B-1b Lancer

[mkellytx]

5 hours ago, RG2021 said:

Well that’s not quite what I meant. Traditional bombers take off and fly more or less in a straight line to obliterate their targets, hence why a B-17 or B-24 would be a kinda sucky module in DCS. The B-1 flies low and fast, dodging obstacles and you fly it in a reactive manor rather than a predictive manor.

Who said "traditional" bombers fly straight and level?  Sounds like by traditional you mean WWII.  Since the 1950's traditional bombers like the B-47 flew low level complete with a toss bomb delivery profile that amounted to an Immelmann.  BUFF did low level way before metal was ever bent on a Bone.  Personally, I've flown low levels on a BUFF and flown missions to the E range in the UTTR where we definitely weren't flying straight and level.  FWIW I worked on both the BUFF and Bone.

[mkellytx]

22 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

huh, odd, I could've sworn that the B-1B, an aircraft from the era of FBW, would have some sort of ability to keep the pilot from breaking the plane.

Not every FBW works the same as a Viper or Bug, different companies have different ideas.  The FBW in the Bone takes out the "bad" handling characteristics, according to the Bone pilots I used to work with the Bone on the manual reversions and no SIS/SEF is a bit of a handful to fly.

[Rick50]

 

Over-G'ing a strategic bomber... I kinda get the notion that doing so might limit one's advancement in the USAF...or most other employment for that matter!  

 

 

As for a Bone Simulator, as it's complex, likely lots of security issues for documentation, it runs into the similar situation as a BUFF module might. But full fidellity Bone DCS module is... well it's unlikely for many reasons.

 

As such I advise the same solution: develop a B-1B Lancer freeware mod. Aim for as much realism as your team can muster, make it cool and fun, it would be popular. The same for an F-111, Su-24, TU-22M Backfire, B-52D and H and G, maybe some UH-60 variants. 

 

Get inspired from the Anubis C-130J Super Hercules mod, the brand new (yesterday) CH-47 Chinook mod, the T-45 Goshawk mod and others!

[mkellytx]

4 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

Over-G'ing a strategic bomber... I kinda get the notion that doing so might limit one's advancement in the USAF...or most other employment for that matter!  

Over-G'ing is something a lot of young stick actuators do, usually so long as it doesn't result in the loss of an airframe, the violator gets to de-panel and inspect the airframe with the crew chief.  If the pilot has any sense, a case or bottle of the chief's preferred adult beverage should be offered to as penance.

 

Not every loss of airframe is career ending.  There was the F-22 that went through a wake and bent the plane beyond repair, sometimes bad $h_t happens.

 

Then there was the time my squadron commander over-g'ed an airframe.  We were integrating the Sniper pod onto the Bone and the test point called for a 3 g wind up turn at a specified Mach number and indicated airspeed.  Trasher pulled 3.1 or 3.2 and we gave him a hard time, made him do a shot of Weed at role call.  To be completely honest hitting exactly 3.0 at Mach .xx and KIAS yyy is very difficult, so a small overshoot is the stuff of a bit of professional "jibing", since every other patch wearing golden hand believed they could nail the test point exactly right the first try.

[cfrag]

6 hours ago, mkellytx said:

There was the F-22 that went through a wake and bent the plane beyond repair, sometimes bad $h_t happens

 

I bet the same thought went through the minds of those who were attending that wake...  

Edited September 16, 2021 by cfrag

[DmitriKozlowsky]

On 4/24/2020 at 3:36 PM, Evoman said:

News flash

 

I just ran read a news article that the USAF is sending a hulk of a B-1 Lancer from the bone yard to the to the National Institute for Aviation Research at Wichita State University in Kansas.

"Researchers there will 3D scan the entire airframe to create a highly detailed "digital twin" model to help identify areas of the aircraft that suffer high levels of fatigue and otherwise collect data that could help predict future maintenance needs among the B-1Bs still in service."

 

 

This maybe the perfect opportunity for ED to see if they can take advantage of the project or even helpout benefiting them in bringing the B-1 to DCS.

 

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33151/air-force-sends-full-b-1b-airframe-from-boneyard-to-kansas-to-create-its-digital-twin

 

That kind of detailed data is classified. A potential weak and volunerable points of an airframe  can be used to taylor munitions to target those vulnerabilities. Or used for penetration sabotage.

[Eagle7907]

I’d buy, even if it’s low fidelity or simplified. Same for any bomber. (B52, B2, B58, etc)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Rick50]

4 hours ago, Eagle7907 said:

I’d buy, even if it’s low fidelity or simplified. Same for any bomber. (B52, B2, B58, etc)

 

Sure, and so would i, if it still had a good effort to make it quality.  Thing is, ED seems to be focused only on high fidellity, full complexity of systems, for it's products after the so-called "FC planes". The "FC's" were the legacy jets that originally were from Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3, which were amazing at the time, and still fun today. And I'd think that an "FC level bomber" would be great fun, but ED doesn't seem to want to go that route.

 

Such things aren't important in a mod, basically the users are either happy with a mod or they aren't... which is why I think that for real fancy airplanes like B-52, B-58, B-1B, and sure, even the B-2 and/or B-21, it makes a lot of sense to do them as mods, maybe with many contributing to it!   Imagine one or all of those planes, as a free mod, done to a similar level of quality and realism as the Anubis C-130J SuperHercules, or the T-45 Goshawk... They look good, and do a great job of replicating the feel and look of the real planes, but don't need licencing, don't need to have every publication that is unobtainable, and if it's not %100 well don't complain too much since it was done by unpaid volunteers!

 

 

[Eagle7907]

 
Sure, and so would i, if it still had a good effort to make it quality.  Thing is, ED seems to be focused only on high fidellity, full complexity of systems, for it's products after the so-called "FC planes". The "FC's" were the legacy jets that originally were from Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3, which were amazing at the time, and still fun today. And I'd think that an "FC level bomber" would be great fun, but ED doesn't seem to want to go that route.
 
Such things aren't important in a mod, basically the users are either happy with a mod or they aren't... which is why I think that for real fancy airplanes like B-52, B-58, B-1B, and sure, even the B-2 and/or B-21, it makes a lot of sense to do them as mods, maybe with many contributing to it!   Imagine one or all of those planes, as a free mod, done to a similar level of quality and realism as the Anubis C-130J SuperHercules, or the T-45 Goshawk... They look good, and do a great job of replicating the feel and look of the real planes, but don't need licencing, don't need to have every publication that is unobtainable, and if it's not %100 well don't complain too much since it was done by unpaid volunteers!
 
 

I respectfully disagree. I understand their focus is full fidelity, but that doesn’t mean never again. My concerns regarding mods is simply support and a well modeled cockpit. The problem with mods is they rely on the author to make sure it still works for a simulator that is always changing/updating. To put that into the charge of ED, would probably have higher reliability than a free mod that someone contributes on their spare time. Mind you as a hobby to them as well. Meaning they don’t make a dime. Granted, I haven’t tried any mods out there and I am speaking a bit of bias, but I don’t do them because 1) I don’t want to worry if they work or not every update, 2) I’d rather pay money for something that someone earns to keeping it working. 3) If I can’t get full fidelity, then I’d rather get the closest next thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Vampyre]

The problem with an FC3 level B-1B is that, without a ground radar or targeting pod (which are limitations of FC3), it will be a iron bomb or basic CBU truck. Without multicrew or a suitable AI alternative it will not have a reliable way to aim the bombs as It has no HUD. It has to be a full fidelity module to use a Sniper targeting pod, air to ground radar and multicrew so it can use JDAM's, WCMD's, JASSM's/LRASM's or even simple Mk-80 series bombs or CBU's. Anything less than full fidelity wouldn't be worth including. 

[Rick50]

 

Well, I see and agree with both of you... and combined with my own earlier thoughts, it would seem as if getting such an aircraft iis unlikely at all.

 

I mean, we just got another bomber in DCS, the Shenyang... took years... and it's AI only...

 

 

Edit:

I'm not saying the Shenyang AI bomber took years or huge effort to make, just that it's been quite a while since ED released an AI bomber, which perhaps shows how their focus is at this time.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Rick50

[Rick50]

Vampyre, I "get" your idea of "less than full fidelity wouldn't be worth including".  But let's explore this a tiny bit: B-1B has four crewmembers, all with their own task stations. B-52 in modern form has... 6 workstations, two pilot and four crew doing armament, defensive, EW and so on.  So what? Well, that means to get that "full fidellity Bone or BUFF" in the air and then to the fight, you'll need 4 or even 6 online humans, who know those workstations to at least 90% competency... because if the EW guy messes something up endangering the mission, you'll have several other players suddenly rage-quit  after 1 to 10 hours of "flying" in the backseats with no good windows to even see outside...and go jump into fighters where at least they get some action and don't have to rely on other's incompetence to doom his plane, he can accomplish it all himself!

 

Or... would you wish for those other workstations be done with AI ?  Considering how much systems programming that would take? And then getting an AI to not act stupid... and getting the AI to work competently and take orders as they were intended? That's... well that's a huge investment in resources to accomplish. 

 

Look, I don't know what the answer is. I propose that a freeware mod is the most likely to get us to something vaguely like the real thing in the shortest amount of time, with potential upgrades as time goes on. I get the problem of "abandoned mods no longer work", but maybe that is more a function of poor planning for long term community use... maybe once fully released, a module team should give the keys to programming to others who understand how it all works, and allow the community enough access to update the mod and keep it working even 5 years after release if the original team members have disappeared?

 

Ok, but let's discuss a payware module proposal: I think that a super simple FC3 level "complex bomber" is not the way to go. But that a 4 or 6 multi-crew Full Fidellity "complex bomber" is so unlikely, costly and possibly impractical, that this too is not the way to go. What does that leave us with? Something in between, a payware plane that's neither true "full fidellity" nor FC3 simple, but that could be flown and operated by one human player, with a bit of AI assistance, for something that is medium complexity... 

 

I'm imagining something that would be a little like the player's experience of complexity of the A-10C, F-16 and F/A-18C modules, perhaps with an AI assistant much like Heatblur's Jester. It would fly just like the real thing with a complex flight dynamic FM. It would have aproximations of the tasks from all the workstations... but not "EXACTLY" require the same taskload of those workstations, to cut down on the workload of the single human player, and to help simplify the coding of the module. The net effect is that it would still be a bigger challenge to fly fight and survive in the Bone/BUFF/Hustler, than in a HornetHogViper... but still be something a dev could accomplish in a reasonable number of years before offering EA, and possibly have a decent ROI. How might this feel to you?

[Eagle7907]

The problem with an FC3 level B-1B is that, without a ground radar or targeting pod (which are limitations of FC3), it will be a iron bomb or basic CBU truck. Without multicrew or a suitable AI alternative it will not have a reliable way to aim the bombs as It has no HUD. It has to be a full fidelity module to use a Sniper targeting pod, air to ground radar and multicrew so it can use JDAM's, WCMD's, JASSM's/LRASM's or even simple Mk-80 series bombs or CBU's. Anything less than full fidelity wouldn't be worth including. 

I see your point, however, JDAMs don’t require a ground radar nor sniper pod and can still be employed by a single player without the complexity you speak of. (Using map markers) Yes it would be a “dumb down” version, but still can easily be used on a type of module we are sort of expecting. So in a way, it would be a Preplanned JDAM, iron bomb, CBU truck. Which IMO would still warrant a purchase from me. I don’t expect a full functioning, all accurate, weapon complete bomber. That would be so beyond the programming power and access of ED. The reality is if we do get a modern bomber, it will be extremely limited in scope and weapons.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Vampyre]

11 hours ago, Rick50 said:

Vampyre, I "get" your idea of "less than full fidelity wouldn't be worth including".  But let's explore this a tiny bit: B-1B has four crewmembers, all with their own task stations. B-52 in modern form has... 6 workstations, two pilot and four crew doing armament, defensive, EW and so on.  So what? Well, that means to get that "full fidellity Bone or BUFF" in the air and then to the fight, you'll need 4 or even 6 online humans, who know those workstations to at least 90% competency... because if the EW guy messes something up endangering the mission, you'll have several other players suddenly rage-quit  after 1 to 10 hours of "flying" in the backseats with no good windows to even see outside...and go jump into fighters where at least they get some action and don't have to rely on other's incompetence to doom his plane, he can accomplish it all himself!

 

Or... would you wish for those other workstations be done with AI ?  Considering how much systems programming that would take? And then getting an AI to not act stupid... and getting the AI to work competently and take orders as they were intended? That's... well that's a huge investment in resources to accomplish. 

 

Look, I don't know what the answer is. I propose that a freeware mod is the most likely to get us to something vaguely like the real thing in the shortest amount of time, with potential upgrades as time goes on. I get the problem of "abandoned mods no longer work", but maybe that is more a function of poor planning for long term community use... maybe once fully released, a module team should give the keys to programming to others who understand how it all works, and allow the community enough access to update the mod and keep it working even 5 years after release if the original team members have disappeared?

 

Ok, but let's discuss a payware module proposal: I think that a super simple FC3 level "complex bomber" is not the way to go. But that a 4 or 6 multi-crew Full Fidellity "complex bomber" is so unlikely, costly and possibly impractical, that this too is not the way to go. What does that leave us with? Something in between, a payware plane that's neither true "full fidellity" nor FC3 simple, but that could be flown and operated by one human player, with a bit of AI assistance, for something that is medium complexity... 

 

I'm imagining something that would be a little like the player's experience of complexity of the A-10C, F-16 and F/A-18C modules, perhaps with an AI assistant much like Heatblur's Jester. It would fly just like the real thing with a complex flight dynamic FM. It would have aproximations of the tasks from all the workstations... but not "EXACTLY" require the same taskload of those workstations, to cut down on the workload of the single human player, and to help simplify the coding of the module. The net effect is that it would still be a bigger challenge to fly fight and survive in the Bone/BUFF/Hustler, than in a HornetHogViper... but still be something a dev could accomplish in a reasonable number of years before offering EA, and possibly have a decent ROI. How might this feel to you?

  When I say full fidelity I mean almost exactly like the Heatblur F-14 with its implementation of Jester AI and human controllability.  Human or AI crew is not an either/or argument.  the Heatblur F-14 is evidence of AI and human implementation with almost any combination of crew requirements. The crew stations on the Bone will lend themselves well to the Heatblur setup because of the redundancy of the stations and the limitations of DCS. The Bone has two stations for flying the aircraft and two stations for operating the systems. While, in a perfect world, all four seats would be manned by humans I don't see that as feasible every time one wants to fly the Bone just like it is not feasible to have a RIO in the Tomcat every time someone wants to fly it (unless you are in a virtual squadron that specializes in the aircraft). Depending on the Heatblur implementation of Jesters LANTIRN capabilities the AI could also use targeting pods or other sensors to aim air to surface weapons... that is still a big question mark at the moment though. I do believe they will get it working though. At a minimum, I would envision having one to four human crew with AI to fill the places of everyone but the pilot. That seems to be a DCS multiplayer limitation. In single player offline the player would be able to use AI or be able to "jump" to any station of their choosing as it is currently implemented in DCS for other multi-position aircraft. If the AI is not capable of operating the offensive systems well, then a minimum of two human players will be required to operate the jet. One to fly the jet and one to operate the systems. There is only a need for one person to fly the jet. The OSO is critical to mission accomplishment because that station is required to aim the weapons. As for the DSO, the DCS EW implementation is so basic (and I don't see that changing anytime soon) that you don't even need someone dedicated to operate the defensive systems. Stream/retract the ALE-50, dispense chaff/flares and turn the jammer and associated EW systems on and off and verbal cues to tell the pilots what to avoid and that is it. An AI could easily perform that task.

 

 How the Bone will be used in DCS: I imagine that not a lot of 10+ hour missions will be completed. I expect around one to three hour missions to be the norm simply because this is a high fidelity simulation of aircraft within a game framework and very few people have 10 hours to burn doing big circles on the maps we have. Yes, it will be more difficult to operate effectively but that is part of the draw for me. Combat aircraft rarely operate alone in non-permissive environments and even when they do they are usually aircraft specialized for that like the F-117 was. I have always been a fan of bombers. I find it fun to sneak in and hit targets under the noses of the enemy and then try to sneak back out. Back in my Il-2 FB days I always enjoyed the Warbirds of Prey servers Bomber night event we had every other Friday. Some of the most fun missions were when we would get 70+ multi engine level bombers like B-17's, B-24's, B-29's, or Ju-88's and keeping formation at 30k ft to bomb a single target area. I enjoyed the pressure of being in the lead bomber and having to jump from the different pilot gunner and bombardier positions, calculate the drop for the rest of the formation while under attack from enemy players in 15-20 fighters and friendly escorts in 10-15 fighters. Having extra crew to do some of those tasks would have been appreciated though. That was great fun and very memorable. I think there are still videos of some of those events on Youtube.

 

As for rage quitters that want the feeling of glory of doing it all themselves, there will always be those types out there. My suggestion is to not let them in your aircraft in the first place. I never let random people in my aircraft. I have to know you and trust you to allow you in my aircraft. They are usually a lot less effective than they think they are as they are not really team players.

[Vampyre]

6 hours ago, Eagle7907 said:

I see your point, however, JDAMs don’t require a ground radar nor sniper pod and can still be employed by a single player without the complexity you speak of. (Using map markers) Yes it would be a “dumb down” version, but still can easily be used on a type of module we are sort of expecting. So in a way, it would be a Preplanned JDAM, iron bomb, CBU truck. Which IMO would still warrant a purchase from me. I don’t expect a full functioning, all accurate, weapon complete bomber. That would be so beyond the programming power and access of ED. The reality is if we do get a modern bomber, it will be extremely limited in scope and weapons.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 We are talking about a 35 year old bomber. There is hardly anything in it, even in its upgraded form, that is state of the art anymore. Many of the things required to do a good simulation of the Bone are already in DCS World and would need to be tailored to the new module. As with any aircraft to be considered for development, documentation availability could be a sticking point as could any classification issues plus the fear, uncertainty and doubt of a positive ROI could stop the development of the Bone as a module. I know that I would like to see how good it is at all of its missions so anything less than full fidelity is not worth including in DCS World. A "dumbed down" half baked module would be a hard no for me. If I ever see something less than full fidelity like what you have said you would accept here offered by ED then I would see it as a quick cash grab and I would be worried about the future of DCS World in general. That would be an indication of a problem with the business model.

 

 Maybe ED will put something like what you are advocating for in MAC if that ever materializes. As for me the only FC3 plane I regularly fly for fun is the MiG-29 and as soon as the Full Fidelity version is available that will go straight to the circular file with the rest of the FC3 planes I have. FC3 was necessary to maintain the player base at its time of inception but it is becoming less relevant now. I feel FC3's place in DCS World would have gone away by now if not for certain Russian laws prohibiting the simulation of their equipment. "Dumbed down" is not in ED's mission statement for DCS World, in fact the opposite is true. That is why I suggest MAC. MAC is supposed to be a lower fidelity version of DCS for people who don't want to or don't think they can grasp the systems management aspect of DCS World. It has been really quiet on that game though so it may just be vaporware now. I really don't know. I would never support a dumbed down aircraft in DCS World and ED have stated it is not their intent to include such content in DCS World in the future. Until they change their stance on that the point is moot.

 

  IIRC, there was a game modification that allowed one to use the AI B-1B model with an FC3 cockpit that might interest you. It was super limited and had unrealistic flight performance. It is also one of the reasons why I dislike game modifications in general. The creators not supporting them as they should, questionable capabilities, general over performance and poor damage modeling makes them not equal to the quality standards of most of the DCS paid modules. Their problems are pretty glaring if you know what you are looking for. I avoid them like the plague for the most part. There are some pretty decent game modifications out there like the VNAO T-45 and community A-4E but by and large, most modifications are not good realism wise. The creators of these modifications enjoy doing this in their free time and they do have people who enjoy the content they make but I have problems with the suspension of disbelief and I am primarily a multiplayer flyer which means there are compatibility problems and failures of the integrity checks to deal with. That makes them not worth the time and effort for me.

[Rick50]

 

The age of the bomber, and having parallel capabilities, has NOTHING to do with whether or not you'll get permission to replicate it in a sim or get the handbook documentation to do a full fidellity. The defense ministries of the world have their own ideas about what they'll allow and what they won't... and to outsiders there's no obvious rhym or reason to their decisions. It's an unfortunate reality. Then you have to convince the rights holder to the aircraft... Boeing for the BUFF and... Rockwell for the Bone? Not sure if the B-1B's intellectual property is still owned by Rockwell or maybe another entity...?

 

Your idea of a "MAC Bone" is a good one, I think. Just I'm not sure MAC will even come out... or be a success. I think it would do well in the marketplace, but I've been wrong before!

 

You talk about poor mods that fly like an 8 year old dreamed up the specs... true, I don't like those either, recently I saw a video for a B-2 Spirit mod, and it had afterburners and could go well over Mach 1, maneuver like a "clean" Viper... very silly. Not for me.  But I'm not proposing anything like that, I'm suggesting a serious mod, like the T-45, the A-4E, the C-130J mod that features a working cockpit, realistic performance, multi-workstations and so on. Flies just like real. An open team, testing, tweeking, upgrading, evolving over time, maintained with care. I think that's the only way we'll get anything like a BUFF or Bone into DCS that's worth a daarn!

 

 

 

 

[Eagle7907]

Yup, TBH, I don’t think a bomber will ever materialize unless the USAF contracts ED for one. It seems the running thing is a military contract was associated with the module, or the materials used to make the module are so old that obtaining a clearance or license was a non-issue. Here’s to hopes and dreams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Tank50us]

11 hours ago, Eagle7907 said:

It seems the running thing is a military contract was associated with the module, or the materials used to make the module are so old that obtaining a clearance or license was a non-issue

 

Eh.... kind of. It's all down to what the developer, be it ED or a third party, wants to make. You certainly don't need all of the documents to accurately model an aircraft and all of its systems, you can infer based on available data how it might work, and if you're off, correct later. Having SMEs willing to talk about the subject also helps, as does access to an air frame.

 

An example of this would be with the UH-60. If someone wanted to model one, they might have a hard time getting all of the required data needed to make it, especially if the version they're making is something currently in service (like say the MH60R Seahawk). But, if you have access to one of the Civilian S-70s, you can likely take information gleaned from it, and apply it to what you're trying to make. If you know it has certain systems, you can make 'simplistic' versions of those systems that basically get the gyst of how it works, without going into the finer details. You have to remember, that under the hood, DCS is just like any other video game, and code is code. Now, if you take that approach, could it still be sold? Yes. You just have to be honest with your future buyers that "This is not a full 1-1 recreation of (insert aircraft), but it's as close to what can be modeled based on available data as we can get".

 

If you're honest with the customer, they'll buy it, despite the flaws.

[Rick50]

"

hmm, yea. But comparing a UH-60 to that of a BUFF or Bone... there's gonna be a WHOLE lot more "infering" going on, enough to possibly make difficult to get near completion of a project. UH-60 is a complex heli, but the base model is seats and a hook for sling load, while the two strategic bombers are, beyond the aircraft itself, complex weapons systems requiring several human operators just to do that part. Not saying it's impossible, just that my impression is that making a high fidellity DCS module would require HUGE time consuming effort to get there.

 

 

Anyway, they are updating the Bone and BUFF models for the AI to use, on page 104 linked and also page 106 as well:

 

Also some nice Beagle screens too...