noted Would you want ANY heavy aircraft modules for DCS?

[Wing]

Quite obvious theres alot of dreams about heavier aircraft being brought into the DCS ecosystem. Looks like all we need is a 3rd party dev willing to take up the challenge, and become the first dev to make this happen!

 

A lot of opportunity here!

[Stingray 537 Mongo]

3 minutes ago, Wing said:

Quite obvious theres alot of dreams about heavier aircraft being brought into the DCS ecosystem. Looks like all we need is a 3rd party dev willing to take up the challenge, and become the first dev to make this happen!

 

A lot of opportunity here!

ED would have to change the sim to recognize more than 2 engines first. There are very few heavy military aircraft that have only two engines.

[Jester986]

59 minutes ago, Stingray 1-1 Mongo said:

ED would have to change the sim to recognize more than 2 engines first. There are very few heavy military aircraft that have only two engines.

The C-130 Mod uses more than 2 engines. I dont know 100% of the deatils but my friend that works on it says they do model all four and its not a workaround.

[Stingray 537 Mongo]

The C-130 Mod uses more than 2 engines. I dont know 100% of the deatils but my friend that works on it says they do model all four and its not a workaround.

I believe it that the engines are modeled individually.The Community C-130 Mod is very well done, but the trick is controlling each engine independently. My understanding is that within DCS's current limits, you can't assign more than two throttle axes and have them each control an engine.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Wing]

18 hours ago, Stingray 1-1 Mongo said:

ED would have to change the sim to recognize more than 2 engines first. There are very few heavy military aircraft that have only two engines.

NineLine and BN have both confirmed that the DCS engine is not limited to 2 engines. And anything can happen with enough determination in DCS.

This was via Discord, so dont have the exact quote currently...

Edited February 19, 2021 by Wing

[TLTeo]

Honestly I have mixed feelings. I think tactical transports like the C-130 (or the C-27J, one can dream...) or Chinhook would fit very well and appeal to a fairly large audience, but things like AWACS or tankers are unlikely to have a good return on investment.

[Stingray 537 Mongo]

Honestly I have mixed feelings. I think tactical transports like the C-130 (or the C-27J, one can dream...) or Chinhook would fit very well and appeal to a fairly large audience, but things like AWACS or tankers are unlikely to have a good return on investment.

I think a fully functioning AWACS or JSTARS would see a lot of use gby those who enjoy controlling and I think there would be more controllers if there were viable (Not F-10 map) in-game options. Tankers too. They wouldn't need hyper realistic flight models either, just a better model, a pilot slot and a fuel boom operator slot.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Wing]

9 minutes ago, Stingray 1-1 Mongo said:

I think a fully functioning AWACS or JSTARS would see a lot of use gby those who enjoy controlling and I think there would be more controllers if there were viable (Not F-10 map) in-game options. Tankers too. They wouldn't need hyper realistic flight models either, just a better model, a pilot slot and a fuel boom operator slot.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

I see a ton of value in offering a real ingame version of GCI/AWACS support for human slots. 

Currently users are resorting to third party apps like LOTATC to make it happen. Again, another big door that is open for a heavy module!

[Stingray 537 Mongo]

I see a ton of value in offering a real ingame version of GCI/AWACS support for human slots. 
Currently users are resorting to third party apps like LOTATC to make it happen. Again, another big door that is open for a heavy module!

Absolutely. I use LotATC myself and it's a great program, but I'd love it even more if it was a selectable slot in DCS itself rather than a standalone program I have to download and run separately.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Wing]

25 minutes ago, Stingray 1-1 Mongo said:

Absolutely. I use LotATC myself and it's a great program, but I'd love it even more if it was a selectable slot in DCS itself rather than a standalone program I have to download and run separately.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

 

You would think ED would be all over this, and acknowledge it. GCI is such a huge part of aviation combat.

[WelshZeCorgi]

Well, of course if it's done right. But with larger aircraft, there's always a bit of disagreement on how they're implemented, what role they would play in SP, MP, and technical issues to work out in an already buggy, slightly incomplete sim. I myself would love an E3 Hawkeye E2C/D so we can have player controlled AWACS, but how would 5 player multicrew work? (well, maybe you can chop it down to 3 player multicrew with 5 stations, as I doubt you would find 2 players willing to fly in tracks for hours.) How would side by side pilot-copilot controls work? The Huey does it kinda, sorta okay, I guess. Not sure how that would port over to heavy aircraft. So am I interested? Sure, I'm up for anything. Would I backpedal on this comment faster than Usain Bolt if it's done poorly? Absolutely. 

Edited February 19, 2021 by WelshZeCorgi

[SovietAce]

Flyable heavy aircraft in DCS would be great. Especialy if it would be Tu-95. But I think its imposible, sadly.

[Kang]

The way I see it the big challenge about many of these ideas is that they would all require a lot of 'core' work to be done.

[statrekmike]

This may be dismissed as a "empty argument" but I do think it is important for aircraft in DCS to be fully explorable by players not just in terms of systems and procedures but also in terms of their role. Right now, the modules we have fit pretty well in the existing DCS framework (with some exceptions that I will get into shortly) and as such, it isn't all that difficult to read about a F-14 or JF-17 (just as examples) mission in real life and at least mostly model that in the sim. 

 

  When you get into larger strategic scale aircraft, things get a little more difficult. It is true that some strategic scale aircraft do short trips to the mission area (depending on the situation) but in order to fully explore what those aircraft do, you would need conditions that can't be simulated in DCS because of map sizes. I know that is a controversial point to bring up but it is important none the less.

 

  Let's put this another way. Let's say you just watched Memphis Belle or Tuskegee Airman (the HBO movie, not the awful Red Tails one). Since these films focus on the bombing campaign over Germany, you get the urge to do that in DCS. Sadly, you find that while you can do bits and pieces of that mission in DCS (in terms of distances involved), you can't really model the entire mission and all the drama, tension, and immersion that would come from it. You can do a air start mission where you only cover a short bit of the trip and shoot down some 109's/190's but you are missing huge chunks of what such a mission requires (fuel management, general pilot endurance, etc).

 

  This is kinda my issue with adding strategic scale aircraft into DCS. You can make them work in VERY specific contexts but you can't really explore the breadth of their role like you can a tactical scale aircraft. I wouldn't say that there shouldn't be such aircraft in DCS in general terms but I also wouldn't feel terribly compelled to buy a module that can't be fully explored in terms of mission flow (if at all in some cases). 

[Wing]

On 2/20/2021 at 6:50 PM, statrekmike said:

This may be dismissed as a "empty argument" but I do think it is important for aircraft in DCS to be fully explorable by players not just in terms of systems and procedures but also in terms of their role. Right now, the modules we have fit pretty well in the existing DCS framework (with some exceptions that I will get into shortly) and as such, it isn't all that difficult to read about a F-14 or JF-17 (just as examples) mission in real life and at least mostly model that in the sim. 

 

  When you get into larger strategic scale aircraft, things get a little more difficult. It is true that some strategic scale aircraft do short trips to the mission area (depending on the situation) but in order to fully explore what those aircraft do, you would need conditions that can't be simulated in DCS because of map sizes. I know that is a controversial point to bring up but it is important none the less.

 

  Let's put this another way. Let's say you just watched Memphis Belle or Tuskegee Airman (the HBO movie, not the awful Red Tails one). Since these films focus on the bombing campaign over Germany, you get the urge to do that in DCS. Sadly, you find that while you can do bits and pieces of that mission in DCS (in terms of distances involved), you can't really model the entire mission and all the drama, tension, and immersion that would come from it. You can do a air start mission where you only cover a short bit of the trip and shoot down some 109's/190's but you are missing huge chunks of what such a mission requires (fuel management, general pilot endurance, etc).

 

  This is kinda my issue with adding strategic scale aircraft into DCS. You can make them work in VERY specific contexts but you can't really explore the breadth of their role like you can a tactical scale aircraft. I wouldn't say that there shouldn't be such aircraft in DCS in general terms but I also wouldn't feel terribly compelled to buy a module that can't be fully explored in terms of mission flow (if at all in some cases). 

I get what you’re saying - but to be honest your point is invalid when it comes to certain bombers like the B52.

 

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. 

[statrekmike]

47 minutes ago, Wing said:

I get what you’re saying - but to be honest your point is invalid when it comes to certain bombers like the B52.

 

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. 

 

  I already addressed this. There are very, very specific contexts where you can use heavier, strategic scale aircraft on DCS's small maps but there is a lot left on the table in terms of mission types and capability and that is only if such specific context exists in the first place (which it won't for many planes). 

 

  Let's use the B-52 as a example. It is absolutely true that you can do modern war on terror style counterinsurgency missions where you kinda orbit over a area dropping JDAM's but you are missing pretty much the entire mission role that aircraft was designed around (strategic, long distance strike). As such, a lot of its core functionality would either go entirely unused or underused. 

 

  To make it clear. If ED or a third party were to add it, cool. I just can't say that I would want to buy a module that I can't really explore to its fullest due to map size limitations. To be honest, I suspect ED and third parties would largely feel the same since there are PLENTY of aircraft still to be made that do fit in the maps we have ENTIRELY. 

[Wing]

I mean, with that said... we are never going to get the Nuke mission set in DCS. Just like how the DCS F16C has a non functional nuclear consent switch as well - DCS isn’t utilizing its full mission set capability. I get what you’re saying, but the B52 is being used to its max potential in other mission roles as well. It’s not often commanded to do long range strikes like it was back in the Cold War days - so the USAF utilizes it in a more effective mission. Still uses its max capability. Unless if we are going to see a doomsday scenario in the world, the B52 isn’t really outfitted these days for the type of long range strike you’re thinking of. We have other tools and resources that are much more quick, and have less radar signature for that. 
 

Shes a massive weapons truck, is very versatile and reliable for what she is. She can be used to her full capacity in a lot of roles. That’s why the USAF keeps on flying her.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Wing

[statrekmike]

6 hours ago, Wing said:

I mean, with that said... we are never going to get the Nuke mission set in DCS. Just like how the DCS F16C has a non functional nuclear consent switch as well - DCS isn’t utilizing its full mission set capability. I get what you’re saying, but the B52 is being used to its max potential in other mission roles as well. It’s not often commanded to do long range strikes like it was back in the Cold War days - so the USAF utilizes it in a more effective mission. Still uses its max capability. Unless if we are going to see a doomsday scenario in the world, the B52 isn’t really outfitted these days for the type of long range strike you’re thinking of. We have other tools and resources that are much more quick, and have less radar signature for that. 
 

Shes a massive weapons truck, is very versatile and reliable for what she is. She can be used to her full capacity in a lot of roles. That’s why the USAF keeps on flying her.

 

 

 

  The nuke switch on the Hornet probably isn't a great example since that was never really a major role for the aircraft by design. If I were you, I would have went for the LABS system we have in the Sabre that we can't really use since we don't have tactical, low-yield nuclear bombs that make such a carefully modeled system actually useful. I would even go as far as to say that is kinda a sticking point for me when it comes to that module, there is a fully modeled LABS system that we can't really use effectively because we don't have the weapon it was designed for.

 

  Getting back on the B-52 (and similar strategic scale bombers). Regardless of how it is used in the very specific context of modern COIN conflict, it still is (at its core) a long-range bomber and you can't really delve very far into that aircraft's design, history, and usage without getting into its long-range strategic bomber role. It may not be needed for such now but everything about its design is rooted in its original purpose. In order to really explore that plane to its fullest, you need to be able to explore its strategic bomber mission type and all that entails (at least onboard the aircraft). 

 

   Think of it like this. Imagine if DCS were only a air to ground focused sim with no air to air combat capability. In this hypothetical scenario, Heatblur comes in and releases a F-14B. Would that be a satisfying experience? Would you be able to fully explore the aircraft if there is nothing to defend the fleet against? Sure, it would accurately reflect how the aircraft was used later in its life (largely as a strike aircraft) but we both know that is only a part of the overall experience and that was not what that aircraft was originally designed to do. I feel that a B-52 module without the means for ANY strategic bomber missions is the same thing. You can still do a very, very specific type of mission the aircraft does but you can't really explore the aircraft without hitting those map limits REALLY, REALLY hard. 

[=VARP=Ribbon]

B-17 please

[Wing]

6 hours ago, statrekmike said:

 

 

  The nuke switch on the Hornet probably isn't a great example since that was never really a major role for the aircraft by design. If I were you, I would have went for the LABS system we have in the Sabre that we can't really use since we don't have tactical, low-yield nuclear bombs that make such a carefully modeled system actually useful. I would even go as far as to say that is kinda a sticking point for me when it comes to that module, there is a fully modeled LABS system that we can't really use effectively because we don't have the weapon it was designed for.

 

  Getting back on the B-52 (and similar strategic scale bombers). Regardless of how it is used in the very specific context of modern COIN conflict, it still is (at its core) a long-range bomber and you can't really delve very far into that aircraft's design, history, and usage without getting into its long-range strategic bomber role. It may not be needed for such now but everything about its design is rooted in its original purpose. In order to really explore that plane to its fullest, you need to be able to explore its strategic bomber mission type and all that entails (at least onboard the aircraft). 

 

   Think of it like this. Imagine if DCS were only a air to ground focused sim with no air to air combat capability. In this hypothetical scenario, Heatblur comes in and releases a F-14B. Would that be a satisfying experience? Would you be able to fully explore the aircraft if there is nothing to defend the fleet against? Sure, it would accurately reflect how the aircraft was used later in its life (largely as a strike aircraft) but we both know that is only a part of the overall experience and that was not what that aircraft was originally designed to do. I feel that a B-52 module without the means for ANY strategic bomber missions is the same thing. You can still do a very, very specific type of mission the aircraft does but you can't really explore the aircraft without hitting those map limits REALLY, REALLY hard. 

Hold on - Let me just make sure I’m understanding you correctly with this...

 

Youre telling me, that regardless of the mission set that we were tasked with in the Middle East, and the countless JDAM strikes I helped produce for continuous missions while my squadron was in the Persian Gulf - 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?

Conflicts change, theatres change, and so do mission sets. It’s the nature of literally every aircraft produced. That again is why a F16 (which was originally built and designated for A/A only) has a nuclear consent switch. F15 went from (A/A) C model to a E. Or a KC135 has a doomsday mission plan. Ect.

 

The B52 for almost 40 years has had more mission sets than just a strategic long range plan. That’s what I am trying to harp on about. Therefor, the mission set in the Middle East AKA the DCS Persian Gulf is a home for the B52 from the realistic perspective.

 

Let me quote this article from the USAF:

Features
In a conventional conflict, the B-52 can perform strategic attack, close-air support, air interdiction, offensive counter-air and maritime operations.

During Desert Storm, B-52s delivered 40 percent of all the weapons dropped by coalition forces. It is highly effective when used for ocean surveillance and can assist the U.S. Navy in anti-ship and mine-laying operations. In two hours, two B-52s can monitor 140,000 square miles (364,000 square kilometers) of ocean surface.

All B-52s can be equipped with two electro-optical viewing sensors, a forward-looking infrared and advanced targeting pods to augment targeting SNIPER Pod, battle assessment and flight safety, further improving its combat ability.

Pilots wear night vision goggles, or NVGs, to enhance their vision during night operations. Night vision goggles provide greater safety during night operations by increasing the pilot's ability to visually clear terrain, increasing the peacetime and combat situational awareness of the aircrew and improving their ability to visually acquire other aircraft.

B-52s are equipped with advanced targeting pods. Targeting pods provide improved long-range target detection, identification and continuous stabilized surveillance for all missions, including close air support of ground forces and LASER designate for other aircraft. The advanced targeting and image processing technology significantly increases the combat effectiveness of the B-52 during day, night and less than ideal weather conditions when attacking ground targets with a variety of standoff weapons (e.g., laser-guided bombs, conventional bombs and GPS-guided weapons).
 

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104465/b-52-stratofortress/
 

We have no room for this type of tunnel vision in DCS. It will only stunt future hope for heavies in the simulator.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Wing

[statrekmike]

3 hours ago, Wing said:

Hold on - Let me just make sure I’m understanding you correctly with this...

 

Youre telling me, that regardless of the mission set that we were tasked with in the Middle East, and the countless JDAM strikes I helped produce for continuous missions while my squadron was in the Persian Gulf - 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?

Conflicts change, theatres change, and so do mission sets. It’s the nature of literally every aircraft produced. That again is why a F16 (which was originally built and designated for A/A only) has a nuclear consent switch. F15 went from (A/A) C model to a E. Or a KC135 has a doomsday mission plan. Ect.

 

The B52 for almost 40 years has had more mission sets than just a strategic long range plan. That’s what I am trying to harp on about. Therefor, the mission set in the Middle East AKA the DCS Persian Gulf is a home for the B52 from the realistic perspective.

 

Let me quote this article from the USAF:

Features
In a conventional conflict, the B-52 can perform strategic attack, close-air support, air interdiction, offensive counter-air and maritime operations.

During Desert Storm, B-52s delivered 40 percent of all the weapons dropped by coalition forces. It is highly effective when used for ocean surveillance and can assist the U.S. Navy in anti-ship and mine-laying operations. In two hours, two B-52s can monitor 140,000 square miles (364,000 square kilometers) of ocean surface.

All B-52s can be equipped with two electro-optical viewing sensors, a forward-looking infrared and advanced targeting pods to augment targeting SNIPER Pod, battle assessment and flight safety, further improving its combat ability.

Pilots wear night vision goggles, or NVGs, to enhance their vision during night operations. Night vision goggles provide greater safety during night operations by increasing the pilot's ability to visually clear terrain, increasing the peacetime and combat situational awareness of the aircrew and improving their ability to visually acquire other aircraft.

B-52s are equipped with advanced targeting pods. Targeting pods provide improved long-range target detection, identification and continuous stabilized surveillance for all missions, including close air support of ground forces and LASER designate for other aircraft. The advanced targeting and image processing technology significantly increases the combat effectiveness of the B-52 during day, night and less than ideal weather conditions when attacking ground targets with a variety of standoff weapons (e.g., laser-guided bombs, conventional bombs and GPS-guided weapons).
 

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104465/b-52-stratofortress/
 

We have no room for this type of tunnel vision in DCS. It will only stunt future hope for heavies in the simulator.

 

 

 

 

  First off, let me say (again) that I am not outright against the idea of putting a B-52 in DCS. I don't particularly feel a strong drive to buy it if one were to come out but I fully, wholeheartedly understand that such is my personal choice and my personal opinion and may not have any bearing on anyone else. I reemphasize this because it seems that you think I am attacking the idea, I am not. 

 

  With that out of the way. Again, I fully understand and have already acknowledged that if we ONLY look at the roles the B-52 has been put in during our conflicts in the Middle East, it would fit okay. In that very specific context, the Persian Gulf map would be (just) big enough. This isn't something I am debating and never, ever have. What I am debating is that if you are going to put a aircraft in DCS, it would probably be good to put one in that can be FULLY explored in terms of its potential major roles. In the case of the B-52, that would mean not only having the ability to do modern Middle Eastern conflict style COIN but also full-on strategic bombing. As stated already, it is absolutely true that it does more than strategic bombing (again, at no point did I ever debate this) but it was designed as a strategic bomber and that is a major part of why it is the way it is. To not be able to explore that crucial part of the aircraft's basic, underlying identity would be unfortunate and would make the module feel someone incomplete compared to the smaller fighters and strike aircraft that we can fully explore with the maps we have (at least in terms of size). Granted, you will end up with the odd role that can't be filled (like nuclear weapon employment) but that is often a sort of "bolt on" role when talking about stuff like the F-16, F/A-18C, and the like. 

 

  Again. to reiterate. It isn't that the B-52 can't do anything on small maps. I am not arguing or saying that in the slightest. It is just that you lose a pretty big part of what the B-52's legacy entails when you put it on a small map.

 

  Going back to the F-14 example I used before. Would you want to have a F-14 in a sim that has no capacity for air to air? I think this is a important question because having a F-14 in a sim that has no capacity for air to air isn't really all that different from having a B-52 in a sim that has no capacity for strategic bombing. You can still do strike missions in the Tomcat and thus capture what it was used for from the 90's onward but you would be missing a massive chunk of its capability and a massive chunk of what made it what it is in not just a technical sense but also a historical one. 

 

  Perhaps what I am really saying here is that I would rather ED and third parties continue (because they have been doing this thus far and I seriously doubt they will switch course any time soon) to create modules that at least mostly fit into the map sizes we are working with. Instead of putting a B-2 in the sim, it makes more sense to put in a F-111. Instead of putting a B-52 in the sim, it makes more sense to put in a A-6. Those are aircraft that one can really dig into with the resources DCS provides without having to leave out huge parts of their legacy/functionality. 

 

  One more thing I want to make clear. I would absolutely love a B-52 simulator (be it in DCS when we get larger maps or its own dedicated sim) that would allow us to do in-depth, multi-crew missions that go from cold war era strategic bomber tasks to modern COIN based conflict stuff. I would love to experience the particular kind of drama and tension you can get from a experience like that. Hopefully we get to a point in DCS where that would be practical but until that time, I think it makes more sense to put aircraft in DCS that can fit fully and without having to leave a pretty big chunk of their legacy on the table. 

 

 

 Hopefully this makes sense and clears up where I am coming from on this. I don't dislike the idea of the B-52 in DCS and I wouldn't say no to it in a general sense but I can't honestly say I think it would make a whole lot of sense to simulate a aircraft that can't be fully explored (in terms of the entire breadth of its roles) on the maps we have now. Especially when there are still so many iconic, popular aircraft that can be fully simulated (in terms of roles) even with our current maps.

  

[Matti0503]

You keep saying it's not about the mapsize but then you put forward the condition that DCS would need bigger maps for the BUFF to be viable. Which one is it?

I would honestly rather trust Wing on this since, y'know, he WORKED on B-52s and flew with them. If anyone knows if the current state of DCS is enough, it's him. (unless an actual Pilot wants to get involved but I seriously doubt that)

[Wing]

I am just going to leave this here...

1). During the mission durations in the Middle East supporting JTAC with sniper tgp, our aircrews use the B52H to its full capabilities. I would almost argue being more intense as there's a lot of details a Heavy bomber must figure out... in such shorter timeframe of flight duration. Same capabilities have a place in DCS, as they do in other airframes currently in game.

 

2). The long mission durations you continue to talk about - of 30+ hours watching fuel gauges and doing logistics do not honestly provide the virtual player with any new simulation than what we can currently do in DCS Persian Gulf, DCS Nevada (BUFFS hangout at Red flag and Green flag every year operating out of Nellis AFB), or DCS Syria. I dont see how a DCS player would be "left out" feeling they are not "experiencing" their modules full potential by not flying these oldschool 30+ hour mission durations. They can experience EVERY system in DCS B52H with what has currently been modeled for other modules, well besides the EWO/ECM stuff... but thats to be expected. There's not this magical experience that IRL Buff pilots experience when flying 30+hr sorties as compared to their 4hr sorties in the sandbox  CENTCOM AOR.

 

The B2 is the airframe you are thinking about that takes on those super deep missions on the regular. Now if that was being proposed, it would be a completely different story when it comes to relaying that into DCS.

 

3). Don't get stuck in this Soviet Cold War nuke mission that everyone still thinks the B52 is solely based on...

Getting a BUFF out there over the AO, lets say in the Persian Gulf or Syria - and providing buddy Sniper TGP lase supporting DCS Hornet, Viper, Warthog drivers in itself would be a great thing. And it has a place in real life, as it would in DCS. The "full potential" you are dreaming of is already doable in DCS. So again, dont get tunnel visioned.

 

... And if you really want to "go there" with map sizes after all of this is said and done. Well our current map sizes are not even large enough for "proper" Carrier operations.

 

As @Revisaid: "i can guarantee you, if someone would make the B52, and you would make some awesome trailers, previews and what not of the cockpit and all, people will stand in line to buy it, it is such a unique and iconic aircraft, everyone wants to feel like how it is to fly such a thing"

 

 

It is not about map size man, its about mission set. And DCS Persian Gulf provides the current mission set that the B52 can be translated into. Even if its just a virtual theatre. @statrekmike

Edited February 23, 2021 by Wing

[Bailey]

On 2/20/2021 at 1:14 AM, Wing said:

NineLine and BN have both confirmed that the DCS engine is not limited to 2 engines. And anything can happen with enough determination in DCS.

This was via Discord, so dont have the exact quote currently...

 

09/14/2020
"There is a concerns about proper controller support, thats reall all"
...

"so as I said its was never really a limitation, just an observation, I think right now fighters are just more popular than 4 engine aircraft" -NineLine on ED Discord.
(Just posting info)

[Wing]

Appreciate that - yeah its just another conspiracy that DCS code cant handle 8 engines. 

BN said anything is possible, with the right amount of passion and motivation.

 

So I want to squash that concern right away. 4 or 8 Engines IS possible in DCS.