DCS : Vietnam

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

Well you have given your feedback now, I have listened. 

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

Apreciatted.

[bies]

5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

TBH, I think that a Vietnam-era sim should be its own product. Different map tech would be needed to allow representing the whole AO from Udon to CCK (the latter of which is in Taiwan), ground units would have to act completely differently, and AI would have to be designed from ground-up to use period accurate tactics. OTOH, most "smart" functionality would not be present, although things like TGPs and MITL were already a thing in 'Nam, in very early form.

 

It depends to what we compare them. DCS modules like WW2 warbirds or Korea MiG-15bis, F-86 Sabre are older technology then Vietnam and still present in DCS.

 

After few years of works of passionate team DCS WW2 presents quite coherent WW2 1944 Normandy enviroment - agruably the only realistic coherent DCS timeframe at this momemt with few full fidelity flayable aircrafts for both sides, few AI aircrafts for both sides, some ground assets and units from the period and two proper timeframe maps.

I can imagine Vietnam would be something similar in the future. After all during Vietnam war more aircrafts has been shoot down than in all other post Vietnam wars untill today combined.

[Dragon1-1]

7 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I don't see why the improved maps or AI can't or shouldn't be added to DCS. 

They could be added, of course. But they would be building on a framework not originally designed for it. A new product would have a chance to do it right the first time. A lot of things, like unreliability of early missiles, or anything AI-related are something that is best to build your sim around. AI, in particular, is an incredibly difficult thing to do right, and the more complex it gets, the worse the problems become. A Vietnam-focused sim, build around a Vietnam experience from the start (whether scripted or dynamic), could be a much cleaner product than a sim that tries to be everything for everyone. This is what makes it different from just adding a lot of period-accurate modules to DCS.

 

A campaign engine that would recreate the peculiarities of that war would be particularly challenging and applicable to little else in DCS (not even Korea, which was mostly a straight up fight with weird objectives). If the US just hit Vietnam with everything they had, they would've crushed them militarily. It's not that they would've defeated the Vietnamese, but destroying them was well within the capabilities of the US military. It also would not have been allowed by US public, regional allies, or even the Soviets, who would've likely threatened to set off WW3 if Vietnam spiraled too far out of control. Then you have guerilla wars in Laos, Thailand and Cambodia, all of which had ties to VC, and some of which were covertly interfered with by the USAF. You can script something like that if you really want to (and/or are @baltic_dragon), but dynamic campaign of any sort would require a lot of additional mechanics to track, at minimum, how pissed off are both the Soviets and the hippies back home. The Vietnam War, if it was implemented the way the other sim does its own campaign, would be not realistic, challenging nor even particularly respectful to those who fought the real thing.

[upyr1]

On 8/26/2021 at 3:01 PM, Rick50 said:

 

Thank you Dragon, that's what I was going off memory!

 

 

Here's a typical VN era B-52D configuration:

 

 

 

So these are the earlier "D" variant, compared to the H in the DCS AI. These older units feature a very tall tail, which got clipped shorter in later variants. They also don't have the chin or nose sensors, so the side profile at the front is much more graceful looking. Another feature unique to the era, was the "Big Belly conversion", which enabled more of the smaller conventional bombs, 500lb and 750lb bombs to be carried in large numbers for "carpet bombing" techniques. This added large bomb racks on the two wing pylons, and probably other internal bomb bay modifications too.

 

They also seemed to use a much larger exterior fuel tanks than on newer units... the ones during VN war seemed to almost be the size of an F-104 Starfighter!  I'm guessing that was as a result of the need to do round-trips from Guam Andersen AFB to Hanoi and back, without any tanker support needed.  It's possible that those larger tanks were replaced possibly due to reduced need, more tanker support, wanting to reduce wing loading and stress over time to save the airframes?

 

I beleive in those days you had a tail gunner actually sitting in the tail, in the window canopy. This was before the Vulcan 6 barrelled units, I think these used four separate guns... the text there says .50cals but I thought they were 20mm, guess my memory isn't so hot anymore!

 

As you can see, even from quite a distance, they have a fairly obvious and different look to these "D's" than the more modern "H" models, which is one reason I'd love to see these older units in-game!

 

Big belly D's  I believe the G was the first where the tail gunner was in the main cabin

Looking at that diagram it appears the only difference between the G and H tails are the guns

 

So it looks like a G could be a good half way step 

 

[Rick50]

 

Right, but I think DCS ought to have two different B-52 models for the AI, because the sillouete changed quite dramatically... for me it's not really about the tail gun operator details, to me it's about the tall tail vs short tail, graceful nose vs ugly newer sensor nose... fortunately for all of us, both major visual changes occured in a similar era, which means that we can use the current model (original or a future upgraded model) H for everything after Vietnam, and maybe have an all new AI model "D" for Vietnam and earlier SAC, with a graceful nose, huge tall tail, and absolutely massive external fuel tanks (which I think are roughly 40ft long!!!). For some reason they didn't keep the super giant tanks on later variants. 

 

To me it's not about tiny details in close-up, for AI it's about what it looks like from a mile away: does it's basic shape look "kinda period correct" or not? 

 

Add in a few liveries and you can cover the 1960's SAC nuke era, so you can intercept in your Razbam Mig-19, and some silver/black and camoflage/black for Mig-21 intercepts, or escort them in your F-5E, or F-8 Crusader, or possible F-4 Phantom module that might or might not happen.  And to me that applies for any map, not just a proposed Vietnam map!

 

 

For those who didn't know, here's a closeup of the rear gunner's windows, seen on A through D variants. This got deleted on newer variants of the '52, the controls for rear gun were then put up front with all the other crew members:

 

Edited August 28, 2021 by Rick50

[upyr1]

17 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

They could be added, of course. But they would be building on a framework not originally designed for it. A new product would have a chance to do it right the first time. A lot of things, like unreliability of early missiles,

We already have some of the early missiles in DCS. The AA-2 (K-13), early AIM-9 (f-5 and F-86), the Rb 05 is basically a Swedish Bullpup. All we need is a Sparrow that misses 90% of the time

 

17 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

 

or anything AI-related are something that is best to build your sim around. AI, in particular, is an incredibly difficult thing to do right, and the more complex it gets, the worse the problems become. A Vietnam-focused sim, build around a Vietnam experience from the start (whether scripted or dynamic), could be a much cleaner product than a sim that tries to be everything for everyone. This is what makes it different from just adding a lot of period-accurate modules to DCS.

AI is not a good argument for a new sim. The Eagle needs to work on the AI in DCS and this is something they will always be working on and I fail to see how any AI developed for a Vietnam scenario isn't going to be applicable to others. A fire fight in the jungle in Vietnam and a fight in the jungle of Saipan isn't going to be very different.  

 

 

17 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

A campaign engine that would recreate the peculiarities of that war would be particularly challenging and applicable to little else in DCS (not even Korea, which was mostly a straight up fight with weird objectives). If the US just hit Vietnam with everything they had, they would've crushed them militarily. It's not that they would've defeated the Vietnamese, but destroying them was well within the capabilities of the US military. It also would not have been allowed by US public, regional allies, or even the Soviets, who would've likely threatened to set off WW3 if Vietnam spiraled too far out of control. Then you have guerilla wars in Laos, Thailand and Cambodia, all of which had ties to VC, and some of which were covertly interfered with by the USAF. You can script something like that if you really want to (and/or are @baltic_dragon), but dynamic campaign of any sort would require a lot of additional mechanics to track, at minimum, how pissed off are both the Soviets and the hippies back home. The Vietnam War, if it was implemented the way the other sim does its own campaign, would be not realistic, challenging nor even particularly respectful to those who fought the real thing.

 

We don't have a dynamic campaign and until then this is a none issue. However a dynamic campaign for Vietnam is still applicable for other scenarios. The counter insurgency aspect of Vietnam could help improve a counter insurgency campaign in Syria.  While the terrain is different some basic strategies would still be the same- planning ambushes while the better equipped side has to play hide and seek. As I stated you could also do a fictional gruella war in the Marianas where it's red vs blue in a rumble in the jungle.

Then the restrictive rules of engagement they could factor into a fictional scenario.  For example you are on the Syria map flying a viper as the Israelis but for reasons you are limited on what Syrian targets you can hit.  I just don't see how anything developed for a Vietnam sim wouldn't work in DCS. 

 

[WinterH]

8 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The next question, is what would it take to get developers to do the period correct versions of the aircraft in question? 

As far as I'm concerned, I'd much, much prefer 75-89 versions of them first. After that's a done deal, and DCS' environment is more suitable to simulate Vietnam war, I think devs can strip systems/tweak flight models etc for making a Vietnam version for a discounted fee to owners of other versions. And I'd get it myself too.

But later 70s/80s F-4E, A-6E, A-7E would all fit into and add to DCS a lot better for now, thus as far as I am concerned these are the correct versions TBH.

[upyr1]

Just now, Rick50 said:

 

Right, but I think DCS ought to have two different B-52 models for the AI, because the silhouette changed quite dramatically... for me it's not really about the tail gun operator details, to me it's about the tall tail vs short tail, graceful nose vs ugly newer sensor nose... fortunately for all of us, both major visual changes occurred in a similar era, which means that we can use the current model (original or a future upgraded model) H for everything after Vietnam, and maybe have an all new AI model "D" for Vietnam and earlier SAC, with a graceful nose, huge tall tail, and absolutely massive external fuel tanks (which I think are roughly 40ft long!!!). For some reason they didn't keep the super giant tanks on later variants. 

To me it's not about tiny details in close-up, for AI it's about what it looks like from a mile away: does it's basic shape look "kinda period correct" or not? 

 

Add in a few liveries and you can cover the 1960's SAC nuke era, so you can intercept in your Razbam Mig-19, and some silver/black and camoflage/black for Mig-21 intercepts, or escort them in your F-5E, or F-8 Crusader, or possible F-4 Phantom module that might or might not happen.  And to me that applies for any map, not just a proposed Vietnam map!

 

Why only 2? I think 3 or 4 would be better. The D for Vietnam, the G , possibly the early H for Desert Strom and 1980s scenarios and the current H for modern

[upyr1]

Just now, WinterH said:

As far as I'm concerned, I'd much, much prefer 75-89 versions of them first. After that's a done deal, and DCS' environment is more suitable to simulate Vietnam war, I think devs can strip systems/tweak flight models etc for making a Vietnam version for a discounted fee to owners of other versions. And I'd get it myself too.

But later 70s/80s F-4E, A-6E, A-7E would all fit into and add to DCS a lot better for now, thus as far as I am concerned these are the correct versions TBH.

that could work- I just know whichever way they do it I'd like both. I'd also like the A-7D. 

[Silver_Dragon]

@upyr1and @Rick50, I added to my previous post the early B and D (first B-52 used on Vietnam), for comparative issues. About other aircrafts, I can continue put more info. 

 

On 8/26/2021 at 9:19 PM, Rick50 said:

 

And the Riverine boats and ship:

 

 

Searching data about them..... Brown-water Navy.

The Ship on the pic has the 

 

Quote

 

Each river assault group, later designated river assault squadron, was to consist of the following: 52 Armored Troop Carriers (ATCs or "Tangos"), 10 Monitors with 40mm cannon and 81mm mortar, 32 Assault Support Patrol Boats (ASPBs), 5 Monitors to serve as command and control boats and 2 LCM-6's to serve as refuelers. A salvage force would include: 2 2,000-ton heavy lift craft, 2 YTB's for salvage, 2 LCU's (landing craft, utility), and 3 100-ton floating dry docks.[1]

https://history.army.mil/html/books/090/90-18/index.html

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, WinterH said:

As far as I'm concerned, I'd much, much prefer 75-89 versions of them first. After that's a done deal, and DCS' environment is more suitable to simulate Vietnam war, I think devs can strip systems/tweak flight models etc for making a Vietnam version for a discounted fee to owners of other versions. And I'd get it myself too.

But later 70s/80s F-4E, A-6E, A-7E would all fit into and add to DCS a lot better for now, thus as far as I am concerned these are the correct versions TBH.

Other point to search them.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

AI is not a good argument for a new sim. The Eagle needs to work on the AI in DCS and this is something they will always be working on and I fail to see how any AI developed for a Vietnam scenario isn't going to be applicable to others. A fire fight in the jungle in Vietnam and a fight in the jungle of Saipan isn't going to be very different.  

Air combat over Vietnam, with missiles with severe G limitations, no real BVR and poor reliability, was be very different to modern air combat, which is mostly missile-based. It'd basically entail adding a 3rd AI, besides WWII and modern. Likewise, implementing jungle warfare for ground units. It's something that you just don't need for Middle East or European terrains, which is where most DCS maps are. Maybe this could piggyback on WWII Pacific. Right now, Vietnam-era aircraft use modern-style AI, with terrible results. Also, ground attack for anything that wasn't a Sandy was ran by airborne FACs of various kinds, a functionality which, in DCS, is marginal. In a Vietnam sim, working with the FACs would be a core feature.

 

Proper dynamic campaign is coming very soon, from what I understand. In fact, we do have a dynamic campaign: Operation Pontus, done mostly with scripting magic. It's really not something you can handwave away. Syria wasn't quite the same, the big problem with Vietnam is that it wasn't all COIN, but a war that involved several insurgencies. VC didn't actually operate a whole lot of aircraft, in fact, insurgents rarely do. They were, however, backed by NVA, which did, and which was a regular military of a fully fledged communist state, with MiGs, SAMs, tanks and everything. This is more than even Afghanistan, where Taliban were powerful, but hardly anything like a state until they took over. In Vietnam, the US never took Hanoi the same way they took Kabul, and the NVA was officially recognized and supported by the Soviets (also why it worked out for the Vietnamese in the end - the commies knew how to run a country). A generic "insurgency engine", especially one geared for ME, simply wouldn't do in Vietnam unless it was massively overengineered.

 

A new sim could afford to be designed to overcome these challenges from the start. DCS does flying right, but when it comes to depicting other aspects of war, it falls short. If all you want is bomb terrorists, it's fine, but for an authentic Vietnam experience you need more than that.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Dragon1-1

[Rick50]

39 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

 

Why only 2? I think 3 or 4 would be better. The D for Vietnam, the G , possibly the early H for Desert Strom and 1980s scenarios and the current H for modern

 

 

Why only 2 ?

 

Effort required. "We" sit here and ask for too much, without considering what that will actually require. 

 

That takes time available by modelers who could be making other assets, other models. If ED actually implemented every forum post suggestion... they'd never be finished anything!! In business, time = money, and in simulation games, more variants and models means less time available for completely new modules.

 

 Asking is easy, making is time consuming. I want to ask for things that might be acheivable and have a good reason to receive, because the return on the investment in effort is sometimes really not worth the extra effort.  Would I rather every B-52 model get made for AI, or would I rather have the modeler make one "early" and one "late" variant, then go on to making say a Phantom model? I'd rather the latter, because to my eye, for in-game visual purposes, A through D pretty much look almost the same, where for all the rest the "modern" H can easily pose for the 1980's through today, especially with a few user livery repaints.

 

The modeler who makes a second AI B-52, say a D for 'Nam, could then spend the time for the other variants, making region-appropriate buildings and AI units, like the Brown Water Navy Riverine units, with working helipads for AI or even player landable/spawn points for picking up troops or dropping off casualties, or bamboo riverside houses that provide low poly/texture counts for framerates in fast movers, but also high enough detail for low and slow flights in Huey UH-1's and maybe a future Cobra.  

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't ask... I'm just saying we ought to think more about what we ask for, what this would mean in the big picture. "Perfection is the enemy of good enough", and achieving perfection can drive someone mad, frustrated and just burn out, quit.

 

 

[Rick50]

 

For example, I have seen discussions about possible future modules, where the aircraft in question spanned many variants over several decades, the two in particular the F-4 Phantom and cooincidentally the B-52 Stratosaurus. First off are the dicusssions about whether ED or 3rd party Devs would want to take it on. Where the feasabiilty of those proposed modules gets very iffy, is the discussions about which variant we'd want. Because it matters a lot due to the era users want to see such aircraft. I noticed that in both examples, about half the people in the discussions seemed to want many, most or all of the variants, of aircraft that would be VERY difficult at best, to research and then make into a full module. 

 

I mean, I too would like to see all the variants of both aircraft, but... the challenges to make even several variants of those two aircraft would be... MASSIVE. Maybe even undoable. Look at it from the POV of a project director, and suddenly it doesn't look so "cool" anymore, more a nightmare of interlaced complexity. That will be scrutinised forever. Usually in simulations, most devs usually make one variant of an aircraft, and then if that sells very well indeed, they will consider revisiting that aircraft type and maybe consider making additional one or two additional variants. Maybe. 

 

[Silver_Dragon]

@Dragón1-1build a new simulator need split ED team more and more (They has working on DCS and MAC), delaying actual projects and duplicate priorities. That can repeat with a Korea, Arab Israel or Central front "new" simulator.

 

The Vietnam missiles require a missile / Weapons engineer as Chizh, to improve features on AIM-7, AIM-9 vs modern versions and implement CCCP and other country missiles to mach to 60-70 missile technology scenery. Vietnam was none only the unique combat scenery on that cold war period, has Arab-Israel, Pakistan - Indian wars, Chinesse - Taiwan, African Wars or a "hot" europe 60-70 scenery. The ultimate objetive by ED will build missile technology from WW2 to actual.

The same situation has to make propper vietnam SANDY, that has only a CSAR mission and only change the time period from WW1 to actual. For build them they need dedicate AI enginners, developers and 3D modelers. On fact, that features can builder into the actual core without problems, that only require time and planification. A example has build de Carrier Crew, only a part of the Ground base crew on progress by ED or others AI improvements on the WW2 "testbed".

 

About the last two points, ED has actually require some C++ engineers to fill some disciplines (Avionics / Animation / Ground Technical / Weapon Systems), other personal to build AIs (AI developer (game unit behavior), AI Programmer (C ++)) and others, from your ED Careers Jobs list.
 

I dont expected a "B-52" module on DCS, has very complex and has some problems with weapons and systems (clasified), we need remember the team with intent make a Tu-22M module on the past and the dead end they reach. That can be the same situation to build a B-17.... a 11 crew bomber with 3-8 hours realistic missions on a combat box into deep strike vs all enemy defenses.

By ED comentaries, the map team (Minsk team) build your map assets, and have a "external" 3D model teams with build the AI units. The actual 3rd party with build maps and AI assets has the RAZBAM map team.

Edited August 29, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

 

Why only 2 ?

 

Effort required. "We" sit here and ask for too much, without considering what that will actually require. 

 

That takes time available by modelers who could be making other assets, other models. If ED actually implemented every forum post suggestion... they'd never be finished anything!! In business, time = money, and in simulation games, more variants and models means less time available for completely new modules.

The G is bassically the H with a quad .50 tail gun. Eagle could model  the gun and stick it on the H and work on the AI, then later change the tail and nose so that we get the D. So it's basically stopping at point B while going from A to C 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2021 by upyr1

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

For example, I have seen discussions about possible future modules, where the aircraft in question spanned many variants over several decades, the two in particular the F-4 Phantom and cooincidentally the B-52 Stratosaurus. First off are the dicusssions about whether ED or 3rd party Devs would want to take it on. Where the feasabiilty of those proposed modules gets very iffy, is the discussions about which variant we'd want. Because it matters a lot due to the era users want to see such aircraft. I noticed that in both examples, about half the people in the discussions seemed to want many, most or all of the variants, of aircraft that would be VERY difficult at best, to research and then make into a full module. 

 

I mean, I too would like to see all the variants of both aircraft, but... the challenges to make even several variants of those two aircraft would be... MASSIVE. Maybe even undoable. Look at it from the POV of a project director, and suddenly it doesn't look so "cool" anymore, more a nightmare of interlaced complexity. That will be scrutinised forever. Usually in simulations, most devs usually make one variant of an aircraft, and then if that sells very well indeed, they will consider revisiting that aircraft type and maybe consider making additional one or two additional variants. Maybe. 

 

I don't expect the Buff to ever be flyable , the Phantom though is a must have for the community. The issue, is what variant(s). 

[Rick50]

 

Right, but my point is more that it's unrealistic to expect all the variants of any plane, given the difficulties that developers have to make these with. And is it the wisest move, to get devs to make all the variants?  Or just one or maybe in rare cases two variants and then move on to a new different project?  

 

We have SOOO many aircraft that we want to see in DCS, but if we bog down the devs with every variant, they won't have time to get to new aircraft very often. I'd rather they made two Phantoms, then move onto the Cobra or Mirage III, or Mig-23 or English Electric Lighting, or some other wild aircraft of the past, than give us EVERY SINGLE Phantom variant from Sage Burner to the current Japanese Phantoms of today. I'd rather see them make a USN variant for the carrier ops circa Vietnam, and then the E gunslinger sold internationally to so very many nations requiring the thunder of the gods to protect their nations... and then move on to other cool aircraft.

 

[Mike Force Team]

I read the information and comments about the B-52 in a potential DCS World:  Viet Nam map.  After the Viet Nam era American and Viet Nam planes are added, could it be updated to bring it into modern times?  I am asking if the B-52 G's/H's could be included to simulate an ongoing conflict in Viet Nam in the 1990's to 2000's.  Assume that the 1975 peace treaty never occurred and the war was still ongoing.  We could also add the B-1's and B-2's to make life interesting.  Additionally, we could add the modern Russian, European, and American fighter jets as inspiration to create new and exciting missions or campaigns.

[upyr1]

18 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

Right, but my point is more that it's unrealistic to expect all the variants of any plane, given the difficulties that developers have to make these with. And is it the wisest move, to get devs to make all the variants?  Or just one or maybe in rare cases two variants and then move on to a new different project?  

 

We have SOOO many aircraft that we want to see in DCS, but if we bog down the devs with every variant, they won't have time to get to new aircraft very often. I'd rather they made two Phantoms, then move onto the Cobra or Mirage III, or Mig-23 or English Electric Lighting, or some other wild aircraft of the past, than give us EVERY SINGLE Phantom variant from Sage Burner to the current Japanese Phantoms of today. I'd rather see them make a USN variant for the carrier ops circa Vietnam, and then the E gunslinger sold internationally to so very many nations requiring the thunder of the gods to protect their nations... and then move on to other cool aircraft.

 

I'm just saying that in some cases, we should have enough to give the highlights, especially when an aircraft went through a lot of changes either and had a long service life. Especially when dealing with AI assets. In the case of the B-52 I figure that would be 3 models- the D due to Vietnam, the G as the 1980s and the current H for post Desert Storm. I don't expect any of them to be flyable. 

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, Fighter Mike said:

I read the information and comments about the B-52 in a potential DCS World:  Viet Nam map.  After the Viet Nam era American and Viet Nam planes are added, could it be updated to bring it into modern times?  I am asking if the B-52 G's/H's could be included to simulate an ongoing conflict in Viet Nam in the 1990's to 2000's.  Assume that the 1975 peace treaty never occurred and the war was still ongoing.  We could also add the B-1's and B-2's to make life interesting.  Additionally, we could add the modern Russian, European, and American fighter jets as inspiration to create new and exciting missions or campaigns.

If we ever get a Vietnam map, you would be able to do this without any problem. If you don't turn on historical mode and load up let's say the Normandy map you will have access to any asset in DCS used by the available sides. If you turn on historical mode, then you will be limited to countries and assets that existed at your mission start date. For example if you are on a map and you set the date to 1944, then you get World War II equipment and if you set it to 1984, then you don't have the Third Riech or Italian social republic but you could have the USSR and all your equipment was in service in 1984. Right now there is no way to assign dates to mods so you wouldn't see your A-4

Edited August 30, 2021 by upyr1

[Rick50]

 

A-4? 

 

LONG LIVE THE SKYHAWK!!!

 

 

Oops, wrong thread...

 

upyr1, ok you convinced me about the AI B-52's !! The 80's era could feature dark green, with AGM-86 ALCM's.... a modern grey H with every bell and whistle, and Big Belly Sharktails for jungle carpets!
 

[Mike Force Team]

On 8/29/2021 at 8:27 PM, upyr1 said:

I'm just saying that in some cases, we should have enough to give the highlights, especially when an aircraft went through a lot of changes either and had a long service life. Especially when dealing with AI assets. In the case of the B-52 I figure that would be 3 models- the D due to Vietnam, the G as the 1980s and the current H for post Desert Storm. I don't expect any of them to be flyable. 

I hope someone would make the B-52 bombers flyable.  This would likely appeal to the fighter jet pilots. I would buy a flyable B-52, B-1, or even a B-2.

[Andrew8604]

So, how about a $149, flyable B-52D, for the Vietnam Map?  Too expensive, you say?  Not if it has good AI crewmembers, well scripted with procedures and realistic voices.  And if it has very realistic vintage radar displays and full-functioning systems.  7 Crew positions that could be occupied by Players or AI crewmembers.  So, you could fly it by yourself, as you can an F-14.  Or, fly it with 2 to 6 other online players, not that 4 to 7 players would ever coordinate to do that, as most everyone wants to fly it.  It could be one heck of a simulation, though.  No need to jump all over me.  I know it probably has a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening.  But it could be damned cool viewed in VR!  Might have to have a $449 price tag.  A lot of people pay that much for a Warthog joystick.  How much did you pay for your computer...which is dull and boring without DCS?    You want the module, or not?

 

What this sim needs is a financial model where players start buying "shares" in a potential module.  Maybe DCS holds the funds, or some other independent agent does.  A developer then offers to build the module.  As they meet progress deadlines, they receive a portion of the funds up to about 60%.  When they finish the module, they receive the remainder of the funds and future sales.  If they don't meet certain deadlines early on, they receive no more funds and the remaining funds are refunded to the players.  After the module is released, it is sold at a typical module price, so that sales might be sufficient.  The original investing players would end up paying the most.  That might not seem fair, except that the module would not exist if they didn't.  You want a particular aircraft, say the above B-52D, enough of you have to pay up front.  Some might pay $1,200 or more...if they really want that module.  But $1,200, alone won't do it.  But there could be a hundred or more that might invest $25 to $150.  If a module starts to gain funding, a person could invest more and accelerate its funding.  If after a couple years there is very little additional investment and the module is not being built, then the player has the option to withdraw funds and place them in a different module, if they wish.

Something like this.  Just a rough idea.  Needs refinement.  Think it would work?  We have to come up with something because module production is too slow.  A Vietnam Map is not very interesting without an F-4 Phantom, F-105 Thunderchief, A-6 Intruder, A-1E & A-1H Skyraider, HH-3 Jolly Green, F-100 Super Sabre and the B-52.

[Silver_Dragon]

21 minutes ago, Andrew8604 said:

So, how about a $149, flyable B-52D, for the Vietnam Map?  Too expensive, you say?  Not if it has good AI crewmembers, well scripted with procedures and realistic voices.  And if it has very realistic vintage radar displays and full-functioning systems.  7 Crew positions that could be occupied by Players or AI crewmembers.  So, you could fly it by yourself, as you can an F-14.  Or, fly it with 2 to 6 other online players, not that 4 to 7 players would ever coordinate to do that, as most everyone wants to fly it.  It could be one heck of a simulation, though.  No need to jump all over me.  I know it probably has a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening.  But it could be damned cool viewed in VR!  Might have to have a $449 price tag.  A lot of people pay that much for a Warthog joystick.  How much did you pay for your computer...which is dull and boring without DCS?    You want the module, or not?

 

What this sim needs is a financial model where players start buying "shares" in a potential module.  Maybe DCS holds the funds, or some other independent agent does.  A developer then offers to build the module.  As they meet progress deadlines, they receive a portion of the funds up to about 60%.  When they finish the module, they receive the remainder of the funds and future sales.  If they don't meet certain deadlines early on, they receive no more funds and the remaining funds are refunded to the players.  After the module is released, it is sold at a typical module price, so that sales might be sufficient.  The original investing players would end up paying the most.  That might not seem fair, except that the module would not exist if they didn't.  You want a particular aircraft, say the above B-52D, enough of you have to pay up front.  Some might pay $1,200 or more...if they really want that module.  But $1,200, alone won't do it.  But there could be a hundred or more that might invest $25 to $150.  If a module starts to gain funding, a person could invest more and accelerate its funding.  If after a couple years there is very little additional investment and the module is not being built, then the player has the option to withdraw funds and place them in a different module, if they wish.

Something like this.  Just a rough idea.  Needs refinement.  Think it would work?  We have to come up with something because module production is too slow.  A Vietnam Map is not very interesting without an F-4 Phantom, F-105 Thunderchief, A-6 Intruder, A-1E & A-1H Skyraider, HH-3 Jolly Green, F-100 Super Sabre and the B-52.

 

The module production only can acelerate if more teams convert to official 3rd parties and move to build modules, no by degrade module quality or sell "shares".  About modules, A-6 has planned by Heatblur as future module, F-4 Phantom has some suspicious to any 3rd party can build them on a future. B-52 style modules has yet restricted by missing technology none implemented on the DCS core.

[Andrew8604]

On 8/28/2021 at 10:10 PM, Rick50 said:

 

Right, but my point is more that it's unrealistic to expect all the variants of any plane, given the difficulties that developers have to make these with. And is it the wisest move, to get devs to make all the variants?  Or just one or maybe in rare cases two variants and then move on to a new different project?  

 

We have SOOO many aircraft that we want to see in DCS, but if we bog down the devs with every variant, they won't have time to get to new aircraft very often. I'd rather they made two Phantoms, then move onto the Cobra or Mirage III, or Mig-23 or English Electric Lighting, or some other wild aircraft of the past, than give us EVERY SINGLE Phantom variant from Sage Burner to the current Japanese Phantoms of today. I'd rather see them make a USN variant for the carrier ops circa Vietnam, and then the E gunslinger sold internationally to so very many nations requiring the thunder of the gods to protect their nations... and then move on to other cool aircraft.

 

But, if a developer has gone to all the effort to make an F-4E, for instance, is it really that much more work to make the F-4D, or the F-4B?  (maybe just those three, right there, E, D & B).  There are similarities in panels, in systems, in 3D model, in flight model.  The F-4 Phantom is a rare plane that I think needs several versions.  First do the F-4E, like so many people want, but then a US Navy version, the B or the J.  But the B is very similar to the C, so might as well sell the B & C together.  The J is probably quite similar to the D, so might as well sell them together.  OR maybe it makes more sense for C&D and B&J.  I would be one of those people who would buy them all.  I just don't see how after building an F-4E, building an F-4B would be like starting entirely from scratch.  We have the F-14B and the F-14A+.  Now, with something like the F-100 Super Sabre (if that should ever get built), I would say only the D model, possibly the F model as a "Wild Weasel".  But possibly skip it if an F-105F or G is going to be made.  I see no need for the C and A variants.  The systems of the F-100 shouldn't be much more complicated than the F-86F.  Some of the instruments and panels of the F-86F appear in the F-100, I believe.  There is definite similarities.  For the F-105, again, the D variant would be the main one.  I see no reason to make the B variant.  Again, they modified the two-seat F-105F for "Wild Weasel" role.  And then came the F-105G, dedicated "wild weasel", which I think was updated F-105F's.  The "D" is the main one.  Anyway. we'd be very lucky just to get an F-4E, at this point. 

 

But I do see your point, too.  I'd like to see the F-86D.  So, much like the F-86F, but different wing, different stabilizer, engine with afterburner, different nose, longer fuselage...lots of differences, almost a new plane...it would have been called the F-95A, but US Congress wouldn't fund a new plane so they kept it F-86 "D".     And I'd like the F-102A or the F-106A, as well...single-seat interceptors for us old single-player fans.  There could be a whole series of classic interceptors...but not likely popular with the young folks.  It would take a very dedicated and determined volunteer developer.  Just not likely to ever happen, though.  Too bad.  The Lightning would be one of these.  The MiG-19 and MiG-21 are of this group...and we have them.   I have more of a liking for the American planes, though.  I understand their instruments better.   The Navy F4D-1 (F-6A) Skyray would be another of this class.