Jump to content

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress as a full fidellity paid module?? Would you buy?


buy a B-52 module?  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you buy a B-52 module?

    • YES YES YES!! of course!
      16
    • No.
      8
    • No, BUT only because the map sizes are too small for such a long range bomber. When map sizes are large enough for a full mission, I would buy this proposed module.
      1
    • Maybe. I might be interested in it, but I haven't made up my mind.
      6
    • I want heavies and I like bombers, but I don't want a B-52 because reasons.
      3
  2. 2. How much would you be willing to pay for a full module?

    • $80 for a single variant?
      21
    • $120 for a single modern variant if it cost a lot to develop ?
      4
    • $250, if it covered all the variants, all the ordnance it ever carried, with two dozen repaints?
      4
    • $0.00 because I don't want this module.
      5
  3. 3. Which variant /era /mission would you be most interested?

    • Early Cold War nuclear deterrence? Shark's tail, Bare metal SAC ?
      3
    • Vietnam War, Shark's tail B-52D variant, Big Belly modification, Arc Light missions, Linebacker 2 ?
      4
    • 1980's Cold War ALCM cruise missile carriers ?
      1
    • 1990's Desert Storm era, conventional weapons only?
      7
    • 2020 GWOT era, precision weapon platform?
      5
    • All the above, keeping in mind that pushes cost/price, and development time, dramatically up?
      10
    • None of the above, because I don't want this module.
      4


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

 

In another thread the discussion is going on debating this topic, but how many people would pay full module cost, for a B-52 module?

 

And what would you want with it?

 

 


Edited by Rick50
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This has literally already been done...

Quit spamming polls. And search the forum

 

P.S. your poll options - are entirely biased and uneducated. Nice attempt tho!


Edited by Wing
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, your answer options are severely biased and lacking in breadth.

If you want to skew the answers towards your preferred answers, at least try to make it less obvious.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No it hasn't.

 

"any heavy" is NOT THE SAME as "B-52" and "specifically what would you pay and for what variant"

 

The questions are different.

 

Also, that poll is 2 years old. Maybe we want to see if the current DCS players still feel the same, or maybe support has increased/decreased. 

 

But go ahead, push hard for demanding a BUFF module and don't participate in a poll that might convince a dev team that they could succeed at it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rick50 said:

But go ahead, push hard for demanding a BUFF module and don't participate in a poll that might convince a dev team that they could succeed at it.

Why participate in a poll that is skewed towards a specific outcome and which therefore cannot give a valid representation of people's opinions, when one has already participated in a poll that has shown that the interest is there.

 

Your “different questions” do not offer any benefit here because of how loaded they are now how poorly they're being asked.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Also, your answer options are severely biased and lacking in breadth.

If you want to skew the answers towards your preferred answers, at least try to make it less obvious.

 

I was going to add a few more questions, but it limited me to just the 3.

 

I am biased, as you and everyone else is. But if you don't participate, then a dev seeing this will conclude there's little support for a BUFF.

 

By the way, I answered it:

 

1. when map sizes grow

2. $250 for all variants

3. all variants

 

 

 


Edited by Rick50
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

B52s operate in the current map sizes real world. So again, quit spreading false narratives. Thanks!

 

At this point, especially with this biased/uneducated poll, you are borderline trolling…


Edited by Wing
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

I was going to add a few more questions, but it limited me to just the 3.

It's not the number of questions. It's the ridiculously biased and loaded answers.

 

Quote

I am biased, as you and everyone else is.

That doesn't mean you must absolutely forcibly asked biased and loaded questions. It just means that when you answer those questions, your answer reveals that bias. If the questions do, the question pointless and invalid.

 

As it is, the devs can already conclude that there is a lot of support for the BUFF since there is already a poll that demonstrates this and a highly rated thread that discussed what it would entail.


Edited by Tippis
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have answered no to the first question , for several reasons including map size . 

However the second question regarding module price did not have a "0" dollar option (required if the first option is no) so i did not participate in the poll .

9700k , Aorus Pro wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Hotas on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , RiftS

 

"Hold my beer"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

90's but its more 00' because 

A: it has the most content

B: most documentation is available

 

Also at first question if youre biased dosent mean you should put loaded and biased questions

Questions should be as neutral 


Edited by IkarusC42B Pilot
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The poll is worded incorrectly. If your choice is “no” then the other fields are not relevant. 
 

You set up the poll so it’s only possible to answer yes 😆


Edited by SharpeXB

Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the thread about the heavies, rather than just looking at the poll, people were saying they'd like a Hercules, a TU-22  and so on. Just because 400 people clicked on "yes for heavies" isn't a guarantee that all 400 would buy a BUFF at any price.  But it's all those details that a business owner NEEDS in order to decide to do a project. The buiness owner is biased, in favor of commercial success, and if he doesn't have a very EXTREMELY clear idea of just what people will and won't pay for, EXACTLY what they want and don't want, the project will either fail, or fail to start.

 

Market research requires a lot more than one single answer. The masses are flakey. They tell you one thing, but when you drill down for specifics, suddenly many get cold feet.  

 

Ikarus, thanks for participating. It does matter to realize the goal of a BUFF module.

 

Smokey, why would I include a $0, when the poll is about paid modules, not free mods? Do you really think a BUFF modulel of even a single variant, would be cheaper than $80 ?!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not ! But if i answer "no" to the first question , why would i pay at least $80 in the second ? 

Also , the first question is poorly worded , as there are several reasons i would not buy the module , not just one .

9700k , Aorus Pro wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Hotas on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , RiftS

 

"Hold my beer"

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Wing said:

B52s operate in the current map sizes real world. So again, quit spreading false narratives. Thanks!

 

At this point, especially with this biased/uneducated poll, you are borderline trolling…

 

Even if it didnt,it dosent matter. Just because the real one dose dosent mean i should roleplay what they do. This is about simulating the physiscs and systems,how i play with it is nobody's business. These arguments are just their last no card defense they have against the b52. Just stop engaging this dumb argument

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Svsmokey said:

I would have answered no to the first question , for several reasons including map size . 

However the second question regarding module price did not have a "0" dollar option (required if the first option is no) so i did not participate in the poll .

 

Again, please explain why you are so caught up on map size? I truly dont get it with you guys, other than just plain ignorance.

 

Maps with applicability real world to B52 ops...

DCS Nevada:

 

DCS Persian Gulf:

 

DCS Mariana Islands:



I can continue to give thousands of examples, with combat/training mission history all launched/recovered within the dimensions of current and future DCS maps to come...

But this is truly beating a dead horse at this point, and those that would rather be ignorant will always be as so.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

If you read the thread about the heavies, rather than just looking at the poll, people were saying they'd like a Hercules, a TU-22  and so on. Just because 400 people clicked on "yes for heavies" isn't a guarantee that all 400 would buy a BUFF at any price.  But it's all those details that a business owner NEEDS in order to decide to do a project.

Your “poll” does not offer any details that a business owner needs in order to decide to do a project.

It offers less relevant data than the other poll because you're missing options, mixing in irrelevant rationales and opinions, and have questions that directly contradict and/or cannot be answered in combinations with others. It's just noise whereas the other one actually gives a clear answer to a clear question.

 

Quote

Market research requires a lot more than one single answer.

They also require good, well-stated, unbiased questions. Otherwise you get garbage non-data of zero value.

 

Quote

Smokey, why would I include a $0, when the poll is about paid modules, not free mods?

Because that's how much people would want to pay if they answer “no” to whether they want the module or not. If you include option to answer “no” as to whether they would buy the module, you must by necessity also include the option where they don't want to pay for the module.


Edited by Tippis
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then why didn't you step up to the plate and make your own "perfect poll" ?  At least I tried.

 

You want a B-52 module? Or a Hustler? Or anything else? Then hype it. Promote the idea. Make a better poll than mine, better than polls in the past. Start many mulitple polls with details you feel are relevant.  Increase support, create a campaign to grow that support. Show us that huge support, measure it, show it, quantify it. Do some preliminary market research for the dev owner. Show us how much people would be willing to spend on it. Show us not only that it CAN be done, but that it will be a guaranteed profit.

 

"SHOW ME THE MONEY!" 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

Then why didn't you step up to the plate and make your own "perfect poll" ?

Because there's a rule against spamming redundant threads.

And because one isn't really needed.

 

The only reason this thread exists is because you were getting nowhere in the other thread, and then it got locked. So you made this to try to continue to push your (as demonstrated poorly informed) perspective. Funnily enough, there's a rule against that as well.


Edited by Tippis
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Wing said:

 

Again, please explain why you are so caught up on map size? I truly dont get it with you guys, other than just plain ignorance.

 

Maps with applicability real world to B52 ops...

DCS Nevada:

 

DCS Persian Gulf:

 

DCS Mariana Islands:



I can continue to give thousands of examples, with combat/training mission history all launched/recovered within the dimensions of current and future DCS maps to come...

But this is truly beating a dead horse at this point, and those that would rather be ignorant will always be as so.

 

 

1:

B-52's bombing North Vietnam were based in Guam , not Da Nang . 

B-52's bombing Afghanistan are based in Diego , not Kandahar .

The idea is to protect a strategic national asset , while accomplishing the mission .

The only exception that i am aware of is the Gulf , and i would love to be educated as to how that decision was arrived at . But even so , the 500 km maps in DCS can't compare to the ~1400 range of those missions , and the threats more than merely Scuds .

 

 2:

Within our ~ 500 km maps , you need a 10k-foot runway for combat operations , limiting basing options , and effectively putting your assets 

Even closer to red . 

 

3 : We agree on one thing...we're beating a dead horse 🙂

 

There are many reasons why i personally wouldn't want a B-52 , but that's irrelevant . More to the point , there are many reasons why imo a flyable B-52 will not ever be in DCS . 

 

4x the number of engines ED has expressed an interest in modeling .

Map sizes .

The fact that it requires multicrew to fulfill a mission on a scale not yet seen.

Not many people would enjoy crewing the downstairs positions , and AI is less than satisfactory .

Imo , the cost developing the module would far exceed the revenue from sales .

 

Finally , can we refrain from characterizing people who disagree as "ignorant" , "not knowing what you're talking about" etc ? It's just a game , and a different opinion is not a personal attack . 

 

 


Edited by Svsmokey

9700k , Aorus Pro wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Hotas on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , RiftS

 

"Hold my beer"

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

 

Then why didn't you step up to the plate and make your own "perfect poll" ?  At least I tried.

Just a simple “yes” or “no” is all that’s needed. The way you worded the poll is biased towards “yes” since all the fields are required as responses. How much you’d be willing to pay for the module or what version you’d like is irrelevant if you don’t want it in the first place.

Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Svsmokey said:

 

1:

B-52's bombing North Vietnam were based in Guam , not Da Nang . 

B-52's bombing Afghanistan are based in Diego , not Kandahar .

The idea is to protect a strategic national asset , while accomplishing the mission .

The only exception that i am aware of is the Gulf , and i would love to be educated as to how that decision was arrived at . But even so , the 500 km maps in DCS can't compare to the ~1400 range of those missions , and the threats more than merely Scuds .

 

 2:

Within our ~ 500 km maps , you need a 10k-foot runway for combat operations , limiting basing options , and effectively putting your assets 

Even closer to red . 

 

3 : We agree on one thing...we're beating a dead horse 🙂

 

There are many reasons why i personally wouldn't want a B-52 , but that's irrelevant . More to the point , there are many reasons why imo a flyable B-52 will not ever be in DCS . 

 

4x the number of engines ED has expressed an interest in modeling .

Map sizes .

The fact that it requires multicrew to fulfill a mission on a scale not yet seen.

Not many people would enjoy crewing the downstairs positions , and AI is less than satisfactory .

Imo , the cost developing the module would far exceed the revenue from sales .

 

Finally , can we refrain from characterizing people who disagree as "ignorant" , "not knowing what you're talking about" etc ? It's just a game , and a different opinion is not a personal attack . 

 

 

 


You are quoting historical missions. That is not the say all. I was in Guam and in the Persian Gulf launching/recovering missions. Examples are given above in simple YT videos.

 

For the love of God, stop arguing something that you literally have no experience at all with. And ontop of that, not recognizing this.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Just a simple “yes” or “no” is all that’s needed. The way you worded the poll is biased towards “yes” since all the fields are required as responses. How much you’d be willing to pay for the module or what version you’d like is irrelevant if you don’t want it in the first place.

Funnily enough, he was trying to bias the poll towards “no”, but has instead accidentally split the vote on the no side and didn't offer a suitable range of, or the suitable allowance of combinations of, answer. So  instead, he's managed (at the time of writing) to show that a qualified majority would be in favour of such a module, and would pay an average of $160(!) for it. 😄

 

Oops.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Svsmokey said:

2:

Within our ~ 500 km maps , you need a 10k-foot runway for combat operations , limiting basing options , and effectively putting your assets 

Even closer to red .

That's a non-issue on all maps except the WWII ones. Hell, even there, I think there's at least one runway that could still be used… and the positioning is a mission design issue so that doesn't particularly matter. The base can be one hill over from the enemy and not be threatened in any way unless you want it to.

 

20 minutes ago, Svsmokey said:

4x the number of engines ED has expressed an interest in modeling .

Map sizes .

The fact that it requires multicrew to fulfill a mission on a scale not yet seen.

Not many people would enjoy crewing the downstairs positions , and AI is less than satisfactory .

Imo , the cost developing the module would far exceed the revenue from sales .

They haven't “expressed an interest“ in either direction. They'd be hella-interested if someone were to pay them for it as has been demonstrated with the other oddball engines they've made for the game with even less relevance to the whole “combat flight sim” side of the equation. So that's a purely circumstantial reason.

Map size isn't a reason at all, as has been amply demonstrated.

Multicrew is not required. It can trivially be handled the same way two- or three- or even six-crewed aircraft are already handled, especially when the tasks the other stations are meant to do are things where the AI already does it better than human players. How many people would enjoy the other positions is therefore irrelevant, and would be more than you'd expect anyway for the simple reason that it's enjoyable to play with other people, even if you just end up bantering and blaming each other for misses the whole flight.

And both cost and revenue are pure speculations based on pretty much nothing.

 

As far as reasons go, then, those are pretty darn weak ones.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tippis his reasoning on runway size is another uneducated one… 

 

I can 100% confirm there are Airfields on DCS Nevada, DCS Persian Gulf, and DCS Mariana Islands that fully support the B52, and are rated for such launches recoveries.

 

If he needs me to list each and every airfield to prove this point - I will. But honestly I don’t think he is willing to listen at all, to anyone who actually has real world experience with BUFF ops.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Firstly I said that I wouldn't buy it, but not because of map sizes being too small (come on) or because I find long 8 hour missions boring - these are ridiculous reasons that are solely mission editing issues and are super easy to rectify - it literally takes seconds.

 

Since DCS 2.7 I've flown the Yak-52 almost exclusively, totalling a little under 8 hours - and if you're flying by yourself you can't do much else in the Yak-52 besides looking out of the window, with very little in the way of systems to manage. So that reason is completely inaccurate. 

 

I voted no because I'm not personally interested in flying the B-52 right now, purely because it's not particularly drawn to - there's nothing more to it than my personal, subjective preferences and opinions.

 

I would absolutely be up for flying aircraft on long missions, but I'm more into an 80s F-111F, an aircraft that has does super long missions over distances that are far larger than our current maps (such as the '86 operation El Dorado Canyon, which had a nearly 10,000km round trip for the F-111s and their tankers, spanning a sortie that lasted over 10 hours). Would I be interested in such a mission? Absolutely.

 

The other thing with the B-52 is it also kinda sounds like an aircraft that would be EA hell, though that's probably more the case for a post 2000s B-52H (which incidentally, I'm less interested in compared to the 70s, 80s and early 90s variants).

 

That absolutely does not mean that I'm opposed to developing one, far from it. And certainly not for the reasons provided. In all honesty I would probably buy one, should the mood take me.

 

The maps kinda aren't suitable for it, but this is from a solely historical perspective - not them not being big enough (again, this is an irrelevant issue completely taken care of by mission designs). But this isn't much of a showstopper either - there are already aircraft that don't really fit on our current maps, that are full modules (just look at the Viggen - none of our maps but the Channel (which is WWII) is anywhere near to where it would've operated). 

 

Very loaded question indeed, though I probably should've said yes in hindsight...

 

And I completely forgot about Andersen AFB, which is a base for B-52s. Personally, I am a stickler for coherency - I like having stuff that fits together nicely; from maps, airbases, aircraft and other assets.

 

At the very least we are long overdue a major update to the current post 90s B-52H (and preferably in multiple versions - at least keeping the current + a Cold War variant).


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...