Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't think they'd be a good fit for DCS. Leaving aside the fact they're usually classified (being a part of the nuclear triad), they have a very long range, far longer than anything we've got in DCS. I wouldn't mind a medium range tactical bomber, but something like B-52 would only have a single mission anyway, and realistically, it wouldn't be taking off from an airfield on any of the maps we have when conducting missions from them. For example, if there were B-52s operating in Caucasus, they would likely be based in Italy or Germany.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with Dragon.

 

Personally, I think these long range strategic bombers are kinda a poor fit for player modules; if you wanted to do a player bomber I'd stick to things like the Canberra B(I).6/B(I).8 and B-75B, Il-28 and the best out of all of them: the F-111F. 

  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bravelink03 said:

Or the Su-24,34 or Fitters

 

Meh, I see where you're going with this but the F-111F is much more of a dedicated bomber than the -24 (which while its a direct contemporary, the Su-24 is less of a dedicated bomber and more a multi-role attack aircraft and more, as for the other 2, they're more strike fighters than bombers.

 

Not saying I wouldn't want either of them, I'd love an Su-17M4 (or any -17) but they're less in keeping with the OPs request.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites

A WW II bomber, may be. But post war bombers in DCS will probably not happen, latest interviews from ED seemed to say so as well if I recall correctly.

 

Now if we go lighter bombers/heavier attackers, like A-6, F-111, Su-24, Su-17, Buccaneer, I'm all on board!

  • Like 1

Modules:

MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk T1A, C-101, FC3, A-10C, CA, Mirage 2000C, Gazelle, L-39, MiG-15Bis, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen, Yak-52, Christen Eagle II, MiG-19, I-16, JF-17, F-14, F/A-18C, Fw-190A8, AV-8B/NA, Spitifre IX

 

Mods:

A-4E, MB-339, Edge 540

 

Utility modules:

Combined Arms, NS 430 GPS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not impossible, but unlikely, because of so many factors not panning out, you have things like, IIRC (there was an official list somewhere, or in the interviews):

 

  • Potential customers, maximum, etc.
  • Documentation
  • Classification of key systems,
  • Manufacturer licensing, autorization
  • Usefulness of the module in DCS gameplay
  • Development requirements, costs, manpower resources

 

Understanding that early on, I was rather advocating for another type of a stop-gap solution, the key flight characteristics difference that heavy multi-engine bombers have, so let's look at just about ANY kind of wide-body, wide wing-span, multi-engine jet or prop out there that would fit in these criteria, it doesn't need to be a bomber in that case, just so we have one sort of an example of the kind of experience in comparison to what DCS usually is, and to have that comparison right here in the DCS umbrella, that's nother point, non-DCS stuff doesn't count ofcourse. This example can be used as a testbed to gauge popularity and how, I do know popularity is definitely not going to be comparable to other fighters and stuff, but I think this is natural and there's no way around it, if such a module struggles it would need to have a special deal where it could be subsidized by the overloaded success of other modules or by simply having a "break-even" rule that it pans out as long as the costs are covered and no loss was made, it doesn't have to produce pure profit.

 

I think the hottest thing around the community here has been the idea of AC-130 for a while AFAIK, at least the last time I checked more than half a year ago. I don't know in detail and perhaps others know more, but it kinda ticks all those requirements except the popularity, that's what the main thing the community can do is, to promote and ask others, to bring the topic up if talking to someone that was part of the C-130 programme if they would be in for such a module, get them to know about DCS, etc.

 

AC-130 is old enough that docs would IMO be easier to authorize, less strictly classified I would assume, it has the combat component, and all the support components that would go well with the "Dynamic Campaign" of transporting cargo/ammo/fuel around the area of influence, transporting building materials to construct bunkers and forward bases.

 

In the end having that different flying experience is still, or it should be, more of a side-thing, just as it is in reality, at least I would advocate for it like that, for the existing community to not be locked-shut to their favourites, and for the wide-body fans to not expect decisions affecting the whole DCS to be all about what benefits a wide-body type of experience, I wouldn't want to create these super-specialized niches within DCS that would compete for attention as I think that be detrimental to DCS as a whole in some fashion (that I happens to elude my mind right now what specifically could it be). Just to clear something out, I don't come with this sort of idea from a civilian wide-body transport mindset, I'm simply entertaining the technical feasibility of this and satisfying that experience for who would have liked it, but I don't really have any connection with those civilian communities. If it counts, I played Lock On and Apache Longbow way way back, even before I had internet connection at home or tried out any civilian sim.

 

 


Edited by Worrazen
reworded whole post
  • Like 1

Getting back in action!

1st.: PC Specs WIP: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus ROG Strix X-570E - CPU: AMD Ryzen ... - GPU: AMD Radeon ... - RAM: 64 GB - SSD: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB NVMe

2nd.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus P9X79 - CPU: Intel i7 3820 - RAM: 32GB - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 8GB - SSD Samsung 860 EVO 250GB (DCS), Input: Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP.

Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2021 at 5:53 AM, WinterH said:

A WW II bomber, may be. But post war bombers in DCS will probably not happen, latest interviews from ED seemed to say so as well if I recall correctly.

 

Now if we go lighter bombers/heavier attackers, like A-6, F-111, Su-24, Su-17, Buccaneer, I'm all on board!

 

For WWll I would like to see a flyable A-20, B-25, PBJ or A-26. Anything bigger would be boring to fly, unless multi crewed, manning gunner positions against attacking fighters.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

The B-25 is probably the best bet for the biggest ED could reasonably go. PIlotable by one person, the 4 other stations are not required to make it airborne or functional and the bombadier requirement can be AI assisted fairly convincingly as a step in for unavailable humans. "Meet Boris the Bombadier". It's still a massively complex project and would put Heatblur's F-14 into the shade in terms of size and effort, but, it could be done and still fit the game. I'd love to see one on the Axis side.
As for current stuff, they already said no.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

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...