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

[Wing]

@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.

 

 

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.

[Max_ARG]

Have you ever played war thunder as a heavy bomber? if the answer is yes, then you know that your life span would be less than 2 minutes. lol there are more reasons that were already mentioned by other users. But lets face it, I would die to rush directly towards a bomber and kill him in many different and creative ways lol

As a side note, DCS without a DC is already too boring if you on top of that add some heavy bomber. 25 minutes to climb, 30 minutes to reach the AO, 1 hr to fly back... hmm..its a no go for me

Edited September 28, 2019 by Max_ARG

[Worrazen]

"Nobody" is really an exaggeration. B-2 or B-52 is infact quite high on my sort of awesome-sights wishlist.

 

I come from the RTS community first and foremost, always wanted something more out of those B-52 or B-2 carpet bombs in Generals Zero Hour ... kinda waiting for this moment *all* my life to have it all in detail and Hi-Def!

 

I mean, B-2 Spirit was my desktop wallpaper for like ~5 years once upon a time.

 

Even another wide-body jet would do, the first thing that has more usage in DCS is ofcourse transport planes, I talked a lot about this in the past, transport of supplies, paratroopers, rescue, scouting, etc.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Worrazen

[dchriest]

Man I would pay double for the B-1 Lancer

 

 

I would too.

[dchriest]

C130 I would buy for sure.

 

 

And do what with it?

[AeriaGloria]

B-1 and my wallet will disappear! Double aileron rolls baby!

[Mars Exulte]

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.

 

I said other aircraft would be better ideas, you kept talking B-52s (and by extension other extra large many crew aircraft) so I did, too. It wouldn't be boring to EVERYONE, again, I never said that. I SPECIFICALLY said it would be boring for MOST gamers, which make up the majority of the population here, including online and in clans. Thus the popularity of AirQuake and the constant nitpicking about minmaxing which aircraft is better in pvp etc.

 

I personally don't mind such things in a sim environment, but it doesn't change the fact the bulk of people playing games do not. And that IS a fact, not just an opinion. That's why games like DCS have vastly smaller populations than other genres in the first place, it lacks ''mainstream appeal''. Manning a console in the bowels of a bomber is something that further lacks ''mainstream appeal'' even within this already limited audience. The majority of people playing games want to be the hero of the story and pretend they're Tom Cruise or something.

 

Again, it is not that NO ONE would enjoy it. It's that I seriously doubt ENOUGH people would to justify the expense. This isn't a charity, it's a business, and they need to turn a profit. Abnormally expensive projects with limited appeal probably are bad business decisions.

 

Now, a simplified aircraft that glosses over most that ''extra'' work, focusing on the pilot and weapons control would probably be a much more feasible project, kind of like FC+ (specific systems fully simulated, others automated or simplified)

[Wing]

Manning a console in the bowels of a bomber is something that further lacks ''mainstream appeal'' even within this already limited audience. The majority of people playing games want to be the hero of the story and pretend they're Tom Cruise or something.

 

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.

[gorgar0]

... I believe there would be more sales for a DCS B52H module than people would originally think. The scenarios are truly endless, especially with the multicrew capability of pilot, copilot, gunner, EWO (this would be unable to slot into), radar nav, and nav.

 

...l[/url]

 

Throw up a poll and see what the demand would be. A fair question would be, "Would you like to see DCS develop a B52 module with multi-crew capability, Y/N?"

[lobo]

Throw up a poll and see what the demand would be. A fair question would be, "Would you like to see DCS develop a B52 module with multi-crew capability, Y/N?"

 

N

[Wing]

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

[Svsmokey]

N

[CAmastersgt]

Regularly had B-1's in support of our ground operations in Afghanistan, even at low level(200 ft) along the Paki/Afghan border. Although classified as Strategic Bombers they are regularly used at the tactical level. Would love to see them in DCS. Map size not a problem. They can drop precision munitions, not just dumb bombs. I could deal with decent AI crew members/real crew members. Would be fun to learn all of its capabilities. Not against seeing it in-game as a module. Some may not like it but I think a lot of people would buy it. Transport planes too. C-130 would be a buy. Base resupply for a dynamic campaign....hmmm. Airdrop to forward units, rough field landings, airborne operations. Possibilities are endless.

 

I'm not opposed to people saying they wouldn't buy it, that's them. ED is about pushing the envelop, this could be a good thing. Anything can be developed. Systems however may be classified and that would be a problem for accuracy.

 

+1 for someone creating it though.

[Wing]

Regularly had B-1's in support of our ground operations in Afghanistan, even at low level(200 ft) along the Paki/Afghan border. Although classified as Strategic Bombers they are regularly used at the tactical level. Would love to see them in DCS. Map size not a problem. They can drop precision munitions, not just dumb bombs. I could deal with decent AI crew members/real crew members. Would be fun to learn all of its capabilities. Not against seeing it in-game as a module. Some may not like it but I think a lot of people would buy it. Transport planes too. C-130 would be a buy. Base resupply for a dynamic campaign....hmmm. Airdrop to forward units, rough field landings, airborne operations. Possibilities are endless.

 

I'm not opposed to people saying they wouldn't buy it, that's them. ED is about pushing the envelop, this could be a good thing. Anything can be developed. Systems however may be classified and that would be a problem for accuracy.

 

+1 for someone creating it though.

 

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...

[Fri13]

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...

 

Someone would like to have a word with you....

 

 

Seriously, with good pilots, proper sorties planning and targets, B-1 would be useful. But it ain't nothing in size of example Tornado and it capabilities.

[Xilon_x]

DCS does not have the world map a B1 launcher covering a distance of 5543 km would not serve to nientein dcs.

If DCS had a world map, strategic and espionage missions could be organized.

there is no 'getting bored to fly 5000 km as they say in the forum but on board of a bomber there are many things to do to calculate the route to monitor the territory to prepare the bombs ecc.ec.

 

 

 

missing a good artificial intelligence.

missing a good atc as a flight simulator.

macano things that are essential for a long-range bomber.

so currently DCS according to my opinion does not qualify to use a heavy bomber.

Nuclear power is missing.

The soldiers are missing.

missing paratroopers.

missing SAM simulation.

missing submarines.

Many important ships are missing.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Xilon_x

[Wing]

DCS does not have the world map a B1 launcher covering a distance of 5543 km would not serve to nientein dcs.

If DCS had a world map, strategic and espionage missions could be organized.

there is no 'getting bored to fly 5000 km as they say in the forum but on board of a bomber there are many things to do to calculate the route to monitor the territory to prepare the bombs ecc.ec.

 

 

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.

[Psybain]

Or the KC-130 Harvest Hawk if you really want to multitask.

 

https://news.usni.org/2016/05/11/marines-to-add-harvest-hawk-weapons-package-to-entire-c-130j-v-22-fleets

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[AeriaGloria]

I heard the C-17 has mounts for pylons to place cruise missiles

[Silver_Dragon]

DCS does not have the world map a B1 launcher covering a distance of 5543 km would not serve to nientein dcs.

If DCS had a world map, strategic and espionage missions could be organized.

there is no 'getting bored to fly 5000 km as they say in the forum but on board of a bomber there are many things to do to calculate the route to monitor the territory to prepare the bombs ecc.ec.

 

 

 

missing a good artificial intelligence.

missing a good atc as a flight simulator.

macano things that are essential for a long-range bomber.

so currently DCS according to my opinion does not qualify to use a heavy bomber.

Nuclear power is missing.

The soldiers are missing.

missing paratroopers.

missing SAM simulation.

missing submarines.

Many important ships are missing.

 

All of them has "outside" to build a plane module.

-ED has "plans" to make a "Whole World" in a future, improving the DCS map engine technology.

-Good Artificial Inteligence has need build by a skilled AI developer, no a World map engine enginier

-ATC improvements has in progress by Carrier ATC and follow Base ATC Technoloty.

-Nuclear power? you like build Russian nuclear Cruise missile or Poseidon Torpedo?

-Soldiers has present into DCS (Georgian, Russian, US and Axis WW2 Soldiers), If you like variety, need 3D modelers and codders to build, and remember, the tecnology used to build the actual in progress "Carrier Crew" can be applicable to improve DCS infantry.

-Paratroppers has "present" (Without parachute animation and funtionality), but the actual DCS 3D models "pilots" has that funtionality improve, only need export and tune them on US WW2 parachute soldiers, and build the propper funtionality on the future DC-3 on WW2.

- To build a SamSimulator at level of "real" pilotable modules, need first get propper info, make a clearance and make improvement into DCS engine with a dedicate "Ground" team, improve vehicle control and Phisics and start to move to build a real "vehicle modules"(the last leg mising on DCS).

- Submarine has present into DCS with some sub launched weapons, but not improved yet (some cruise missiles). A new submarine has coming a WW2 submarine and expected if ED put Torpedoes and mines. ED first need improve Submarine environmet to "Hunt" them.

- Important "Ships" need propper 3D modeles and codders to build them and ED has improving the "Ship" technology with the SuperCarrier module. Some 3rd parties has building a large quiantity of ships to DCS.

 

With the actual technology, ED or a 3rd party, can make a "heavy". Build a propper "Heavy bomber" can be see in a future, and a multicrew "bomber" (Mosquito FB) has incoming on WW2 DCS.

[Wing]

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!

[jojyrocks]

I believe the true reason is the complexity of creating such a module. It already takes a considerable amount of time to create a module for single and two seat planes.

 

 

 

Most heavies have more than 2 crew members and the amount of systems that also go by is too many. Then there is the number of engines.

 

 

 

There is also a lot of pending fast planes on the way and that will take 2-3 years. Those heavies might even take more than that.

Edited September 30, 2019 by jojyrocks

[Mars Exulte]

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!

 

Oh, they've already broached the topic. Like a year ago one of the third parties asked about interest in a C-130 or something. I don't remember who though. Current hold up is the game engine doesn't support more than two aircraft engines atm, though that's supposed to be changing eventually. The Mosquito that's inbound is ED's initial foray into ''multicrew bombers'' so be sure to show your support and buy it.

[draconus]

The Mosquito that's inbound is ED's initial foray into ''multicrew bombers'' so be sure to show your support and buy it.

with 18,100 lbs GW it's lighter than some of DCS's fighters, so not quite applicable to discusion about future of heavies in DCS :)

[Mars Exulte]

Size and weight are irrelevant. It is the first multi engine prop, and the first with something like a bombardier position. It's a light bomber/heavy fighter, and the first one in the game currently dominated exclusively by fighters and a few helicopters. So yes, it's the first ''bomber''.