Long range bombers and support

[OldIronsides]

Would love to have a B-52 Module, strategic long range bombing missions, would probably asking to much and maybe not possible for a B-2 Spirit. 

For additional air support a AC-130 Gunship module would be awesome! 

[Rick50]

 

 Well that's the long term dream isn't it!! 

B-52 is unlikely because several humans/AI to do many different tasks. Also really quite complex a system to operate. With little automated/comuterised. Diminishing returns. It's not clear if some of it might be still secret. Might work better as a MAC product, if MAC ever gets going.

B-2 is unlikely because so much of it will remain secret for at least another two decades. Many assumptions would have to be made. Parts of it would certainly be doable, but it's not clear it would be enough to be considered "full fidellity" or not. Not entirely clear how much interaction you'd have during a mission, as it's mostly passive "hiding", cruising at high alt, hoping they don't detect you.  Lots done by automation/computer. Almost  all by autopilot.  Then drop some JDAMs that mostly have pre-programmed coordinates. Your home cockpit will need a plastic lawn chair for the long missions, just like the real ones bring for the 50 hour flights. I'm not sure there's lots of people wanting to pay full module price for that.

C-130 transport, AC-130 gunship, those might come. Mostly manual. Lots of tactical flying. Lots of sneaky low flight. Extremely varied missions and flight profiles. AI can help fill  in. No secrets. 

The AC gunship though.... probably not enough real secrets to slow it down. Interesting useage. Probably fun. However, VERY vulnerable. Even in the relative safety of Vietnam and Iraq, 6 were shot down in 'Nam, and one during the 1991 Gulf War. Sooo in your typical DCS scenario... expect to be shot down a lot. Like REALLY a lot... Tors and Tunguska nearby, forget it, just not happening. People would have to make AC missions that were light on AAA, SAM's and MANPADS.  But still, it'd be a compelling subject, people would buy, probably few secrets if any.

 

Now... right at this moment, the postage-stamp sizes of the maps don't lend themselves to B-2's, B-52's... and would still be cramped for some C-130 missions. Sure, you CAN do all of that on these maps... it's just that you'll quickly be wanting to fly much further! But any of these proposed modules are some ways off, probably around 2 years or so. And guess what's being developed as we speak?

A global map.

Yep, ED is starting development of a global map. No, we don't know details. We don't know if it'll HAVE details on the map. We don't really know much of anything really, other than:

1) they've done a few tests in the past, to see if this might be possible. Apparently the answer came back "yes it seems possible"

2) they recently announced that, and the start of development.

3) they said it's a LONG way to becoming a product. And it might not even be possible. So don't get too excited.

4) we know just about nothing more. 

That's about as much as we've learned from Wags.

Sooooo... don't hold your breath... but it MIGHT happen some time in future!  with global maps, Hercules, Spirits, Mitchels, Flying Fortresses, Superfortresses and Stratofortress, Lancasters, Globemasters, Bones, Bears and Backfires start to make more sense as user flown modules.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Rick50

[Callsign112]

9 hours ago, OldIronsides said:

Would love to have a B-52 Module, strategic long range bombing missions, would probably asking to much and maybe not possible for a B-2 Spirit. 

For additional air support a AC-130 Gunship module would be awesome! 

An AC 130 Gunship would be awesome.

[Mike Force Team]

I hope some skilled programmers (coders?) would be able to create a realistic B-52 where the different roles (pilot, tail gunner, navigator, etc.) are integrated.  The integrate would hopefully be incorporated in a player controlled AI bomber.

MFT

[Rick50]

Yea... I  participated in two threads on the subject about a year ago. It would be possible. Ambitious and costly but seemingly possible.

If such a thing can be done, then it can be done for many complex aircraft that have several crew doing intricate tasks!

 

[FlankerKiller]

I suspect most people would play a B-52 exactly once. Maybe twice. They really can't be used in a meaningful way with the Maps we have in DCS. Add to that the fact that you can radar bomb from any of the multi role fighters, and it's a lot of work for a super niche jet that can't really be used as it would be. Now an A/C-130 on the other hand could be something awesome. Again better infantry would really help. But with the Ice Man and George Ai I could definitely see it being possible. I would personally love to rain some hell with a Sepctor. 

[Mike Force Team]

@FlankerKiller I am open to your suggestion for the A/C-130 Spector gunships.

MFT

[Rick50]

Well, apparently  they are working on AI for many aspects of DCS World. I think that it's not just multi-crew, but possibly also infantry.

Second, there is work being done for a Global Map. Not appearing soon, but such a map of the world would lend itself very well to the ultra long range heavy hitters.

One crew (or individual) is working on Splash Damage 2.0, which means that rockets and cannon fire can damage/kil with close shots... see the 
 RotorOps: Dynamic Mission Generator, which includes it:

 

[Lace]

As much as I like the B-52, even on a full-world map, I'm not sure how much I would actually use it.  It would soon be relegated to the back of the hanger with all the other modules which get a brief outing once a month or so.  I know there are plenty of civvy-sim flyers who happily spend 8 hrs+ in the cruise at FL340, but my time is limited and my typical sortie is 1-2 hrs.

I think the B-1B would be a better option for a strategic bomber, as it is capable of carrying out low-level high sub-sonic strikes, which as a pilot appeal more than sitting in the stratosphere (though it can still sit up there in uncontested airspace dropping JDAMs all day long if that's what you want).

However, since both are in-service strategic assets, it is unlikely that we will see them modelled as anything other than AI (and forget about a B-2!).  Now, an F-111 on the other hand...

If rumours are to believed there could be a C-130 on its way, and an AC-130 variant would be a great addition, but again from a a piloting point of view endless left-hand standard rate turns might get old fast.  Personally I think the standard Hercules has a more varied role and would offer a deeper experience, and would bring a more important logistical element to the dynamic campaign, even though the Spectre does more pew-pew stuff.

[Poncho_Longshanks]

As far as the C-130 / AC-130 goes, you do realize there is a damn good mod for that right now, yeah?

[Mike Force Team]

Where is the AC-130 mod found? What is the URL?

MFT

[FlankerKiller]

12 hours ago, Poncho_Longshanks said:

As far as the C-130 / AC-130 goes, you do realize there is a damn good mod for that right now, yeah?

Yeah but it's a Mod, a good one for sure. But it won't hit the level of simulation that a licensed module will. I'm actually kinda hoping that team decides to get a license. So much work is already done. If they can crack the four engines thing it will be in business. A Specter or Gost Rider would need an AI to do the endless pylons turns while you search for targets or operate the weapons. Maybe having two AI crew members. The C-130 hits a niche in the niche of DCS. And if you do an A/C-130, then a C-130 would be easy. Now if you could get paratroopers the actually fight, and aerial resupply you got yourself one hell of a must have module. Plus you might be able to pull in some of those civilian aviation types. They for a reason I can't fathom don't want to simulate combat. But flying two hours to perform a complex low altitude cargo drop might just appeal to them. So more players. But all of that new functionality is going to need $$$$ for the work to integrate it into DCS. 

[sirrah]

On multiple threads on this forum, it has been said that a >2 engines full fidelity module is currently not possible within DCS.

 

(But perhaps this used to be the case and things changed . I'm happily corrected by someone with actual programming knowledge )

[MAXsenna]

3 hours ago, sirrah said:

On multiple threads on this forum, it has been said that a >2 engines full fidelity module is currently not possible within DCS.

 

(But perhaps this used to be the case and things changed . I'm happily corrected by someone with actual programming knowledge )

Read that multiple times myself. But who knows what they did in the Lancaster mod. In the latest video I saw, he started the four engines individually. Of course it might be possible to do some shortcuts.  

[SharpeXB]

This topic is addressed in question #2 here. The answer seems to be “no” because these crewed aircraft can’t be done realistically in DCS and they feel like “more than two (crew) is not us”

 

[FlankerKiller]

5 hours ago, sirrah said:

On multiple threads on this forum, it has been said that a >2 engines full fidelity module is currently not possible within DCS.

 

(But perhaps this used to be the case and things changed . I'm happily corrected by someone with actual programming knowledge )

Sure at this time. Back in 2007 I wished for an F/A-18. Someone at ED told me it wouldn't be possible because air to ground radar wasn't possible. In 2010 I wished for a Mig-23 and was told swing wing is impossible, in 2013 I wished for a Tomcat and was told again that it wouldn't be possible because the multi crew would make it impossible. At a time not to long ago FF FBW was impossible in DCS. It's impossible until some programmer makes it possible. Eventually it will happen. The money is there I think. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said:

The money is there I think. 

Probably not. You guys overestimate the appeal of these planes. They don’t have very interesting roles in DCS and would cost a lot to develop. And they require too many players to operate authentically. 

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Probably not. You guys overestimate the appeal of these planes.

And you know this, how?

The majority of respondents in both the heavies poll and a B-52 poll voted in favour of them

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

They don’t have very interesting roles in DCS

You mean you are not interested in them...

Edited April 24, 2022 by Northstar98

[SharpeXB]

22 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

And you know this, how?

Well Simon with ED didn’t seem to think it was too exciting. I get it that you guys think a DCS school bus would sell.

Edited April 24, 2022 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

What wouldn’t work with these aircraft in DCS is that they can only operate in uncontested air space. That doesn’t exist here, I assume these things would end up in multiplayer as they require multiple players. DCS multiplayer is full of enemy fighters and SAMs which would just make quick work of these. And player-controlled bombers wouldn’t be present in numbers that afford them some protection. Flying lone wolf B-52 is a suicide run. You can barely fly a Hornet near any target in MP due to the SAMs let alone this big missile magnet. So the only role you could have in the Buff would be to launch cruise missiles from the edge of the map. Not too interesting. 

[Northstar98]

8 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Well Nick Grey didn’t seem to think it was too exciting.

And?

8 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I get it that you guys think a DCS school bus would sell.

The hilarious thing here is that there's already a couple of high quality buses already - making them driveable would be incredibly low hanging fruit.

And no, I just think you constantly make bad arguments you can't support to try and shoot down wishlist after wishlist, and you seem to think that things that are your opinions are universal, objective truths.

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

What wouldn’t work with these aircraft in DCS is that they can only operate in uncontested air space. That doesn’t exist here, I assume these things would end up in multiplayer as they require multiple players. DCS multiplayer is full of enemy fighters and SAMs which would just make quick work of these.

Which is entirely a mission design problem.

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

So the only role you could have in the Buff would be to launch cruise missiles from the edge of the map. Not too interesting. 

Even if I grant you this is the likely scenario, it's not "not too interesting" it's not too interesting for you.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Northstar98

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The hilarious thing here is that there's already a couple of high quality buses already - making them driveable would be incredibly low hanging fruit.

Seriously?

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Which is entirely a mission design problem.

Sure I suppose you could design a multiplayer mission without any enemy fighter aircraft or air defenses. But that’s called co-op. Not too interesting for a game which focuses on combat aircraft.  The AC-130 could only be employed against an enemy without any air defenses. But a game against a defenseless enemy just isn’t very interesting. 

Edited April 24, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Seriously?

Yes, there is, all you'd need to do is copy and paste viewports from another vehicle, and adjust the position - done.

55 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Sure I suppose you could design a multiplayer mission without any enemy fighter aircraft or air defenses.

Or I could just design a mission that has SEAD assets and with other assets escorting...

It isn't a binary choice between A.) have a B-52 on its own with opposing air defences and aircraft B.) have a B-52 played cooperatively in non-threat environment.

55 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

But that’s called co-op. Not too interesting for a game which focuses on combat aircraft.

Again, cooperative play might be uninteresting for you, but you keep talking like it's some objective fact, when it isn't. I'm a former FSX player, and 90% of my missions is SP free flight (though a lot of that is due to my personal incompetency - I know how to use stuff, I'm just kinda crap).

And you're still in a combat aircraft - the combat element is still there...

55 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

 The AC-130 could only be employed against an enemy without any air defenses. But a game against a defenseless enemy just isn’t very interesting.

What missions you set up are entirely up to you, you aren't confined to real-world missions or real-world mission doctrine.

There's absolutely nothing stopping you from setting up an AC-130 mission with air defences.

But again, make a mission where you have escorts and SEAD.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Northstar98

[SharpeXB]

19 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Or I could just design a mission that has SEAD assets and with other assets escorting...

Sure. For SP or Co-Op that’s an option. I don’t see the B-52 or AC-130 being able to participate in general multiplayer because, for whatever reason, those missions are set up with a heavy level of air defense that’s very difficult to suppress. I’m sure it’s there to prevent players from just getting on at off hours and obliterating all the targets. So these modules would be costly to develop and yet have a limited way in which you could use them. 
Don’t forget the fact that these need multiple crew members to operate realistically. Getting more than two players in an aircraft is probably a lost cause.