B-1b Lancer

[Dannyvandelft]

I would love to see this plane implemented. It has an enormous arsenal and can carry a lot of it at supersonic speeds. Not to mention it's absolutely stunning.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[ngreenaway]

Pretty airplane, too many engines for dcs, Our maps too small

 

A neat airplane doesn't always make a compelling sim.

[razo+r]

B-1 is already in the game (for AI)

[ngreenaway]

There's lotsa units thatre AI but won't ever be pilot-able, nothing new there

[bies]

It could be the "brain melting", "ground braking", "highly detailed and complex aircraft representing a huge milestone" to be announced this year. Who knows after all.

[Ryback]

It could be the "brain melting", "ground braking", "highly detailed and complex aircraft representing a huge milestone" to be announced this year. Who knows after all.

 

Well, that’s news to me? Is that a statement from ED?

[razo+r]

There's lotsa units thatre AI but won't ever be pilot-able, nothing new there

 

All AI aircraft are pilotable if you are willing to do so. They just won't be on Module quality "standards".

[bies]

Well, that’s news to me? Is that a statement from ED?

 

Yeap.

Apache? Aardvark? Tornado? Soviet jet? Lancer? Guess it.

[FlankerKiller]

Yeap.

Apache? Aardvark? Tornado? Soviet jet? Lancer? Guess it.

SU-24, that's my guess. Its Soviet/Russian, its complex, it's two sweat, it can kill a carrier, it's a pure bomber. If I was ED, and I wanted to do something truly different, that's what I would do. It should be old enough to not get them into to much trouble.

[FlankerKiller]

Also yeah the B-1B would be ****ing awesome. But I think it would be a bit too ambitious. I don't buy the map is too small argument. And it is one of the best close air support aircraft we have. But 4 crew stations, swing wing, and 4 engines, plus train following radar, air to ground radar, TGP, and multiple bomb bays each with a different weapon. That would take years of development. Time that can be used on something else, something more people will buy. So maybe in five years. But there are other things the developers can spend there time on now.

[Harker]

Can DCS's engine even support 4 engine aircraft? I remember reading that it couldn't.

[cypc]

Can DCS's engine even support 4 engine aircraft? I remember reading that it couldn't.

 

DCS was not able to handle 4 points landings, yet we now have a Harrier.

Same goes for 3+ engines, because it is not supported today does not mean it cannot be done.

 

Time needed to update DCS core for that is an other story ...

[Rick50]

It could be the "brain melting", "ground braking", "highly detailed and complex aircraft representing a huge milestone" to be announced this year. Who knows after all.

 

I'm wondering... maybe a B-17 or B-29, with multicrew shared cockpit and stations...

 

 

I know this was sorta tried a long time ago, there used to be a B-17 sim where you could switch from position to position on the plane during a mission, but I think it was all purely singleplayer, so AI had to do most of the work. I think an online only game/sim (warbirdz?) may have had something a bit like this, but they never had complex systems, and the graphics were pretty simple (16 colors... no not 16 bit colors, I mean 16 actual colors!! and maybe 200 polys... At least it seemed that way)

 

 

The thing that gives me pause is "huge milestone"... I dunno, maybe they will do a plausible F-35 with full complexity, albeit with some creative license??

[Evoman]

News flash

 

I just ran read a news article that the USAF is sending a hulk of a B-1 Lancer from the bone yard to the to the National Institute for Aviation Research at Wichita State University in Kansas.

"Researchers there will 3D scan the entire airframe to create a highly detailed "digital twin" model to help identify areas of the aircraft that suffer high levels of fatigue and otherwise collect data that could help predict future maintenance needs among the B-1Bs still in service."

 

 

This maybe the perfect opportunity for ED to see if they can take advantage of the project or even helpout benefiting them in bringing the B-1 to DCS.

 

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33151/air-force-sends-full-b-1b-airframe-from-boneyard-to-kansas-to-create-its-digital-twin

Edited April 24, 2020 by Evoman

[RG2021]

On 4/24/2020 at 6:36 PM, Evoman said:

 

This maybe the perfect opportunity for ED to see if they can take advantage of the project or even helpout benefiting them in bringing the B-1 to DCS.

 

The B-1B would be an absolutely awesome module in DCS and I can’t see why it can’t be added. Obviously not a 2021-spec version, but a 2003ish version would be perfect! No JASSMs. But still JSOWs, JDAMs, MKs, etc. No new weapons. The B-1 flies very much like a fighter, albeit an absolutely mammoth one.

 

More players would buy a B-1 than they would a new cargo plane that ED is talking about now. We need big aircraft but when the community says “big aircraft”, I’m pretty certain they mean BOMBERS.

[inconnudiscret]

+1

[Jester986]

Would be awesome but super unlikely. Hopefully success of the cargo plane though will make ED reevaluate the profit case for a bomber. 

[mkellytx]

22 hours ago, RG2021 said:

The B-1 flies very much like a fighter, albeit an absolutely mammoth one.

Not quite, wing sweep less than 65 degrees it's a 1.5-2 g airframe, greater than 65 degrees it can pull 3 g when light, heavy it's still 2 g.  Source Fig 5-8, page 5-20 of TO 1B-1B-1.  The BUFF BTW is 2 g.

Edited September 14, 2021 by mkellytx

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, mkellytx said:

Not quite, wing sweep less than 65 degrees it's a 1.5-2 g airframe, greater than 65 degrees it can pull 3 g when light, heavy it's still 2 g.  Source Fig 5-8, page 5-20 of TO 1B-1B-1.  The BUFF BTW is 2 g.

 

 

Something that I imagine is also governed by the aircrafts onboard computer, correct?

[Nomatic]

+100 - instabuy 

[mkellytx]

47 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

 

Something that I imagine is also governed by the aircrafts onboard computer, correct?

Not really, and whatever FBW there is (2 channel IIRC) does not limit things like a flying video game, say a Viper or Bug... Yes, I've seen both golden hands and regular line dogs over gee the airframe.  At least the line SQ/CC handed the line dog a speed wrench and made him pull panels...

[AvgeekJoe]

I want the B-1B... what a plane... we need it in DCS!

[Tank50us]

29 minutes ago, mkellytx said:

Not really, and whatever FBW there is (2 channel IIRC) does not limit things like a flying video game, say a Viper or Bug... Yes, I've seen both golden hands and regular line dogs over gee the airframe.  At least the line SQ/CC handed the line dog a speed wrench and made him pull panels...

 

huh, odd, I could've sworn that the B-1B, an aircraft from the era of FBW, would have some sort of ability to keep the pilot from breaking the plane.

[Rick50]

 

FBW was not all created equal, or the same. Prevention of over-G was likely not considered for bombers and cargo in the early days... even for fighters it seemed more an afterthought at the very start. Nowdays it seems prudent to include such limits on everything that flies.

 

 

[RG2021]

19 hours ago, mkellytx said:

Not quite, wing sweep less than 65 degrees it's a 1.5-2 g airframe, greater than 65 degrees it can pull 3 g when light, heavy it's still 2 g.  Source Fig 5-8, page 5-20 of TO 1B-1B-1.  The BUFF BTW is 2 g.

 

Well that’s not quite what I meant. Traditional bombers take off and fly more or less in a straight line to obliterate their targets, hence why a B-17 or B-24 would be a kinda sucky module in DCS. The B-1 flies low and fast, dodging obstacles and you fly it in a reactive manor rather than a predictive manor.