Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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


Edited by Wing
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

A-10C II, AV-8B, F-5E, F-16C, F/A-18C, F-86F, Yak-52, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Supercarrier, Combined Arms, FW 190 A-8, FW 190 D-9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Normandy + WWII Assets Pack

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600 - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

i7 - 9700K | 32 GB DDR4 3200 | RTX 2080 | VKB Gunfighter Mk II /w MCG Pro | Virpil T-50CM2 Throttle | TrackIR 5 | VKB Mk. IV

 

AJS-37 | A/V-8B | A-10C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F-18C | F-86F | FC3 | JF-17 | Ka-50 | L-39 | Mi-8 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19 | MiG-21bis | M2000-C | P-51D | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | UH-1H

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

RTX 2080ti, I7 9700k, 32gb ram, SSD, Samsung Odyssey VR, MSFFB2, T-50 Throttle, Thrustmaster Rudder Pedals

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!? ...


Edited by twistking

My personal wishlist after 2 years with dcs: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=216873

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

PC Specs / Hardware: MSI z370 Gaming Plus Mainboard, Intel 8700k @ 5GHz, MSI Sea Hawk 2080 Ti @ 2100MHz, 32GB 3200 MHz DDR4 RAM

Displays: Philips BDM4065UC 60Hz 4K UHD Screen, Pimax 8KX

Controllers / Peripherals: VPC MongoosT-50, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, modded MS FFB2/CH Combatstick, MFG Crosswind Pedals, Gametrix JetSeat

OS: Windows 10 Home Creator's Update

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

My personal wishlist after 2 years with dcs: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=216873

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600 - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to post
Share on other sites
I only speak for myself, but my interest in an airplane with more than 2 crew members is zero.

 

+1

PC: Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz | MSI GTX 1080 TI | ASUS Maximus IX Hero | 32GB DDR4 RAM | 512GB Samsung 850 PRO SSD | Win10 Pro 64bit

Gear: HP Reverb | JetPad FSE | Monstertech MTX Sim Rig | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk.III w/ MCG Ultimate (center mount) | VKB Gunfighter Mk.III /w SCG-R Premium (side mount for DCS F-16)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

A-10C II, AV-8B, F-5E, F-16C, F/A-18C, F-86F, Yak-52, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Supercarrier, Combined Arms, FW 190 A-8, FW 190 D-9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Normandy + WWII Assets Pack

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Edited by Minsky

- Dmitriy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...