will we ever see a flyable B-52

[upyr1]

Think of maybe a smaller medium range bomber that can still carry a lot of bombs but can go fast. Like an F-111

 

how about a B-57 or EB-66?

[Rick50]

Wanna fly B-2's and B-52's ?

 

Then try the "civilian" flight simulator products!

 

One of them includes both of those in the original install as default aircraft!

Of course the B-52 has a pylon to carry the X-15 rocket plane, and I think you can easily download a mod for Vietnam era version w bombs.

 

The downside is no integrated air defenses, or enemy interceptors.... and the cockpit and systems won't be realistic... but on the other hand, you can fly from anywhere to anywhere and take the scenic route back home! I did this using B-1B's, B-2's and B-52's in an earlier sim some 15 years ago... an alternative to flying Airbus from A to B endlessly!

[Harlikwin]

Think of maybe a smaller medium range bomber that can still carry a lot of bombs but can go fast. Like an F-111

 

Much more likely IMO.

[Leadnap]

First, I would die for a B1-B and have hopes eventually (one day, like when my 3 year old is flying in DCS). That said I would also almost die for an F111 which is probably more likely.

[Worrazen]

zhukov032186 said:

@OP

ACTUALLY, while a B-52/B-2 has never been mentioned...

 

There is a small group of developers working on a Tu-22M Backfire, called Blackcat Studios (unless they've gone under, I haven't really been following them). There was a possibility of them applying for 3rd party status, although that would be much further down the line, and dependent on getting proper licensing and infos and blah blah all the usual crap.

 

Anyway, they were working on a fully modeled, multi-person interior last I looked into their project. Whether it ever becomes an official module or not, it's likely there will be mod projects at least. I tend to agree with Cichlid, though. Multi-crew is fun up to a point, but some of crew roles are a bit outside the scope of what DCS handles at present.

 

I think they got spooked by a random internet voice calling for them to "stop this project or else .." which I think is completely ridicolous they would listen to, such low threats I wouldn't expect from government agencies, it could be someone doing it unofficially, but that makes it totally invalid.

 

They should have demanded that the threat is formal with the complete disclosure of who is sending the demand and that it's filed through proper letters/legal paper, otherwise have the finger. Such a thread could have been made by a random street thug, you can't take it seriously.

EDIT 2021: Reading back my 2 year old rants sure is amusing, when I was so pumped for C-130 debates. The above text is full blown speculation that I believe I have read in some thread and just repeated it here.

Edited March 18, 2021 by Worrazen

[Kev2go]

Although not near the top of my wishlist yea +1 for something new and entirely different even if it doesn't appeal to a typical fighter jock. ( and even i predominately fly fighters). A pure bomber has yet to be done in DCS.

 

Id especially be interested if ED allowed you to walk around in first person and switch crew positions and even more so if it was a 21st century B52H variant, as it would allow for a TGP and modern precision guided munitions.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Kev2go

[JB3DG]

It would indeed be great to see a 52H but given what I have seen of the manuals (I have all of the non secret ones, including the -34s for the entire range of weapons it can carry), it will be no mean task to make one. That battle station is insane.

[FlankerKiller]

Think of maybe a smaller medium range bomber that can still carry a lot of bombs but can go fast. Like an F-111

DCS F-111 would be a day one buy. I would gladly pay $100 for that, especially if it’s a Gulf War variant. Same for a SU-24.

[Los]

Captain sim makes a great B-52 for FSX

[Rick50]

 

B-1B has 4 crew members. Does nothing in A2A. Can't fire HARM for SEAD, though one could argue it could help in a SEAD role. Soooo... to meet the expectations of the DCS customers, it would need to be realistic. That means either you jump from seat to seat punching virtual buttons, or you try to find 3 more Bone-fans who are willing to sit in a virtual chair, with no outside view, for hours, to punch buttons to make the mission happen. And it all has to be coded by people who don't need income for doing it, because it may not break even in sales vs cost of development. 

 

Same for a B-52, except that for earlier models, there's 6 crewmen: two pilots, Electronic Warfare Officer, Gunner, Navigator, Radar Navigator. So not only is that a LOT to learn, it's a lot to handle in flight if you are doing singleplayer, and developer it's a LOT to model and code. And most of the handbooks for one specific variant might be very hard to find, getting all of them, legally, might be impossible for the variant they think will sell well.

 

The Bone and Buff are complex enough that a developer might have to charge double that of a Hornet or Tomcat and still might not break even. But millions of people dream of flying a Tomcat after seeing Top Gun, and think basically the same about all fighter jets and fighter warbirds. But really, not very many actually dream of being strategic bomber pilots, and far far fewer dream of being in the windowless belly of a BUFF, staring at a radar screen for hours, ready to eject down to a frozen arctic sea (I'm talking for an entertainment product, I'm not commentating on air force career choices!). It's... not that exciting for someone wanting to spend their free time doing, after work or school, before spending time with the wife/girlfriend/kids before going to sleep. Sure, that might not describe you, but it DOES describe at least half the customers who buy modules, and it will describe you sometime in future.

 

F-117, or F-111 is more likely to bring SOME sales, at least there's an outside view, and the workload in flight might be manageable. Similarly, the A-6 Intruder that Heatblur confirmed will be developed from an AI plane into a full flyable module, looks to be a winner for a pure bomber: even the secondary crew can see outside, not sure if the bombardier has flight controls on an A-6 or not, but also it's got the excitement of carrier ops like cat launches and grabbing a wire!  

 

Just my opinion, I think that a greatly improved AI examples of these aircraft would be very good: if their AI can accomplish a mission and survive it competently, and look good doing it, with new better models and textures. Having a bright reflective early bare metal and white B-52 with a giant tail... or a camoflage BUFF with a pitch black underside would all do very nice for Cold War scenarios. And we REALLY BADLY need a much upgraded reflective bare metal Tupolev Bear. Flexing wings, ray tracing compatible textures, with truly great AI would be a great improvement.

 

 Also, if you REALLY want these aircraft, then learn how to make a mod in DCS. It won't be "realistic" but since no one's paying for it and not expecting realistic perfection, pure realism won't be needed or expected. I think a GREAT example of how this might turn out, is Anubis' C-130 free mod project: it has a proper Hercules cockpit, has multiple payload options, flies fairly realistically how you might expect a Herc to fly, has multiple workstations to not just fly the plane, but perform Loadmaster functions among others. With enough help, you could represent different variants of an aircraft.

[Rick50]

so to the original question: 

 

"will we ever see a flyable B-52"

 

As a full-realistic flyable paid module? Extremely unlikely IMO.

 

As a free mod, with  "FC3" level of complexity? Possible, and could be a lot of fun. Especially if you could have AI wingman come along with you!

[mkellytx]

On 2/15/2021 at 11:20 AM, Rick50 said:

 

B-1B has 4 crew members. Does nothing in A2A. Can't fire HARM for SEAD, though one could argue it could help in a SEAD role. Soooo... to meet the expectations of the DCS customers, it would need to be realistic. That means either you jump from seat to seat punching virtual buttons, or you try to find 3 more Bone-fans who are willing to sit in a virtual chair, with no outside view, for hours, to punch buttons to make the mission happen. And it all has to be coded by people who don't need income for doing it, because it may not break even in sales vs cost of development. 

 

Same for a B-52, except that for earlier models, there's 6 crewmen: two pilots, Electronic Warfare Officer, Gunner, Navigator, Radar Navigator. So not only is that a LOT to learn, it's a lot to handle in flight if you are doing singleplayer, and developer it's a LOT to model and code. And most of the handbooks for one specific variant might be very hard to find, getting all of them, legally, might be impossible for the variant they think will sell well.

 

The Bone and Buff are complex enough that a developer might have to charge double that of a Hornet or Tomcat and still might not break even. But millions of people dream of flying a Tomcat after seeing Top Gun, and think basically the same about all fighter jets and fighter warbirds. But really, not very many actually dream of being strategic bomber pilots, and far far fewer dream of being in the windowless belly of a BUFF, staring at a radar screen for hours, ready to eject down to a frozen arctic sea (I'm talking for an entertainment product, I'm not commentating on air force career choices!). It's... not that exciting for someone wanting to spend their free time doing, after work or school, before spending time with the wife/girlfriend/kids before going to sleep. Sure, that might not describe you, but it DOES describe at least half the customers who buy modules, and it will describe you sometime in future.

 

F-117, or F-111 is more likely to bring SOME sales, at least there's an outside view, and the workload in flight might be manageable. Similarly, the A-6 Intruder that Heatblur confirmed will be developed from an AI plane into a full flyable module, looks to be a winner for a pure bomber: even the secondary crew can see outside, not sure if the bombardier has flight controls on an A-6 or not, but also it's got the excitement of carrier ops like cat launches and grabbing a wire!  

 

Just my opinion, I think that a greatly improved AI examples of these aircraft would be very good: if their AI can accomplish a mission and survive it competently, and look good doing it, with new better models and textures. Having a bright reflective early bare metal and white B-52 with a giant tail... or a camoflage BUFF with a pitch black underside would all do very nice for Cold War scenarios. And we REALLY BADLY need a much upgraded reflective bare metal Tupolev Bear. Flexing wings, ray tracing compatible textures, with truly great AI would be a great improvement.

 

 Also, if you REALLY want these aircraft, then learn how to make a mod in DCS. It won't be "realistic" but since no one's paying for it and not expecting realistic perfection, pure realism won't be needed or expected. I think a GREAT example of how this might turn out, is Anubis' C-130 free mod project: it has a proper Hercules cockpit, has multiple payload options, flies fairly realistically how you might expect a Herc to fly, has multiple workstations to not just fly the plane, but perform Loadmaster functions among others. With enough help, you could represent different variants of an aircraft.

Former B-52 flight test engineer (FTE) and B-1 maintenance officer here.  The Bone and the BUFF very much could conduct SEAD, or more realistically DEAD using AGM-69 SRAM's, but those were SIOP only and withdrawn in the 90's due to safety concerns.  The problem with both of the bombers are that the pilots are bus drivers, almost everything interesting having to do with a weapon is controlled by a Radar Nav/Nav/WSO.  The BUFF still has 6 ejection seats, but the Guns position is no longer active as the guns were removed in the 90's.  The seat is still there and maintained and available for augmented crews (extra pilot if you fly 24+ hrs for example).  That's also where the FTE's at Eddy's patch get to sit when they fly. Of course for non combat missions the crew size is ten: P, CP, RN, Nav, EWO, Guns, IP. IN, IEWO, +1 (hammock behind IP) .  The jets at Edwards never flew the +1 while I was there, and the bed was replaced with special instrumentation for the ED jets.  Recalling my weekly knowledge quiz the ejection order was for the Nav to go first, all of the guys in jump seats to get out through the Nav hatch with the RN acting as jumpmaster, then RN, EWO, Guns, CP and finally P.

 

Honestly, most folks don't understand how bad the BUFF's handling characteristics are, it's not an easy plane to fly.  Then almost all of the weapons actions happens down stairs with the nav's.  Finally, the EWO station is marked classified so good look finding a picture much less modeling it.  The Bone isn't much better, most all of the interesting stuff happens in back and that stuff is pretty hard to find open source. 

[Rick50]

Thanks for the post!

 

So... I'm gathering that on a general level, you'd sort of agree with me that a full detail full complexity Buff or Bone is very extremely unlikely, in part due to poor or non-existent unclassified data sources?

 

I do think if great mods that had Buffs and Bones would be popular. Same for AI aircraft that behaved very realistically and looked great.

 

It's a bit strange to see how the B-2 Spirit has only two crewmembers... I guess that's mostly down to computers making the crew's tasks much more manageable for two, compared to the earlier bombers. Between having a modern FMC like an airliner uses today, and bombs guided by GPS, it's a much different set of tasks than say a B-52 doing night navigation in the 1966 with dumb bombs for an Arc Light mission!

[statrekmike]

I know map size is usually a very controversial topic when talking about strategic scale aircraft in DCS but it is a valid one none the less. I am aware that in modern COIN focused conflict, the B-52 and B-1 engaged in loiter based missions where they would drop JDAM's and the like on CAS based targets but that is only one chapter in a very long story for those aircraft. If ED or a (competent and proven) third party were to make the B-52, it would inevitably and rightfully be a controversial choice because many users would actually want to engage with it as a strategic bomber and not a CAS bomb truck. Obviously not everyone would want to do those long-haul strategic missions but they are a important part of that aircraft's history and it is safe to assume that many would at least want the POTENTIAL for such a mission to be present before such a aircraft were to get made. 

  

  Another thing I could see becoming a issue is secrecy. For us as consumers, it is perhaps too easy to gather up a few publicly released military documents/publications and pretend that it is enough to make a module that meets the DCS standard but it really isn't that simple (We have seen the results when third parties try it that way). The problem with the B-52, the B-1, and (especially) the B-2 is that the Government is not going to be as willing to grant a all-access pass for a developer due to the missions these aircraft fly/flew. We are talking about aircraft that get wrapped up in nuclear, stealth (in the case of the B-2), and some pretty delicate strategic stuff. These are going to be a touchy subject and the USAF isn't going to be eager to help, the companies who make them are not going to be eager to help, and SME's are not exactly going to feel as free to be forthcoming. Even if stuff isn't outright top secret, it wouldn't be surprising to see some hesitation to simulate such delicate matters.

 

  If we were to push all of the above aside, there is still one major factor that one should consider. Eagle Dynamics seems pretty happy to confine the scope of the sim to smaller aircraft like fighters, strike fighters, and helicopters. This makes sense not just because of map size but also because those kinds of aircraft are going to be more practical for a sim that is largely single player by basic design. Obviously we have some multi-crew aircraft (the F-14 being the best example) but even they are still largely manageable with just one player. From a marketing/sales perspective, ED seems to not want to make stuff that one can only enjoy if they can get a group together to help them crew it. 

 

  Beyond all that, there are still quite a few aircraft that ED and third parties can do that more naturally fit in DCS as it is right now. 

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

If DCS could add any interesting effects at all when a bomb hits the ground besides pft....  maybe. Otherwise super duper anti climactic to drop any bombs currently.  
 

[Kev2go]

On 3/12/2021 at 1:04 AM, Rick50 said:

Thanks for the post!

 

So... I'm gathering that on a general level, you'd sort of agree with me that a full detail full complexity Buff or Bone is very extremely unlikely, in part due to poor or non-existent unclassified data sources?

 

From the research i have done, I would say its not anymore unrealistic expectation  to do a full fidelity B52 than  the more modern stuff still in operational use like the F/A18 Hornet or F16 viper which also have classified supplements pertaining to EW stuff, or exact missile parameters, and the Nuclear delivery related documentation.

 

And compared to avionics in such fighters even a 2000s B52 is still quite archaic. All the fancy upgrades, like the glass cockpit/CONECT are post 2014 and onwards, and additional modernization today like AESA radar.

 

The main reason the b52 is a challenge is purely due to all the effort needed to model carious crew stations, and to model all engines for the flight model, and because it would be something of a niche within a niche. Most sim pilots are fighter jocks.  There isn't as much attraction to an a B52 ( thus less profit margin verses huge amount of effort to make a  large multi crewed aircraft) versus a Teen series multirole fighter.

 

Quote

 

I do think if great mods that had Buffs and Bones would be popular. Same for AI aircraft that behaved very realistically and looked great.

 

It's a bit strange to see how the B-2 Spirit has only two crewmembers... I guess that's mostly down to computers making the crew's tasks much more manageable for two, compared to the earlier bombers. Between having a modern FMC like an airliner uses today, and bombs guided by GPS, it's a much different set of tasks than say a B-52 doing night navigation in the 1966 with dumb bombs for an Arc Light mission!

 

 

But for DCS purposes a post Y2K B52H would be most fitting, given the time frame most other blueforce fighters/attackers are reprsented in and in fact there is plenty documentation  that you can find can published up to  2005-2006.

 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Kev2go

[statrekmike]

22 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

From the research i have done, I would say its not anymore unrealistic expectation  to do a full fidelity B52 than  the more modern stuff still in operational use like the F/A18 Hornet or F16 viper which also have classified supplements pertaining to EW stuff, or exact missile parameters, and the Nuclear delivery related documentation.

 

And compared to avionics in such fighters even a 2000s B52 is still quite archaic. All the fancy upgrades, like the glass cockpit/CONECT are post 2014 and onwards, and additional modernization today like AESA radar.

 

The main reason the b52 is a challenge is purely due to all the effort needed to model carious crew stations, and to model all engines for the flight model, and because it would be something of a niche within a niche. Most sim pilots are fighter jocks.  There isn't as much attraction to an a B52 ( thus less profit margin verses huge amount of effort to make a  large multi crewed aircraft) versus a Teen series multirole fighter.

 

 

 

But for DCS purposes a post Y2K B52H would be most fitting, given the time frame most other blueforce fighters/attackers are reprsented in and in fact there is plenty documentation  that you can find can published up to  2005-2006.

 

 

 

  As far as classified/secret material goes, I am not sure I would be so quick to assert that the B-52 is in a similar position to the Hornet or Viper. Obviously we can all spend a bunch of hours tracking down publicly released flight and maintenance manuals for just about any aircraft but as we have seen demonstrated time and time again, that is never, ever enough. It is important to understand that when you are talking about simulating a B-52 (especially a later model), you are talking about simulating a active duty strategic nuclear asset. It might be old and many of its systems might be public but it is still a strategic nuclear asset all the same and that fact alone makes it a sensitive, difficult subject. 

 

  It is important to understand that the reason we have the A-10C, F/A-18C, and the F-16C isn't just because they were able to hop online and get a few publicly released documents. It was also because they got full support from the military and/or the companies that handle those aircraft. Doing fighter aircraft (even if they have a nuclear option that will never get modeled and is a minor, third tier function anyway) will always be a easier sell (barring modern 5th gen stuff, obviously) simply because we are talking about much, much less sensitive conventional warfare, non-strategic defense stuff. 

 

  Let's put ourselves in ED's shoes for a moment (since they are the only ones with enough defense department reach to even think of doing a project like the B-52 anyway). Imagine going to the USAF and Boeing with a proposal to model a modern, in-service strategic nuclear bomber. How do you think that meeting would go? Do you think they would even really get to the point where they start talking about what is and is not classified? Do you think that the USAF and Boeing would perhaps find the entire idea a bit too sensitive to even really bother exploring? 

 

  Now, I am aware that the B-52 is a very, very old platform and one could argue that there is probably quite a bit of stuff that is well passed the point where it is considered secret but even simulating a older model outlines the core problem with this idea. Either way you go, you are talking about a plane that forms the backbone of our airborne nuclear plan and that in itself (regardless of what systems are secret and what ones aren't) makes it a tough sell for the USAF/Boeing and ED would NEED their support to make a worthwhile simulation of such a aircraft (as is always the case with modules).

 

  Sometimes it doesn't matter if something is secret or not. What matters is how the rights holders and current users (like the USAF) would feel about it getting simulated in the first place. ED isn't so stupid as to burn such bridges.

[Kev2go]

10 hours ago, statrekmike said:

 

  As far as classified/secret material goes, I am not sure I would be so quick to assert that the B-52 is in a similar position to the Hornet or Viper.

 

I can Its because I have  done my Homework. Just because you haven't done your due diligence of research beforehand and thus have a ill-adequately formed opinion is not my fault. But its never too late to correct oneself and change an opinion.

 

Quote

Obviously we can all spend a bunch of hours tracking down publicly released flight and maintenance manuals for just about any aircraft

 

 

Assuming the above clarification still wasn't clear enough, for record i have gone out and found all virtually all the non classified documentation for the B52H model over the course of a weekend, back when this topic was started which why i can confidently say what i have said prior.

 

 

Quote

 

but as we have seen demonstrated time and time again, that is never, ever enough.

 

 

On the opposite end of the specturm it has also been demonstrated enough times before that people have been wrong on their personal assertion why XYZ can't be possible

(  this not to be confused with  a unreasonable wishlist say the likes of  5th gen F35) 

 

Sometimes even us realists are pleasantly surprised. IE the Eurofighter.

 

Quote

It is important to understand that when you are talking about simulating a B-52 (especially a later model), you are talking about simulating a active duty strategic nuclear asset. It might be old and many of its systems might be public but it is still a strategic nuclear asset all the same and that fact alone makes it a sensitive, difficult subject. 

 

  It is important to understand that the reason we have the A-10C, F/A-18C, and the F-16C isn't just because they were able to hop online and get a few publicly released documents. It was also because they got full support from the military and/or the companies that handle those aircraft. Doing fighter aircraft (even if they have a nuclear option that will never get modeled and is a minor, third tier function anyway) will always be a easier sell (barring modern 5th gen stuff, obviously) simply because we are talking about much, much less sensitive conventional warfare, non-strategic defense stuff. 

 

Not necessarily Get a permission ( aka buy a license for the IP from the manufacturer for the aircraft in question) And you can probably do it. Cooperation from Defense contractor and military is merely a bonus to get stuff handed on a silver platter or some additional stuff ( like say actual audio for Hornet betty recordings) ,  access to say military grade simulators to get a better feel for an aircraft, or access to additional SME, or military  that isn't classified but cannot find publicly.

 

Otherwise its still not impossible to do a module. take Razbam with their M2000C which couldn't even be called a Mirage 2000C because even with the license bought it was an issue to use its full proper RL designation, nor did they have aid of the french air force or Dassault , But it was done anyways.

 

That Of course changed after the fact with the French Air force was interested in buying their modules for pilot training and thus cooperated with Razbam and were able to develop not only  a more detailed model, but even more modern derivative representative of the M2000C in the 2000s. Not much changed  since the late 80s but that's besides the point.

 

Either way to clarify this isn't always the case that some modules are lower quality because of that. Some aircraft have much more publicly available documentation that one would be able to do a solid job even without the Aid of the defense contractor.  IE most of the modules 3rd parties and ED has done, and the B52 is also one of those.

 

In short the total dependence of manufacturer/contractor cooperation only becomes and absolute  visible necessity where there is inadequate publicly available information. IE the Eurofighter Typhoon.

 

 

Quote

 

  Let's put ourselves in ED's shoes for a moment (since they are the only ones with enough defense department reach to even think of doing a project like the B-52 anyway). Imagine going to the USAF and Boeing with a proposal to model a modern, in-service strategic nuclear bomber. How do you think that meeting would go? Do you think they would even really get to the point where they start talking about what is and is not classified? Do you think that the USAF and Boeing would perhaps find the entire idea a bit too sensitive to even really bother exploring? 

 

Again this is speculation on your behalf of a hypothetical situation. But ok il bite

 

I think they would realize that even a "modern" variant of a bomber originally built in early 60s , but representative of say even a circa 2006 is not longer really representative of the remaining  B52H fleet in 2021. IE  see Conect upgrades circa 2014, or the upgrades like the SABR AESA that its going through present day.

 

You dont need to discuss whats classified and whats not. You can ( and should) already know that by doing your homework beforehand. The manual lists all the associated supplements and straight out lists whats classified what isnt. And i have already told you what is based on the research i have done what is. Supplemental EW manual ( like for any aircraft), and the nuclear related operation and procedures. 

 

Not a deal breaker as nuclear warfare isnt a thing in  DCS anyways ( Mig21bis  pretend nuke excluded) . Like IRL the B52 can be and has been used exclusively for conventional bombing missions. 

 

 

Quote

 

  Now, I am aware that the B-52 is a very, very old platform and one could argue that there is probably quite a bit of stuff that is well passed the point where it is considered secret but even simulating a older model outlines the core problem with this idea. Either way you go, you are talking about a plane that forms the backbone of our airborne nuclear plan and that in itself (regardless of what systems are secret and what ones aren't) makes it a tough sell for the USAF/Boeing and ED would NEED their support to make a worthwhile simulation of such a aircraft (as is always the case with modules).

 

Irrelevant if the nuclear aspects aren't simulated. ( again you can't even if you wanted to since that specific documentation is classified)  and if you don't know the tactics used with said aircraft.  This is no different than any aircraft that has classified supplements. even for no strategic sources Tactical manuals ( unless its a really old aircraft no longer in operation) are classified. This has not prevented module development before.

 

Quote

 

  Sometimes it doesn't matter if something is secret or not. What matters is how the rights holders and current users (like the USAF) would feel about it getting simulated in the first place.

ED isn't so stupid as to burn such bridges.

 

Its not burning a bridge to merely ask for permission. or show interest for a particular aircraft. If they  were to get shot down from getting a License for a B52 module, ok fine, then they can say with truth and honesty they tried, and then move on with life. Burning a Bridge would be going ahead of of module development without the necessary "blessings"

 

 

in summation

 

most of your response  i based on hypothetical, speculative theories, verbose essay, of why you think xayz cant be done. ANd its nothing more than that.

 

Unless you are privy to behind the senses stuff, i dont think you can go out and definitively proclaim the above as fact( especially for the b52 specifically)  the reasons of what you think it cannot be done. 

 

I have given far more plausible explanations of why the B52 probably wont be done than speculative theories you have dropped., and i have asserted that we can exclude lack of documentation would not be a driving factor, So to recap in short the prime reasons would be" 

 

A) lots of effort  and development for a niche class of aircraft, that requires such a large crew to man.

 

b) not enough sales success relative to teen series fighters to justify resources spent on something as complex like the B52.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Kev2go

[statrekmike]

13 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

I can Its because I have  done my Homework. Just because you haven't done your due diligence of research beforehand and thus have a ill-adequately formed opinion is not my fault. But its never too late to correct oneself and change an opinion.

 

 

Assuming the above clarification still wasn't clear enough, for record i have gone out and found all virtually all the non classified documentation for the B52H model over the course of a weekend, back when this topic was started which why i can confidently say what i have said prior.

 

 

 

On the opposite end of the specturm it has also been demonstrated enough times before that people have been wrong on their personal assertion why XYZ can't be possible

(  this not to be confused with  a unreasonable wishlist say the likes of  5th gen F35) 

 

Sometimes even us realists are pleasantly surprised. IE the Eurofighter.

 

 

Not necessarily Get a permission ( aka buy a license for the IP from the manufacturer for the aircraft in question) And you can probably do it. Cooperation from Defense contractor and military is merely a bonus to get stuff handed on a silver platter or some additional stuff ( like say actual audio for Hornet betty recordings) ,  access to say military grade simulators to get a better feel for an aircraft, or access to additional SME, or military  that isn't classified but cannot find publicly.

 

Otherwise its still not impossible to do a module. take Razbam with their M2000C which couldn't even be called a Mirage 2000C because even with the license bought it was an issue to use its full proper RL designation, nor did they have aid of the french air force or Dassault , But it was done anyways.

 

That Of course changed after the fact with the French Air force was interested in buying their modules for pilot training and thus cooperated with Razbam and were able to develop not only  a more detailed model, but even more modern derivative representative of the M2000C in the 2000s. Not much changed  since the late 80s but that's besides the point.

 

Either way to clarify this isn't always the case that some modules are lower quality because of that. Some aircraft have much more publicly available documentation that one would be able to do a solid job even without the Aid of the defense contractor.  IE most of the modules 3rd parties and ED has done, and the B52 is also one of those.

 

In short the total dependence of manufacturer/contractor cooperation only becomes and absolute  visible necessity where there is inadequate publicly available information. IE the Eurofighter Typhoon.

 

 

 

Again this is speculation on your behalf of a hypothetical situation. But ok il bite

 

I think they would realize that even a "modern" variant of a bomber originally built in early 60s , but representative of say even a circa 2006 is not longer really representative of the remaining  B52H fleet in 2021. IE  see Conect upgrades circa 2014, or the upgrades like the SABR AESA that its going through present day.

 

You dont need to discuss whats classified and whats not. You can ( and should) already know that by doing your homework beforehand. The manual lists all the associated supplements and straight out lists whats classified what isnt. And i have already told you what is based on the research i have done what is. Supplemental EW manual ( like for any aircraft), and the nuclear related operation and procedures. 

 

Not a deal breaker as nuclear warfare isnt a thing in  DCS anyways ( Mig21bis  pretend nuke excluded) . Like IRL the B52 can be and has been used exclusively for conventional bombing missions. 

 

 

 

Irrelevant if the nuclear aspects aren't simulated. ( again you can't even if you wanted to since that specific documentation is classified)  and if you don't know the tactics used with said aircraft.  This is no different than any aircraft that has classified supplements. even for no strategic sources Tactical manuals ( unless its a really old aircraft no longer in operation) are classified. This has not prevented module development before.

 

 

Its not burning a bridge to merely ask for permission. or show interest for a particular aircraft. If they  were to get shot down from getting a License for a B52 module, ok fine, then they can say with truth and honesty they tried, and then move on with life. Burning a Bridge would be going ahead of of module development without the necessary "blessings"

 

 

in summation

 

most of your response  i based on hypothetical, speculative theories, verbose essay, of why you think xayz cant be done. ANd its nothing more than that.

 

Unless you are privy to behind the senses stuff, i dont think you can go out and definitively proclaim the above as fact( especially for the b52 specifically)  the reasons of what you think it cannot be done. 

 

I have given far more plausible explanations of why the B52 probably wont be done than speculative theories you have dropped., and i have asserted that we can exclude lack of documentation would not be a driving factor, So to recap in short the prime reasons would be" 

 

A) lots of effort  and development for a niche class of aircraft, that requires such a large crew to man.

 

b) not enough sales success relative to teen series fighters to justify resources spent on something as complex like the B52.

 

 

 

 

  Your passive aggressive insinuations aside, I think you are simplifying things for the sake of your argument. You bring up all the documentation you found during a weekend but I wonder what ED would say if you were to approach them and ask if it is enough. Over and over, we have had situations where users on the forums have said "but I have all this documentation I found online!" and over and over, ED and third parties like Heatblur have said "But that isn't even close to enough". How often does this have to happen before people start getting the hint. Making a module in DCS that lives up to the DCS standard (as set by ED) involves not just documentation that anyone can find online in a weekend but also the kind of access that you can only get with support from military forces, the companies that make the aircraft, and SME's that feel that they can be open enough to be useful. 

 

  This brings us to the rather expected mentioning of RAZBAM and the Mirage. It is interesting that you bring this one up since it actually does more to support my position than it does to support yours. When the Mirage first came out, it was a mess and in no small part because RAZBAM simply didn't get the support they needed to make a module that lived up to the DCS standard. They more than likely had all the public documents they could get their hands on but without support from the French Air Force and Dassault, it was obvious that the module we got didn't really reflect the plane accurately. It wasn't until MUCH later that the French Air Force did provide support and the module did indeed change quite a bit as a result. It was that dramatic change that made the module so bittersweet to me as it was hard not to wonder about RAZBAM's own internal standards. Sadly. This very same issue has been repeated with the Harrier and it doesn't look like the USMC is going to swoop in and save the day. 

 

 Here is a fact. The B-52 is a active duty, strategic nuclear asset (regardless of its other jobs) and as such, the USAF and Boeing are very unlikely to want such a thing simulated to DCS standards (as set by ED's other modules). It doesn't matter if you can scrape together some manuals off the internet, they would need so, so much more to actually make a worthwhile module. They would need access to the aircraft for the creation of art/sound assets. They would need the freedom to simulate the various stations, displays, targeting, and weapon management systems. They would need SME's that can openly provide them with useful information and feedback. These are all things that make ED's other modules as detailed and thorough as they are and as Heatblur will attest, they are pretty necessary in order to make a convincing, worthwhile module that matches the standard that many of us expect. 

 

  I do absolutely agree that the effort required to make such a module on a hypothetical level would require too many players, too much effort to develop, and wouldn't have the commercial appeal to make it worthwhile. I absolutely disagree that a weekend worth of searching for publicly released documents is enough to make a module to ED's standards. ED hasn't been shy about stating what they need to make a module to their standards and spoiler alert, they would want more than a weekend worth of internet searching for public documents they probably already have in a file somewhere anyway. 

 

  Who know? Maybe RAZBAM will add it to their list of upcoming modules...

[jojyrocks]

Safe to say a Flyable B-52 is out of the question...it seems too classified, being a strategic bomber and a very complicated one to model and work on.

 

In the end...if worked on, it will have to pay out and that means, more sales with a hefty price tag. SP players won't be able to finish their mission, if the AI is bad. So, only MP players would find this module fitting and it only fits the coordinated mission formats, yes, we need long range maps too. Not a lot of MP players with solid connections.

 

So...it would much better to hope for a Updated AI modeled B-52 than a flyable one.

[Exorcet]

As much as I constantly ask for enormous maps, I find people overstate their need for large aircraft. For one thing, anything that flies fits NTTR:

 

 

For another, people don't have to fly the entire route of a mission if they don't want to. DCS features air starts and what not. If flying a B-52 across the world is "boring" (I don't see how it's any more boring than the entire civil flight sim genre) then just fly the 200 mile route around the target. Or you could separate the mission into multiple missions. Take off on the Marianas map, skip the ingress flight, load up the target run over Syria or Hormuz, skip the egress, and load a landing mission on the Marianas map to simulate returning to base.

[Kev2go]

1 hour ago, statrekmike said:

 

  Your passive aggressive insinuations aside, I think you are simplifying things for the sake of your argument.

 

 

self projecting are we?

 

Quote

 

You bring up all the documentation you found during a weekend

 

 

Of course bring it wrong because you seem to have been uniformed slew of information thats publicly available and whats not and have not bothered to do your own research before making assertations.

 

Quote

but I wonder what ED would say if you were to approach them and ask if it is enough. Over and over, we have had situations where users on the forums have said "but I have all this documentation I found online!" and over and over, ED and third parties like Heatblur have said "But that isn't even close to enough".

 

 

 

 

That wasn't a question if it that alone was enough. So now you change the goalpost to focusing on saying its not enough. When i never said otherwise: 

 

Quote

How often does this have to happen before people start getting the hint. Making a module in DCS that lives up to the DCS standard (as set by ED) involves not just documentation that anyone can find online in a weekend but also the kind of access that you can only get with support from military forces, the companies that make the aircraft, and SME's that feel that they can be open enough to be useful. 

How often have people like you been proven wrong with your pseudo intellectualistic overly verbose essays on why you incorrectly perceive aircraft XYZ cannot  be done, only to it eventually become a thing. Apparently not enough times either.
 

 

Quote

 

  This brings us to the rather expected mentioning of RAZBAM and the Mirage. It is interesting that you bring this one up since it actually does more to support my position than it does to support yours.

 

 

Sure you can spin as such but that doesn't make it so.

 

Quote

 

 

 

When the Mirage first came out, it was a mess and in no small part because RAZBAM simply didn't get the support they needed to make a module that lived up to the DCS standard. They more than likely had all the public documents they could get their hands on but without support from the French Air Force and Dassault, it was obvious that the module we got didn't really reflect the plane accurately. It wasn't until MUCH later that the French Air Force did provide support and the module did indeed change quite a bit as a result. It was that dramatic change that made the module so bittersweet to me as it was hard not to wonder about RAZBAM's own internal standards. Sadly.

 

 

See my prior response:  a potential B52 would not be another M2000C scenario as i already explained

 

 

Quote

 

This very same issue has been repeated with the Harrier and it doesn't look like the USMC is going to swoop in and save the day. 

 

harriers been slow to move out of EA, but its come together fine imo. I think there comes a point where only RL pilots could notice the difference, and that civilian sim flies probably wouldn't know or care to know.

 

I think ED/ Heatblur could have done a more efficient job with the harrier, but i think its just the development team skill and quality control at that point not lack of information.

 

 

Quote

 

 Here is a fact. The B-52 is a active duty, strategic nuclear asset (regardless of its other jobs) and as such, the USAF and Boeing are very unlikely to want such a thing simulated to DCS standards (as set by ED's other modules). It doesn't matter if you can scrape together some manuals off the internet, they would need so, so much more to actually make a worthwhile module. They would need access to the aircraft for the creation of art/sound assets. They would need the freedom to simulate the various stations, displays, targeting, and weapon management systems. They would need SME's that can openly provide them with useful information and feedback. These are all things that make ED's other modules as detailed and thorough as they are and as Heatblur will attest, they are pretty necessary in order to make a convincing, worthwhile module that matches the standard that many of us expect. 

 

 

going in circles now this was already noted in prior response. BUt again as a company they have resources that a aviation enthusiast does not. So on top of basic research yes of course they could reach out to SME, do the modelling etc. 

 

Quote

 

  I do absolutely agree that the effort required to make such a module on a hypothetical level would require too many players, too much effort to develop, and wouldn't have the commercial appeal to make it worthwhile. I absolutely disagree that a weekend worth of searching for publicly released documents is enough to make a module to ED's standards.

 

I never said that was enough alone......  This was just to demonstrate what a a individual can find with their own discipline and due diligence research.  The manuals are a baseline for information needed, and even WAGS as much said for past modules, the Manuals give them the overwhelmingly vast majority of information they need  ( hornet even specifically said 80% information of what they need is in the basic natops alone, the rest is the additional supplemental manuals and weapons related stuff)  not being paid to develop a module. Its not like I am being employed by ED here, and suddenly It is on me to hand them everything on a silver platter just so they can think on developing a module? 

 

Hence based on the information you can find. This means on documentation alone there is enough. and with such foundation it is possible to go ahead for  full fidelity module

 

But as a baseline all the key documents needed are available was the point being made. If i can find it so Can a company with much larger resources

 

So please stop changing the goal post, and trying to pick apart an argument for the sake of winning. Sometimes its better to just say you don;t know or admit you might be wrong.

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

ED hasn't been shy about stating what they need to make a module to their standards and spoiler alert, they would want more than a weekend worth of internet searching for public documents they probably already have in a file somewhere anyway. 

 

  Who know? Maybe RAZBAM will add it to their list of upcoming modules...

 

So why not just come to agreement on this that trying to argue over whats classified or hwats not and what information is avialble or not.

 

Jusgt admit you were wrong rather then moving your goalpost from OH its too classified and not enough public data to " Oh wait YOU NEED more than that" 

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Kev2go

[Wing]

@mkellytx If you have not already, please vote on my thread here: 

 

Former BUFF guy as well, would love to see this airframe in DCS. For all the "naysayers", please checkout this thread... Its all been said and discussed before. Same song, different dance.

 

One day, I have the dream, that we WILL see a heavy bomber like the B52 in DCS World. And yes, the current maps - especially NTTR and Persian Gulf would fit the module just fine.

 

Dont be a buzz kill fellas. Have hope.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Wing

[statrekmike]

1 minute ago, Kev2go said:

 

self projecting are we?

 

 

That wasn't the question at hand.

 

 

How often have people liek you been proven wrong with your pseduo intellectual overly verbose essays on why you incorrectly perceive aircraft XYZ have been done, only to it eventually become a thing. Apparently not enough times either.
 

 

 

Sure you can spin as such but that doesnt make it so.

 

 

 

See my prior response:  B52 would not be another M2000C sceario as i already explained

 

 

 

going in circles now this was already noted in prior response. BUt again as a company thye have resources that a aviation enthusiast does not.

 

 

I never said that was enough alone......  This was just to demonstrate what a a individual can find with their own discipline and due diligence research.  The manuals are a baseline for information needed, and even WAGS as much said for past modules, the Manuals give them the vast majority of information they need  ( for aircraft liek the viper or hornet even specifically said 80% information of what they need is in the basic natops alone, the rest is the weapons related stuff.)  not being paid to develop a module, I am not going to do all the work for ED.

 

Hence based on the information you can find. This measn on documentation alone there is enough. and with such foundation it is possible to due a full fidelty module

 

But as a baseline all the key documents needed are available was the point being made. If i can find it so Can a company with much larger resources

 

So please stop changing the goal post, and trying to pick apart an argument for the sake of winning. SOmetimes its better to just say you don;t know or admit you might be wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

So why not just come to agreement on this that trying to argue over whats classified or hwats not and what information is avialble or not.

 

Jusgt admit you were wrong rather then moving your goalpost from OH its too classified and not enough public data to " Oh wait YOU NEED more than that" 

 

 

 I am not moving the goalposts at all. I have always argued that the issue here isn't entirely one of outright secrecy but also that the B-52 as a platform is a delicate matter due to its active duty role in the USAF as a nuclear strategic asset. This isn't a light bomber with a minor nuclear role we are talking about here, this is one of the backbones of the USAF's nuclear strategy and that alone makes it a delicate, sensitive matter for a company (especially one with strong overseas roots) to simulate. 

 

  Here is the thing. For all we know, ED already has all the documents you have filed away somewhere in a cabinet. They probably have all the public documents on a lot of different aircraft just because that kind of stuff will come up in their line of work. Heck. They probably have stuff even you don't have just because they are better connected and have more experience knowing where to look for such things. It has never, ever been my argument that ED can't get these kinds of documents. My argument is that it takes more than that for them to even CONSIDER making a module. They have made this clear over and over. They didn't just make the A-10C, Hornet, and F-16 based only on public documents. They also had access to SME's, USAF/USN contacts, and industry experts. What's more. We (as the players) need to be willing to consider other factors that go beyond outright the level of secrecy attached to a certain document and see that sometimes the reasons for not doing certain aircraft are more general. It is the same reason ED isn't exactly eager to model modern Russian hardware while they are not against a third party giving it a go. They know that going that direction could create problems for them even if they have a bunch of public documents to go from. 

 

  As I keep saying. We are talking about an IN SERVICE strategic nuclear asset. I strongly suspect that if we were to sit down and ask ED's company management how likely we are to see such a thing, they would agree that tackling a modern, in-service strategic nuclear bomber (even if it does other things as well) isn't a smart move and would likely cause friction in their relationship with Boeing and the USAF. Regardless of the plane's age or even the availability of its documentation, it is still a tricky subject due to its strategic nuclear role alone. We shouldn't be so quick to discount that. 

 

  I won't argue that the manuals are a baseline and I also won't argue that they get a lot of their information from them. What I am arguing is that the reason that ED's modules generally set a high standard for DCS is because they always go above and beyond the manuals whenever possible and have the support from Air Forces and aerospace companies to help them do just that. If they were to suddenly ignore all the other DCS level issues preventing large, multi-crew aircraft from working well in DCS and asked Boeing and the USAF for the kind of support they would need to do a worthwhile B-52 module, they would very likely get told something to the effect of "Yeah...that is an in service strategic nuclear bomber so let's not go there". I mean. Seriously. Put yourself in the shoes of a USAF rep during that kind of conversation. I am sure you can see how that would have a lot of potential for a large amount of controversy. Can you imagine the headline? "USAF/Boeing helps Russian developer simulate in service nuclear bomber." You don't even need to bring up classified documents for that to be a controversial move. 

 

 If we were talking about aircraft that are not current, active service strategic nuclear bombers, this wouldn't really be a debate. If we were talking about the F-111 or something, I wouldn't really doubt that ED could get all the required "blessings" to do such a thing without stupidly burning professional bridges. Unfortunately. We are talking about a aircraft that is part of a EXTREMELY delicate topic and one that ED has already hinted at their feelings about when they said that they have no interest in nuclear weapons in DCS. It is a controversial, difficult topic that would be stupid to get wrapped up in when there are still so many iconic aircraft they can do that are not nearly as sensitive. 

 

  In the end, this all seems rather academic considering that you and I both agree that there are other issues that prevent ED from even bothering with such a choice to begin with. Even if the B-52 wasn't part of a EXTREMELY controversial and delicate subject (strategic nuclear aircraft and doctrine), it would still be too much work for not enough of a potential audience. 

 

  

  

[Kev2go]

ok thanks for reclarifying your position. And whilst i dont really have any disagreement the practical reasons for why a B52 hasn't been done since i myself have considered them, however i do not know if i can also reach your conclusion on the permissions regarding defense contractor/ military not wanting to give permission or cooperate with ED, based on the fact the B52 is in still service or can can employ nukes.

 

Maybe Wing here can comment if hes thinks the USAF would refuse ED or a 3rd party from doing the B52 purely  on that basis alone, which i don't think he believes  that is likely given his posts from the thread he linked.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Kev2go