noted Would you want ANY heavy aircraft modules for DCS?

[Stingray 537 Mongo]

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

Well said. I personally would prefer a Bone to a Buff, and JSTARS/AWACS to a KC-135 but in either case, I also believe there is a strong market for heavies in DCS. Someone just has to step up to the plate and take the chance.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[statrekmike]

3 hours ago, Wing said:

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

 

 

   I am not sure where you are getting this notion that I am saying that you didn't use your B-52 to full capability in the Middle East. My whole discussion point was never, ever about the measure of capability used in a specific role. 

 

  Let me put it as concisely as I can. While it might be "narrowminded" of me, I personally think there is value in only picking aircraft to put into DCS that can be at least mostly explored across ALL their potential roles. This isn't always about capability, it is about legacy. It is the reason I keep asking that very specific Tomcat question that I will yet again ask because I have yet to receive an answer. 

 

  In a hypothetical combat sim that only models ground attack/strike and has no capacity for air to air (be it a lack of AI airplanes or whatever), would you want a Tomcat module knowing that you can't even explore its original primary task? You could still use it as a strike/ground attack platform as it was used later in its life but you would have the radar and air to air weapons with no real reason or way to use them. Would you rather that Tomcat or would you want something like the A-6 or the F-111F where you could use pretty much all its capability and at least mostly explore its functionality? 

 

  The reason I am even in this discussion on the "side" that I am is because I would want a B-52 module to allow me to really explore the ENTIRE LEGACY of the aircraft's role and not just a very specific part of it as determined by map size. Right now, the aircraft we have in DCS generally (but not 100% entirely) allow for that to at least some measure. The moment you start putting strategic scale aircraft and even specialized aircraft (that DCS lacks map size or specific simulation elements for) like the F-117, SR-71, EA-6, EF-111, and the like into DCS is the moment you don't really get to do that. It is kinda along the same lines as to why I don't really get why there is such a demand for modern military aircraft in civilian flight sims like FS2020, FSX, or X-Plane. You are only getting a specific portion of the aircraft at that point and you don't really get to fully explore its various roles and legacy as a result.

 

  Again. I wouldn't tell ED to cancel any efforts to bring such a heavy into DCS just because I have my own personal reservations. I just don't have that much of a emotional stake in the topic. 

[Wing]

3 hours ago, statrekmike said:

 

   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. 

 

Thats the issue tho, you are comparing apples to oranges. How does your comparison of F-14 in a simulator with no A/A, make any argument 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.`
 

P.S. Strategic bombing does not mean 30hr mission durations/range.

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Wing

[statrekmike]

1 hour ago, Wing said:

 

Thats the issue tho, you are comparing apples to oranges. How does your comparison of F-14 in a simulator with no A/A, make any argument 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.`
 

P.S. Strategic bombing does not mean 30hr mission durations/range.

 

 

 

  I feel like we are approaching this from two very different angles. I don't argue your points. Everything you have said thus far is true in the sense that in the past thirty-five years or so, the B-52's role has evolved considerably and has grown to encompass far, far more than just that thirty hour strategic bombing flight. Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this at all. 

 

  The reason I am using that F-14 question over and over is because it highlights the very evolution of roles that you are talking about. In the last chunk of the F-14's service life in the Navy, it was pretty much only a ground attack aircraft because that is what the situation demanded and strapping a pod and some LGB's to it made sense at the time. That said, I strongly suspect you wouldn't debate that putting a F-14 in a sim that has no capacity for air to air (and thus only allowing the user to experience a very specific slice of that aircraft's overall history and mission experience) would probably not be as good an idea as putting in something like the F-15E or the F-111 where its main roles can be explored. As of right now, DCS has absolutely zero capacity for any strategic scale operations. It doesn't even really have the scale necessary for flights from Diego Garcia/Saudi Arabia to Iraq. Obviously not every DCS player is going to care about that and will happily fly twenty minute missions where each leg of the journey is incredibly short but the nice thing about DCS's current focus on fighters and lighter strike aircraft is that the map size allows for (even if only as a option for interested players) the potential for a fairly realistic mission. It is possible for me to station a carrier off (the general area) of Muscat and fly reasonably authentic missions in the Hornet and Tomcat where fuel management and some degree of player endurance is a thing. Likewise, it is very easy to make authentically scaled missions for stuff like the A-10 and Harrier pretty easily. This (again) doesn't mean everyone will care and it doesn't preclude the option to make much, much shorter missions for those interested in that kind of thing but it is so very nice that the option to even roughly explore a more authentically constructed mission exists. 

 

  With the B-52, it is absolutely factual to say that its modern role isn't really focused on long-distance strategic bombing but that is still a important part of that aircraft's design, history, and place in the grand scheme of military aviation pop-culture. To have a in-depth, carefully simulated version of that aircraft not allow for that strategic scale mission would be sad. It would feel like I am only getting half the story and as someone who cares a great deal about DCS as a way to explore (at least to some degree) the procedures and challenges of a given aircraft's entire variety of mission roles, it would be a shame to get a module that limits that exploration because DCS has no real capacity for strategic scale playable aircraft.

 

  So, to put this more directly. It is absolutely, factually true that you could do a somewhat downscaled version of a modern B-52 mission in DCS as things are right now. This is not something I am debating. What I am saying is that for me personally, it would be a shame for ED or a third party to move towards aircraft that can't be fully explored due to map/engine/technology limitations (for stuff like stealth, EW, strategic airlift, strategic bombing, etc) when there are still so many iconic, famous aircraft to be simulated that would not be so limited by map/technology/secrecy limitations. It is why I would rather a C-130 in DCS rather than a C-5. It is why I would rather a F-15E rather than a B-2. I would want aircraft that can be taken from the beginning to the end of their general, main focus capabilities without hitting hard DCS imposed limits.

 

  Obviously the best possible outcome would be bigger or interconnected maps that would allow for larger scale missions and thus (potentially) more strategically scaled aircraft. To me, that seems like something people should be clamoring for more aggressively since that would lay down the foundations necessary for a lot of new mission types and new aircraft. Once the map issue is out of the way, there really isn't a valid argument against larger scale strategic assets (even if they are not currently used as strategic assets). If that time ever comes, I will gladly, whole-heartedly join in the chorus for a B-52. I would love to really dig into that aircraft, its FULL mission history, and all the tension, endurance, and drama involved in long distance strategic style missions alongside shorter distance orbits with JDAM's and other PGM's in more modern conflicts. 

 

  Above all else, I want you to understand that I am not attacking the platform you worked on. I am not saying that the work your B-52's did demonstrated less capability. I am just not really going to agree that you can explore the B-52 as a aircraft without also having the ability to explore its most fundamental roots as a strategic bombing platform. It is a long-lived platform with a lot of history that deserves and should be reflected in a simulation. To put it another way. If maps were even smaller than they are now, I would not fight you if you were to say the C-130 wouldn't fit and shouldn't become a major project even though I worked on them and have a great deal of love for that aircraft as a result. I wouldn't want the 130 in a sim that can't support what it does in a way that really lets the player explore its missions across its lifetime. 

[Worrazen]

Not like it's anything new for the experienced folks but this is the fist time I'm seeing anything like that, loading full blown helicopter into an Ilyushin transporter, I mean, it's not surprising to me, I just happen to never though about it even tho I watch this sort of stuff and I know you can load a lot of stuff on cargo planes.

 

 

This is the compromise of lack of an AC/C-130 full fidelity module, a gread transporter AI's with such ability in DCS and perhaps some cool animations with external model along with it. I think this is a fair wish considering all the circumstances, DCS has yet to have a 2 engined airplane for the first time ever, yes, I understand.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Worrazen

[Worrazen]

Exactly, especially all the side stuff you could do with it, base maintenance and repair, dropping supplies down so combat engineers can finish constructing a new military makeshift bridge, need construction equipment to repair key road or bridge there, ... the only limit is a comparable real-life case, they do strap parachutes on smaller armored vehicles, but I haven't seen an excavator yet or other stuff, so I guess all of this within reason ofcourse, almost got too enthusiastic there haha!

 

If you can't rescue a pilot you can drop down a supply crate, where he can hunker down for the night or more, or even a cargo truck with a pair of paratroopers that can expedite the pilots relocation to a more suitable area for evac, imagine the cross-over gameplay with Combined Arms then, of the human driver in that truck driving through woods and hills, being guided by fractured information from a AWACS and CSAR helicopter or A-10C, and you have the comms being affected by jammer here and there it is, it's DCS baby!

 

So all of this transport and big-jet stuff won't go down to, this should all count, you could put it, as a pre-requisite technology for a really good and deep CSAR experience down the line.

 

And what I mean with CSAR is not that it's CSAR for the fun of being a medic/emergency/services in some kind of an EMERCOM Simulation, while that alone may be fun for some of us including me, but in DCS, why do I keep harping on CSAR ... because rescued pilots and salvaged airplanes (a bit of a stretch, we'll see) /debris/cargos/etc would actually COUNT for the Dynamic Campaign economy and you would have a pretty good reason to use CSAR as in real life. CSAR is of the things that I think gives Dynamic Campaign that source of depth and other objectives, more layers of sub-missions and secondary/tertiary objectives, which is exactly what Dynamic Campaign scenarios would benefit from, it makes the Dynamic Campaing it self stronger and richer.

[Wing]

Really just a matter of a 3rd party becoming brave, and pursuing a heavy module for DCS.

From my understanding at this point, THAT is all we are waiting on!

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

The most viable so far is b52h from 98' since there is public documentatuon on all 4 posts (3 the navigator's instruments just reoeat what tue pic's instruments shoe) also had one of the cooler toys cough jassm and sniper pod cough

Edited May 28, 2021 by IkarusC42B Pilot

[Evoman]

In my opinion there will have to be something simple yet interesting and useful to come first to open up the possibilities to something bigger and more complex.

So what ever it might be it might have to be a medium sized aircraft that is old enough to be declassified and enough data available for it.

 

From WWII the B-25 would be ideal

For some thing newish the F-111

 

 

 

 

 

[Northstar98]

10 minutes ago, Evoman said:

In my opinion there will have to be something simple yet interesting and useful to come first to open up the possibilities to something bigger and more complex.

So what ever it might be it might have to be a medium sized aircraft that is old enough to be declassified and enough data available for it.

 

From WWII the B-25 would be ideal

For some thing newish the F-111

 

 

 

 

Would love an 80s F-111F w. Pave Tack.

 

Especially when we have its REDFOR counterpart as a fairly high quality model, even if AI.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Northstar98

[Wing]

Anything heavy/multicrew would be promising at this point...

[SharpeXB]

If you listen to this video, at 7:08 Simon with ED explains why they have no plans to do “heavies”, it’s simply not their thing and it’s the domain of other sims  

 

[Tank50us]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

If you listen to this video, at 7:08 Simon with ED explains why they have no plans to do “heavies”, it’s simply not their thing and it’s the domain of other sims  

 

 

And the funny thing is a few weeks after that interview, Anubis released the C-130, and servers exploded with the thing. I'd say that the constant take off, fly, blow shit up, RTB, repeat isn't necessarily for everyone, and doing Helicopter Logistics isn't much better either right now. The C-130J offered something that many people wanted, but just wasn't there, and it certainly became a case of "Oh it will never catch on".... to the point I think like a third of my unit is people who just want to fly the C-130.

[AvgeekJoe]

I'd rather see third parties do "heavies".  Me personally, I prefer Military Aircraft Mod + Civilian Aircraft Mod as AI Traffic.  Just makes airfields more alive.

 

 

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

8 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

If you listen to this video, at 7:08 Simon with ED explains why they have no plans to do “heavies”, it’s simply not their thing and it’s the domain of other sims  

 

They also said they have no plans for the d version of apache yet here we are. That interview is meaningless

[Lace]

13 hours ago, Wing said:

Really just a matter of a 3rd party becoming brave, and pursuing a heavy module for DCS.

From my understanding at this point, THAT is all we are waiting on!

 

Given the amount of civilian and military transport heavies available for other sims, it is a shame that these cannot be ported into DCS somehow (IANAP).  This could save a lot of development time and reduce costs.  There are already decent modules in existence which would fit into the DCS world.  C-130, C-17, etc for transport, PC-12, King Air, Gulfstream for ISR missions, etc.

 

Offensive mission capable units like the AC-130 or B-52, and ISR platforms would have more systems to model, but for the pure transport modules anything from the civilian flight sim world would fit right in, assuming it was technically possible from a programming perspective.

[AvgeekJoe]

37 minutes ago, Lace said:

 

Given the amount of civilian and military transport heavies available for other sims, it is a shame that these cannot be ported into DCS somehow (IANAP).  This could save a lot of development time and reduce costs.  There are already decent modules in existence which would fit into the DCS world.  C-130, C-17, etc for transport, PC-12, King Air, Gulfstream for ISR missions, etc.

 

Offensive mission capable units like the AC-130 or B-52, and ISR platforms would have more systems to model, but for the pure transport modules anything from the civilian flight sim world would fit right in, assuming it was technically possible from a programming perspective.

 

I'd love to see some flight sim developers for P3D - which is really meant for simulating military stuff - come on down here into DCS also!  

[SharpeXB]

9 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

And the funny thing is a few weeks after that interview, Anubis released the C-130, and servers exploded with the thing. I'd say that the constant take off, fly, blow shit up, RTB, repeat isn't necessarily for everyone, and doing Helicopter Logistics isn't much better either right now. The C-130J offered something that many people wanted, but just wasn't there, and it certainly became a case of "Oh it will never catch on".... to the point I think like a third of my unit is people who just want to fly the C-130.

He’s obviously speaking for ED. Modders can do whatever they like, they don’t need to be profitable. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

He’s obviously speaking for ED. Modders can do whatever they like. 

…and as amply demonstrated with things like the MiG and the BS3 and the Apache, what they say and what they eventually end up doing bears little resemblance.

And of course, “plans” are things that are inherently malleable and which will (not can — will) change.

 

Oh, and since you are so fond of quoting polls as a reason why something should or shouldn't happen, presumably you're fully in favour of this massively popular idea being something they spend some time on. Right?  

Edited May 29, 2021 by Tippis

[cfrag]

These are business decisions, based on what ED's marketing research deems most popular (i.e. most likely to sell). That only occasionally reflects the desires of the core, which are frequenting this place (and of which I am, too, a member). I *love* Anubis' Herc. And I also see why it doesn't have the popular appeal of of the Hornet, Tomcat Hind nor Apache. For one, the Herc really comes into a class of its own in larger MP scenarios, either as supply plane to capture airfields, or multicrew faux Spectre to pund ground. To be blunt: to be really fun, it needs more than 1 players. Unfortunately (really, really unfortunately), MP is but a small sliver of DCS's main demography. Solo, the Herc is a nice diversion, that'll hold the average player's interest for a couple of hours tops. That being said, to me the Herc's success shows just how strong the case for a well-made MP/MC heavy can be. 

BUT: Anubis is free to apply their incredible talent any which way they chose, and we are indeed lucky we got the Herc. ED, on the other hand, must pay their staff so they can put bread on their tables. Should Anubis' gamble have misfired, the worst that happens is a bad star rating in the downloads section, and some disappointment on Anubis' part asking wtf is wrong with DCS's community. If ED misjudges a development investment, it may well be curtains for some of their staff. That's why we mostly get 'iconic' planes that you are likely to see in blockbuster movies rather than 'interesting' ones that complement our favorite theater of dream MP scenario - and that only the illuminati (i.e. whoever reads this  ) know or care about.

 

Would I want a heavy? Hell yes. Any one will do. But asking me is akin do asking a Junkie if they want more drugs - I buy anything from ED anyway. Do I think it likely to happen? Not from ED unless we see a dramatic growth in our MP community. Well, on-line gaming has increased during the corona year, so here's me hoping that this also translates into a strong growth of DCS's MP share.  

 

And, just to poke the Hornet's nest: before we get heavies, though, we need better integrated ATC 

 

[Northstar98]

8 hours ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

They also said they have no plans for the d version of apache yet here we are. That interview is meaningless

 

That was probably to hide the fact that an AH-64D was in development (and it almost certainly was at the time).

 

3 minutes ago, cfrag said:

And, just to poke the Hornet's nest: before we get heavies, though, we need better integrated ATC 

 

We need that full stop, and it really needs to be on the same level of functionality and work as well as the ATC in that other F-16 orientated simulator.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Northstar98

[Wing]

For those that say "B52s are not utilized against SAM penetration missions". This was posted yesterday:

 

 

[Tank50us]

11 hours ago, Wing said:

For those that say "B52s are not utilized against SAM penetration missions". This was posted yesterday:

 

 

It's almost as if they've had to drill for that very scenario

[Tom_]

GIB

[SaladinoSaurus]

Gekoloniseerd moment?  gib B-52 indeed.