

I would buy any heavy just for the sake of new challenge if only I as a pilot could have AI crew support. Not interested in other seats.

 

@Wing: I find your constant try to defend the Thread disturbing.<Vader breath>.

[Mars Exulte]

@Wing

I'm not speaking for ''everyone''. I did not imply NOBODY would enjoy it. Quite the contrary I acknowledged that some people would. I said the MAJORITY of GAMERS (which includes the bulk of the DCS population, too) would find staring at control panels for hours boring. I said that the number of people who would enjoy this comparatively sterile and unengaging gameplay probably does not justify the substantial expense and time investment involved.

 

So,we know from past references that a module typically requires several years of dev time if it's from scratch (the B-52 would be, as it would be unable to reuse any of the systems from pre-existing aircraft, it would require a full ground up exercise). It would also likely be much more expensive to produce due to this, and the additional dev required for so many extra systems.

 

Based on past numbers batted around by ED, I expect building a B-52 would cost $300-500k and take 3-5 years minimum to produce... vs the few hundred (if that) people who would ACTUALLY ever utilise its full capabilities. How do I get the last estimate? The tiny mp population plus current difficulties with multicrew aircraft plus decades of online gaming experience. Only the hardest of the hardcore will really make use of it. Lastly, the module itself would almost certainly cost substantially more than the $60-80 we're used to, most likely $100-150 if not more, further reducing the numbers that would buy it. Will the few hundred people that buy it and use it actually render it an economically feasible and profitable project? Probably not.

 

You're getting awfully defensive because you know I'm right. Developing something like that, while cool, would almost certainly be a terrible idea in comparison to much easier, more practical aircraft that would almost certainly garner wider appeal.

Edited September 28, 2019 by zhukov032186

[Buzzles]

Heavies? I'd just accept medium-ish.

 

If someone were to make a proper DC-3/C-47, and DCS was updated to have proper parachute and cargo functionality (I'm talking using transports to stock up airfields, which it is already partly in), then you'd be on to a winner I think.