Boeing B-52 Stratofortress as a full fidellity paid module?? Would you buy?

[Svsmokey]

I'm saying the available runways further limit basing options , which further increases the threat level , unless of course , as Tippis suggests , there need be no threat . At which point , just check "invulnerable" and "unlimited" ammo and be done with it .

Yeah , the bipe was paid for by someone . I dare say a B52 might cost just a bit more .

ED has stated unequivocally that they are not interested in modeling more than two engines .

I could further refute counter-arguments , but i'm not gonna further beat this dead horse .

Enjoy your fantasies

[Tippis]

Just now, Svsmokey said:

I'm saying the available runways further limit basing options

They don't, though. There are tons of them — even more so when you consider the loadouts that would be in play.

 

Before 2.7, the limit wouldn't even have been the runways but the parking spots, but that limit is also gone now. So the limit you're imagining only exists on some of the WWII maps, where the same issue exists for almost all modern aircraft. It's a non-issue.

 

Just now, Svsmokey said:

Yeah , the bipe was paid for by someone . I dare say a B52 might cost just a bit more .

Nah. And even if it did, so what? If someone wants to pay for it, they want to pay for it.

 

Just now, Svsmokey said:

ED has stated unequivocally that they are not interested in modeling more than two engines .

[citation needed]

[sirrah]

This poll is inadequate. It lacks options

 

 

1: Don't have time to sit for 8 hours straight in the navigator station without a window, just to get shot down over the target area

 

2: 0$ (option not available)

 

3: No variant whatsoever (option not available)

Edited May 29, 2021 by sirrah

[Wing]

1 hour ago, Svsmokey said:

I'm saying the available runways further limit basing options , which further increases the threat level , unless of course , as Tippis suggests , there need be no threat . At which point , just check "invulnerable" and "unlimited" ammo and be done with it .

Yeah , the bipe was paid for by someone . I dare say a B52 might cost just a bit more .

ED has stated unequivocally that they are not interested in modeling more than two engines .

I could further refute counter-arguments , but i'm not gonna further beat this dead horse .

Enjoy your fantasies

Not fantasies, the B52 operates sorties yearly within the confines of DCS Nevada, DCS Persian Gulf, and DCS Marianas Islands. Launching and recovering from airfields already in game.

 

Continue to be ignorant, grasping for straws on a topic you have no experience/education with…

[Wing]

46 minutes ago, sirrah said:

This poll is inadequate. It lacks options

 

 

1: Don't have time to sit for 8 hours straight in the navigator station without a window, just to get shot down over the target area

 

2: 0$ (option not available)

 

3: No variant whatsoever (option not available)

 

For the record, B52s don’t just fly 8+ hour missions. The current mission set has them flying sortie durations far less than that. So again, it’s an example of misinformation to try and create a false narrative by people here who literally have no idea what they are talking about. 

[Rick50]

2 hours ago, Tippis said:

Funnily enough, he was trying to bias the poll towards “no”, but has instead accidentally split the vote on the no side and didn't offer a suitable range of, or the suitable allowance of combinations of, answer. So  instead, he's managed (at the time of writing) to show that a qualified majority would be in favour of such a module, and would pay an average of $160(!) for it.

 

Oops.

 

 

Hardly.

 

I was genuinely curious at what people actually want. And this is very early in this poll, the other one got 500 or so people voting over 2 years. I voted for the $250 all variants, I'm not trying to stop such a project. I'm just pessimistic about it getting to Early Access, I hope to be proven wrong. Not sure why that makes me the baddie, but so be it.   

 

One more consideration: by the time a BUFF is ready for EA, the maps might be large enough for full fuel mission, or even full global scenery. Maybe 7 years from now. 

 

[sirrah]

46 minutes ago, Wing said:

For the record, B52s don’t just fly 8+ hour missions. The current mission set has them flying sortie durations far less than that. So again, it’s an example of misinformation to try and create a false narrative by people here who literally have no idea what they are talking about. 

The "8 hour" I just used because it's mentioned in the poll. Wasn't my intention to make fun about those who want this. In my post I was mainly pointing out that the poll was set up very poorly.. Let me rephrase:

 

On poll question #1, I can answer that I'm not interested in a B52 for DCS.

Then, at question #2 I have to answer how much I want to spend on it and I can't choose $0

And then question #3 requires me to choose some variant...

 

I can't submit my vote without also filling in #2 and #3, hence I'm saying

this poll is flawed.

 

 

But hey, why bother at all, filling the wish list forum with brilliant ideas and wishes. If I learned anything during my time with DCS and this forum, it's that ED only visits this wish-list section when people start throwing mud and call each other names. Until then nobody from ED seems to care or see any of our threads here...

I've seen too many great ideas come and pass here, some of them multiple times, without even 1 single comment from ED. I wonder why ED even added these wish-list sub-forums in the first place.

[Rick50]

3 hours ago, sirrah said:

I can't submit my vote without also filling in #2 and #3, hence I'm saying

this poll is flawed.

 

Yes, that's a limitation of the forum polling function that I was unaware of when I made it.

 

 

[Buzzles]

7 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

 

Yes, that's a limitation of the forum polling function that I was unaware of when I made it.

 

 

Can you not edit 2 and 3 and add "Answered No to 1" as options?

[Rick50]

 

Ok I edited the poll a bit, added a few more options too. I don't think it'll make anyone happy, but I did try.

 

 

 

[Northstar98]

Now revisiting I wish I could amend my vote, because now the options are more accommodating.

 

But yes, this is a better set.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Northstar98

[Tank50us]

I personally say yes, because bombers bring a bunch to the table, and we have seen that people are interested in flying large combat aircraft in DCS (Hercs with bomb loads in case anyone tries to argue). Now, how could such a module be done? That's the tricky part. The B52 has a crew of six, and only four of the stations have any public information available (pilot, co-pilot, Navigator, and Weapon Systems Officer), so getting a full crew in DCS would be a challenge, but not impossible. One could make it where the other functions are handled by AI crew-members similar to Jester in the F-14, but that would require a lot of programming, and again, with limited knowledge on how those other seats work, you're not going to be able to do much. This isn't to say that it shouldn't be done by the way, I for one would like to see a proper Stratofortress in DCS, as well as the Bone and the Spirit.

 

One of the things I want to do is create a team that tackles these very challenges, modeling the less understood aircraft into full fidelity modules. And part of the reason I'd aim to do the BUFF is because it does have a market. There are those players that don't like the frantic, high-speed action of the Fighter Lifestyle, and prefer the slower action that a transport or bomb truck offers... so why not give them what they want? Odds are they'd load up a catapult full of cash and launch it at whoever decides to do it!

[Wing]

16 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

I personally say yes, because bombers bring a bunch to the table, and we have seen that people are interested in flying large combat aircraft in DCS (Hercs with bomb loads in case anyone tries to argue). Now, how could such a module be done? That's the tricky part. The B52 has a crew of six, and only four of the stations have any public information available (pilot, co-pilot, Navigator, and Weapon Systems Officer), so getting a full crew in DCS would be a challenge, but not impossible. One could make it where the other functions are handled by AI crew-members similar to Jester in the F-14, but that would require a lot of programming, and again, with limited knowledge on how those other seats work, you're not going to be able to do much. This isn't to say that it shouldn't be done by the way, I for one would like to see a proper Stratofortress in DCS, as well as the Bone and the Spirit.

 

One of the things I want to do is create a team that tackles these very challenges, modeling the less understood aircraft into full fidelity modules. And part of the reason I'd aim to do the BUFF is because it does have a market. There are those players that don't like the frantic, high-speed action of the Fighter Lifestyle, and prefer the slower action that a transport or bomb truck offers... so why not give them what they want? Odds are they'd load up a catapult full of cash and launch it at whoever decides to do it!

 

When it comes to the multicrew functionality of a B52 specifically, there are work arounds for lack of player crew slots. I.E. you can get away with a PILOT, and RNAV multicrew for a sortie, with the remaining crew stations AI controlled. EWO, Gunner, CoPilot, and NAV are stations that although would be lovely to populate fully in multiplayer, would not necessarily be required in order to get the jet downrange and effectively support JTAC/get on station over the AO in the DCS environment.

 

So effectively the module could be flyable and enjoyed with 2 people multicrew (although ofcourse proper procedure, would be enjoyed with a crew of 4+).

[Rick50]

 

considering how incredibly demanding DCS customers are, would the buyers of said module... be just fine with two crew stations modeled? And let the remaining stations be purely AI controlled?  Or would that create anger and animosity? Genuine question, because I'm not sure how buyers would react to that.

 

Similarly, those mostly unused crew stations (in the game anyway, not real life), how much cost in development time and money, would be required?

 

I think our best bet would be to draw heavy inspiration from the Anubis C-130J Super Hercules mod, which features detailed working cockpit, loadmaster station, copilot station, and I think a few other stations that can be manned... and make a very awesome mod. Sure, it would not model as many systems as a full fidellity paid module, but I bet it gets to a downloadable state in perhaps 1 year, and that then draws upon more people with skills to further develop systems and wpns to add to it. Plus since it's free, a lot more people would get it. If progress is amazing, then this might be worth then turning into the full paid module dev team... maybe. 

 

 

[Tippis]

14 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

considering how incredibly demanding DCS customers are, would the buyers of said module... be just fine with two crew stations modeled? And let the remaining stations be purely AI controlled?

It has worked just fine for a bunch of aircraft so far. Especially since the stations wouldn't actually do anything.

[Tank50us]

54 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

considering how incredibly demanding DCS customers are, would the buyers of said module... be just fine with two crew stations modeled? And let the remaining stations be purely AI controlled?

 

Kind of. It depends on what stations are being controlled by humans and what stations are controlled by the AI, and if there's the option for players to take over any of those stations. For example, let's assume you're making a carpet bomb run on a target area (we'll say a line of tanks on one side of a river), the pilots job would be to get the thing lined up with the IP, and once lined up, fly straight and level while the WSO prep the bombs and open the bomb-bay doors, and then release. And during all of this, the DSO has to keep the plane safe from enemy action. Could it be done with one person and an AI? Yeah, especially if the one person jumps from one station to the next to perform the necessary operations. But I think we can all agree that it would be more 'satisfying' for a multi-crew option. Bonus points for those people who have kids and want to build SimPits (Let's face it, building a simpit with kids can teach them pretty valuable life skills). Not trying to go into the "Them darn kids" territory here btw, but I think it's safe to say that those people who play DCS who have a sizable family could have plenty of fun with their children if they built a B52 or BOne SimPit.... who knows, maybe those kids will grow up to join that part of the triad when they're older.

[Rick50]

 

Tank, I'm talking about if crew stations that were nothing but AI. No option to "jump into that seat". A very strong way to reduce the total efforts to bring such a module to market, money time too. Is that going to be accepted by the DCS community? Or will that leave people yelling "UNREALISTIC!!! BLASPHEMY!!! REFUND!!!!!!!!"

 

I'll put it this way: you imagine the limitless possibilties. I'm trying to make a HUGE project idea, a little less huge, so that it's more likely to be picked, and completed... but I'm not sure this compromise would be accepted by the customers, what do you guys think?

[Evoman]

22 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

 

Tank, I'm talking about if crew stations that were nothing but AI. No option to "jump into that seat". A very strong way to reduce the total efforts to bring such a module to market, money time too. Is that going to be accepted by the DCS community? Or will that leave people yelling "UNREALISTIC!!! BLASPHEMY!!! REFUND!!!!!!!!"

 

I'll put it this way: you imagine the limitless possibilties. I'm trying to make a HUGE project idea, a little less huge, so that it's more likely to be picked, and completed... but I'm not sure this compromise would be accepted by the customers, what do you guys think?

I think that as long as you make it clear to the customer upfront before buying that this would be a work in progress it would fall on the customer if its for them or not.

I am sure there would be a lot of BLUFF fans out there that just want the experience of flying a descent enough simulation of the B-52.

 

By the way the new update poll is probably one of the best I have seen with a detailed view of the particular interest there would be.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Evoman

[Rick50]

sure, but the community is not heading to "decent enough", but rather to "absolute realism EXACTLY like the real thing".  I'm not certain that missing crew stations would be seen as acceptable.

[Evoman]

6 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

sure, but the community is not heading to "decent enough", but rather to "absolute realism EXACTLY like the real thing".  I'm not certain that missing crew stations would be seen as acceptable.

I am sure that as long as you get the flight model pretty accurate early on that would be the most important factor to be considered like the real thing.

[kseremak]

Yes, I would buy one, but only some early variant from '50s. Why? Two reasons shaping the gameplay with such bomber:

 

First thing is in early '60s B-52 main weapon became AGM-28 Hound Dog with range of 780nm, late 1970s B-52's main weapon became AGM-86B ALCM Air Launched Cruise Missile with range of more than 1500nm.

DCS map size is roughly 400nm x 400nm. Mission would be like takeoff (at the very corner of the map) -> fire -> touchdown....

 

Second thing is could '50s B-52 defend itself against or avoid MiG-15, MiG-17, MiG-19, Yak-28? Arguably yes, it would have a good chance due to small speed difference, primitive short range interceptor radars, limited interceptor range and very limited armament with most basic short range missiles and guns.

Could '80s B-52 defend itself or do anything against MiG-29, Su-27, MiG-31? No. It would be shoot down like a transport plane without the slightest chance.

 

Totally one sided boring "war on terror" when i fly without any danger like on training doesn't intrest me in the slightest, tossing cruise missiles from 1500nm from the corner of the map either.

I would be interested in trying to get through enemy interceptors to drop the bombs with my dangerous silver B-52 like in Dr. Strangelove when it was still possible, not "flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong"

 

 

Edited May 31, 2021 by kseremak

[Ikaros]

On 5/30/2021 at 10:15 AM, Rick50 said:

sure, but the community is not heading to "decent enough", but rather to "absolute realism EXACTLY like the real thing".  I'm not certain that missing crew stations would be seen as acceptable.

 

I'm okay with it.

[upyr1]

One of my biggest problems comes down to crew size, you will have to ask the questions what postions should be automated and what would be darn boring. I'd much rather see more cold war era fighters and attack planes. So here is the deal if you can work on a buff module I'll beta test it and see if I like it

Edited May 31, 2021 by upyr1

[Ikaros]

I wonder if the B-52G would be a plausible model to make since they were all cut into pieces under the START treaty? Well, all of them except for a couple of museum pieces that is.

[Rick50]

Hmmm. 

 

I feel that the G not being in service anymore, won't have a signficant effect on whether a module gets made. I think it would be other factors, including how much it would COST to make a full module, and then compared to the revenue predictions... I think that calculation would have a significant factor. 

 

The G might be out of service, but getting enough documentation could still be a significant barrier... it just might no longer be available in enough quantity (meaning ALL the manuals, not just one or two maintenance manuals). 

 

Then there is ED. Now, AFAIK, they themselves need to approve of such a module. Maybe they'd oppose it, figuring on it not fitting in their business model. Unlikely, but still possible.  And then Boeing. It's Boeing's IP, and they might be fine licensing airliners for other products, and clearly someone got permission somehow to do the Legacy Hornet... but their corporate high offices might not be OK with the nuclear strike vaporizer being in a game. So no guarantees there either.

 

Variants. It sorta appears that of those who want a BUFF module, everyone wants a different variant. Or wants ALL the variants like I do. This splitting of variants among potential customers, could sink the entire idea, just like wishlists for the F-4 Phantom. Developers are much less likely to be doing multi-variants, and if they do, they would probably offer 1 variant, then dev the 2nd variant for release two years later, and so on. But, they could see that if support for 1st variant is mild, lukewarm... development on future variants could hit a brick wall. 

 

Time. Back in the 1950's through 70's the BUFF was a very big deal. It was still a leading platform. Feared greatly. The best. Today, not so much: small numbers in service, yes it's still important, but the Bone is spectacular, and the Spirit is the recent past present and the future (as the similar B-21 Raider). How old are these fans of the BUFF now? How old will they be when a module is finished, for sale in 5 years? Will the youngins, the ones in their teens and 20's today, will they even know what a BUFF is? Maybe enough will.