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

I know a couple guys who would be more than happy to fly a DCS tanker, or transport plane.

 

With a tanker, being able to put it on autopilot and fly the boom or spot for the drogue could be fun and would beat listening to “ready pre contact” “return pre contact” until you find the perfect spot......

 

I’d even fly a transport sometimes.

 

As previously mentioned, an AC130 would be golden but maybe too ambitious to start.

You’d want something with as few stations and roles as possible, and get multicrew perfectly set before you get into 2+ crew aircraft. Plus, to be fair to single player guys you’d need something like Jester in each seat for those flying solo. Doing multiple of those in one aircraft simultaneously has yet to be tried.

 

Later on you could hope to do paratrooper drops........:thumbup:

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...

 

 

I'm sure everybody here knows, we're talking about a simulator, so we don't have actual engineering or structural costs. :doh:

 

You still have to programm those 'pixels' to do whatever they are intended to do. It's a lot of work for a single cockpit. What about the other stations in a large bomber? They all have to be programmed too and linked and sychronized to each other. So probably much more work to do, than a single-seater, meaning it's gonna cost a lot more money to develop. Would you be willing to pay a multiple of the cost of a normal module for a bomber?

We need / are going to get these large aircrafts in DCS at some point. But do not expect to see ones that are purely multiplayer with a 5-7 players.

 

Like really, you need to be able to be just the pilot, or even some reach a pilot and RIO in some times. But to fly an aircraft that requires more for operations? A more coordinate co-pilot flying etc? Not so likely to see those in good package.

 

The AI to crew all stations etc is huge.

 

But we do get at some point C-130 or similar, and hopefully the passenger airliners etc as well.

As for more heavy's

 

AI --> Yes please!!!!!!! :bounce:

 

 

Flyable --> Meh, couldn't care less :yawn:

Wouldn't buy.

 

Also... Keep in mind that in DCS timeline terms multi-crew is SUPER new.

We need them dearly for AI though...

C130 I would buy for sure.

A DCS: C-130 Series would be very cool, providing multiple variations (KC-130, AC-130, etc.) in a single module.

 

It would not be boring at all if I can put the AC-130 in autopilot and play with those guns and cannon for strike mission.

KC-130 could be interesting to fly occasionally with mates / squadron.

C-130 for parachuting troops, vehicles and/or deliver ammo supply. Today we have people piloting choppers on MP servers for transportation as well, and an almost dedicated script framework CTLD. I can see people using C-130 for same purpose as well.

 

It could also enable new MP game mode where each side needs to fly and escort its C-130 with precious cargo to the destination. Different from AI pilot, a human controlled C-130 need to consider flight path, countermeasure use, etc., and of course, coordinating with escort fighter jets.

 

Just my 2 cents.

It would sell well... But the op didn't ask about that.

 

Technical reasons. Syncing with multicrew is already a nightmare with two spots. We have two pretty good multicrew experinces with the 14 and L-39. Imagine syncing 4+ people in one aircraft?

 

Engines. It has been said by the devs they currently only have the technology to do two engines in a player module. While I've seen discussion they could figure out four, why go through that hassle when they have other modules to make that will sell well? The B-52 has 8 engines btw.

 

I think in the future we could maybe see a less combat oriented plane such as an E-2, c-27, or c-130. But it will probably be a very long time. I doubt an AC-130 because think of the 3d enviroment they would have to create for the crew manning the weapons. You could do just a 2d screen to make it work but I doubt they'd be happy with that low level of fidelity.

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.

 

A valid question, but we can all only speculate. I’m guessing that we are waiting for multiple engine props modelling for our first medium bomber. Heavies are a whole new aspect to DCS World given the opportunities for multi-crew operation, and possibly the tech may take awhile to catch up.

 

Principally though, F-16 or B-1 - not a difficult decision on behalf of the devs. So ultimately, it is probably just “not yet”. But yeah, there is going to be a market for them, even if it might not please everyone.

It would sell well... But the op didn't ask about that.

 

Technical reasons. Syncing with multicrew is already a nightmare with two spots. We have two pretty good multicrew experinces with the 14 and L-39. Imagine syncing 4+ people in one aircraft?

 

Engines. It has been said by the devs they currently only have the technology to do two engines in a player module. While I've seen discussion they could figure out four, why go through that hassle when they have other modules to make that will sell well? The B-52 has 8 engines btw.

 

I think in the future we could maybe see a less combat oriented plane such as an E-2, c-27, or c-130. But it will probably be a very long time. I doubt an AC-130 because think of the 3d enviroment they would have to create for the crew manning the weapons. You could do just a 2d screen to make it work but I doubt they'd be happy with that low level of fidelity.

 

This right here, is what I was really digging for. I feel like there are some technical difficulties in DCS to actually make this happen, like you said with not having the sync technology of 8 engines. If that truly is the case, that’s a shame

Hercules/Transall ( note - twin engined )/AN-12 might be fun, tactical airlift would have uses - although they might have done the market research for non-combat heavy aircraft already & that's why we don't have them, because they're definitely simpler to develop than combat aircraft when they're missing the entire weapons suites.

 

I'd vote for a MH-130 and a MH-53 - they can both still perform their logistics roles ( somewhat ) but with a bunch of unique features on top. The likely heavy bombers would either be a B-1 or Vulcan ( given the Tu-22M is still in service & there's problems on the Russian end ), and you could just obliterate the map with those given our lack of realistic servicing.

While I would argue that there is a subjective interest in heavies, (where is the cutoff point to qualify as "enough interest"? 20% of playerbase? 40%?) I would say that there is not enough interest to interest ED into development.

 

As good/bad "insert your opinion here" as Jester is for the F-14, I can't imagine how commanding a bomber with 3-4 "Jester's" to command would feel like. I can see how it might be a nightmare to code and how much resources it would require to build and run the models.

 

And in a multiplayer aspect, if 4-5 players are sitting in a multi-crewed bomber, that's 3-4 players not in a single seat jet. Having a number of these in the air would depopulate the air battles, as bombers would be suckin up all the brain meat. I'm not saying that would be bad, it would seem like it but I'm not 100% certain. I just know it would be different, and with a difference comes the uncertainty of player reaction. They may like it, but they may also hate it, which may mean PVP servers banning heavies enmasse, devaluing the module.

 

I'm all for heavies, but I think about it and can see how tricky it might be. Certainly if it really ****ed up, they'll have another Hawk module on their hands and I don't think ED wants that.

 

I think, to put it simply, due to the technical and development and implementation uncertainties, it might end up making a niche product (due to limited implementation, not necessarily limited interest) in a niche market. that's like... niche squared?

Edited September 27, 2019 by WelshZeCorgi

This right here, is what I was really digging for. I feel like there are some technical difficulties in DCS to actually make this happen, like you said with not having the sync technology of 8 engines. If that truly is the case, that’s a shame

There's also one very simple, yet highly complicating word: “strategic”.

 

 

You're talking about strategic lift and strategic bombers, and getting data on those tends to go something like:

 

 

Dev: “But it's just a 707 with a USAF stencil painted on…”

SME: <taps the word “strategic” in the spec sheet>

Dev: “…but…”

SME: <taps harder, glancing nervously at potential camera hiding spots>

Dev: “Oh…”

There's also one very simple, yet highly complicating word: “strategic”.

 

 

You're talking about strategic lift and strategic bombers, and getting data on those tends to go something like:

 

 

Dev: “But it's just a 707 with a USAF stencil painted on…”

SME: <taps the word “strategic” in the spec sheet>

Dev: “…but…”

SME: <taps harder, glancing nervously at potential camera hiding spots>

Dev: “Oh…”

 

 

:megalol::thumbup:

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

 

This is the most logical reason I can think of "no one would buy it" isn't true, there will always be people to buy a module.

 

The past two years have been pretty insane for aircraft releases, Hornet, Tomcat, Viper (soon), and a number of others.

 

Now that we have what I'd consider the core fighters, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we start to see some heavier aircraft. I don't think a C-130 is necessarily around the corner, but a Heavy WW2 fighter, or Vietnam era fighter bomber I think is quite likely in the next year or so.

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

 

Amen! This is a much better choice than the B-52. Would love to have this to provide ground support. Orbiting and manning that gun would definitely do the job.

 

Unfortunately, there must be a reason we do not have any multi-engine props (not even two) let alone four.

it's a first day buy for any heavy

especially c-130

While strategic bombers as well as somebody suggested, E-2D are out of the question for obvious reasons, I think we can use a military cargo plane like C-130 (a 60'-70' would be just fine), KC-135 or an S-3 to have more fun with carrier landings. As for bombers, tho most I would go with is F-105 Thunderchief. I really do think that a C-130 tanker and cargo, with F-105, and the upcoming F-8 would male a killer experience in a mission done right.

 

 

 

1991. :) Not sure it was a hit though.

While strategic bombers as well as somebody suggested, E-2D are out of the question for obvious reasons, I think we can use a military cargo plane like C-130 (a 60'-70' would be just fine), KC-135 or an S-3 to have more fun with carrier landings. As for bombers, tho most I would go with is F-105 Thunderchief. I really do think that a C-130 tanker and cargo, with F-105, and the upcoming F-8 would male a killer experience in a mission done right.

 

S-3 would be awesome, wouldn't really consider it a heavy aircraft, but certainly niche. F-105 would be my number 1 Vietnam Era net

Well I believe that the Sync,. Issues and the engine number limit is THE reason.

 

That said, I would LOVE, any an all Single or Twin Engine Antonovs. We can fly it like a n Mi-8, switching places with the Engineers or co pilot.-

 

And look me in the eye an tell me you would not buy Any of the Grumman x-2 series, either C, S or E....

 

I believe that the C-130s would be popular too but we have too many engines there LOL.

 

I really think that DCS is screaming for an AN-2 Colt and or a DC-3 .

Give us a few VOR, some decent ATC and become THE Flight simulator that does it all...

Seriously, imagine, just for a moment, that we have B52 simulated in the game.

Where would you take off and land?

Who would protect you?

Who would fly with you?

After you dump 65000lbs of bombs and effectively kill all targets on map in one pass what then? Restart mission and do the same thing again?

You'd take off from and land at airports. The game features a couple of those.

You'd be protected by escort aircraft, much like how the game features aircraft that you have to escort.

You'd fly with AI or other players, same as in other aircraft.

Once you've arrived at the target area, you do your one-pass attack (same as in many other ground attack aircraft) and try to make it back home. This is exactly how all flights work in essence.

Then you restart the mission or take a new one, same as with every other mission for every other featured unit.

 

These answers are so self-evident that the questions almost don't even make sense.

Seriously, imagine, just for a moment, that we have B52 simulated in the game.

Where would you take off and land?

Who would protect you?

Who would fly with you?

After you dump 65000lbs of bombs and effectively kill all targets on map in one pass what then? Restart mission and do the same thing again?

 

It's ridiculous idea.

 

dude you are on the wrong forum. try War thunder forum.

on a more serious note, blowing shit up is just a small part of being a pilot. if all you enjoy is blow shit up you are clearly in the wrong game. You land, you take off, you calculate wind, speed rotation, high altitude mission, close support, 3 plane sells, different cells going in from different directions at the same time, you got a radar officer, pilot, co-pilot, and all that without even mention the bombs with all the types and guidance methods that B52 could use back in 70's.

The answers almost doesn't even make any sense.

The answers are exactly the same as you'd get if you asked about any other unit in the game. If the answers don't make sense to you, maybe you should look into what it is you actually… you know… do in DCS.

 

You would operate strategic bomber on 500x500km map. That fact alone is beyond any comprehension.

This also holds true for all other aircraft. Well, except maaaaaybe the Harrier, where it's a pretty good fit for its capabilities — big enough that you'll need some support (or careful planning) to go from one end to the other; small enough that any reasonable chunk of flying time still lets you cover a fair variety of terrain and environments.

 

Good luck finding human crew and escort, or anyone wanting to play on that server that restarts every 15 minutes.

Human crew and escort is trivial to find on good servers. This also coincides with the server not being so poorly configured that it needs restarting every 15 minutes. It is also trivial to find if you have a regular gang to fly with, where you can just put the word out in your discord and get going, possibly even on the server you run yourself…

 

 

Oh, and we already have nukes and can already set up missions to attempt to either deliver or stop them.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Tippis