What is the true reason for no Heavy Aircraft Module devs?

Simply put, just wondering what the actual technical/feedback reasoning (if there is any) of why we are yet to see any development on heavy/bomber aircraft for DCS World?

I know this topic has been brought up before, but lets get realistic here.

IRL we have B52 aircraft stationed in the Gulf ready to strike Northern Iran.

We also have B52 aircraft that launch out of Nellis AFB to participate in the Nevada training range for Red Flag, and Green flag. So... map size argument is out of the picture.

Secondly, some say that the market value is not there to make it worth it... well I must admit. A multicrew B52 module would be the first of its kind. EVER. I believe there would be more sales for a DCS B52H module than people would originally think. The scenarios are truly endless, especially with the multicrew capability of pilot, copilot, gunner, EWO (this would be unable to slot into), radar nav, and nav.

The point being, it still takes alot of teamwork, and enjoyable multicrew gameplay to launch a BUFF sortie, and put JDAM on target.

So really, what is the true reason why the heavy aircraft have not been atleast teased as a possibility yet within DCS World?

Here is an article, showing that even the PG map is a realistic theater for such operations: https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-qatar-bombers-20190509-story.html

I only speak for myself, but my interest in an airplane with more than 2 crew members is zero. It's already a problem to find a reliable co-pilot for DCS, let alone to fill all the other stations of a large bomber like the B-52. I can't really imagine that many users would be interested in such a multicrew monster. In the end, such a development must pay off for ED or a 3rd party.

I think the current maps are too small for realistic B-52 or B-1 operations. WW2 bombers seem a better fit and I look forward to getting the Mosquito.

Yeah, the true reason is nobody would buy that.

S!

I couldn't imagine anything more boring than heavies in DCS.

Bombers would definitely be cool, map size isn't an issue. Don't wanna fly straight for 8 hours anyway. Multicrew is probably the most rewarding feature. U would also have a high value target do defend or attack. It would open up a ton of realistic Szenarios. And saying it's not gonna sell? What do u know... People are going to be curious as fak

Exactly...

I cant stand when people come in here and say "map size is too small", "sounds boring", "no market" ect...

Just a bunch of excuses.

IRL we have Buffs that are flying less than 4hr sortie duration's, dropping JDAMs on JTAC lase under 10k ft.

For those that actually know about modern bombers, theres actually alot of potential for scenario.

Man I would pay double for the B-1 Lancer

Yeah, the true reason is nobody would buy that.

 

 

S!

Don't project your own opinion on to everyone else

Well, "nobody" was exaggeration, but judging from experiences of WWII sims, bomber and transport - oriented customers are badly outnumbered by wannabe-fighter-jocks. I suspect things aren't really different on modern combat sims side of the playerbase pond.

ED would have to first sort out once and for all the multicrew functionality anyway.

Well, "nobody" was exaggeration, but judging from experiences of WWII sims, bomber and transport - oriented customers are badly outnumbered by wannabe-fighter-jocks. I suspect things aren't really different on modern combat sims side of the playerbase pond.

 

ED would have to first sort out once and for all the multicrew functionality anyway.

I mean it depends on the aircraft. Civ airliner sim people might be more inclined to fly something like this. High quality etc.

isn't it safe to assume, that a modern b52 would be 10 times more difficult (and therefore expensive) to develop?

i think this is the "real reason". it would not only have to sell well, but probably outsell any other module to be succesful financially.

i would assume that the "heavy" simulations on other flightsim platforms, don't have system modeling on the crew stations, which would keep the complexity down tenfold!? ...

I think there's no other reason than it just hasn't been done yet.

isn't it safe to assume, that a modern b52 would be 10 times more difficult (and therefore expensive) to develop?

 

i think this is the "real reason". it would not only have to sell well, but probably outsell any other module to be succesful financially.

 

i would assume that the "heavy" simulations on other flight sim platforms, don't have system modeling on the crew station?! ...

Would it really be THAT much more expensive tho? I mean, we are talking about pixels here, not actual engineering/structural cost difference from a fighter to heavy...

Alot of heavies would demand less systems, and just a pilot/copilot multiseat. I.E. C17

The B52, yes it has more seats. But the systems involved are relatively the same to what has already been done. Just would be spread out between various stations. Not all in one station like the current fighters ingame.

I mean it depends on the aircraft. Civ airliner sim people might be more inclined to fly something like this. High quality etc.

Exactly. This would attract more of the FSX/Xplane crowd forsure. Especially since this has never been properly done before in a modern combat sim environment.

Would it really be THAT much more expensive tho?

I don't know. But i'm sure that this has to be a major factor. It's definitely less risky to try something new, when it's a small stuntplane without fancy avionics;)

I don't know. But i'm sure that this has to be a major factor. It's definitely less risky to try something new, when it's a small stuntplane without fancy avionics;)

The avionics in a B52 are much less fancy compared to what is in the DCS F18 haha...

The avionics in a B52 are much less fancy compared to what is in the DCS F18 haha...

from a developers point of view they surely are. maybe they are less advanced, but because of the crew-aspect you cannot model them as a "black box". "simple" systems maybe, but many and highly interwoven between the stations.

don't get me wrong. i think a heavy would be interesting for dcs. i'm just pointing out, that complexity might be the biggest concern for the devs.

Exactly...

I cant stand when people come in here and say "map size is too small", "sounds boring", "no market" ect...

 

Just a bunch of excuses.

I wonder why the heck did you ask if you cant stand to hear the opinions of other people. Will ignore you from now on, since you dont really seem like a social type.

I only speak for myself, but my interest in an airplane with more than 2 crew members is zero.

+1

If we're gonna do some heavy planes, give me an AC-130 please! Fly it to the hot zone yourself, switch to gunner position and let the AI pilot fly the thing in a circle around w/e you want. Shoot up stuff, and when out of ammo (or bored), switch to cockpit again and RTB. Same idea as being a Huey door gunner in SP (at least that was possible AFAIK, haven't flown her for a while anymore).

As mentioned before, I think the multicrew part would be the biggest restraint regarding "heavy aircraft" modules.

I wonder why the heck did you ask if you cant stand to hear the opinions of other people. Will ignore you from now on, since you dont really seem like a social type.

I am looking for valid reasoning, not people blatantly saying "no one will buy it".. because frankly, thats a excuse. Not factual reasoning. As explained above. Other reasons from the last couple years of "map is too small" is also invalid. So really, what are we waiting for? I think its truly just a matter of a dev team eventually stepping up to the plate.

Ignore me then, just trying to get to the bottom of why the ideas of heavy aircraft REALLY are not a thing as of yet.

from a developers point of view they surely are. maybe they are less advanced, but because of the crew-aspect you cannot model them as a "black box". "simple" systems maybe, but many and highly interwoven between the stations.

 

don't get me wrong. i think a heavy would be interesting for dcs. i'm just pointing out, that complexity might be the biggest concern for the devs.

Gotcha, thanks for some solid actual reasoning/points. And not just randomly throwing your opinion of "oooh multi seat over 2x sounds boring to me"...

Personal opinion of enjoyment < actual technical concerns/feedback

I am looking for valid reasoning, not people blatantly saying "no one will buy it".. because frankly, thats a excuse...

And your statement is based on what? Did you do market research about the requirement of multi-crew aircraft in combat simulators? It's only your opinion, too. You must live with it, that not everybody has to agree with you.

I would very much like to see a heavy aircraft in DCS. Not necessarily a bomber, but a transport plane or a tanker (with multicrew or Jester-like AI).

I came to DCS from P3D, so I don't mind flying "boring" missions with little to no action. As long as the systems are on the level and all procedures could be correctly performed.

We already have a bunch of non-combat and training modules (CE, L-39, Yak), and most Mi-8 campaigns are revolving around support/transport tasks. So there is definitely a niche for this kind of ops. A small niche, but still a niche.