Technological Advancements

[KillerBee]

So, I’m trying to catch up with what’s going on but I have some questions.

It’s been a few years since the end of WWII (the BIG ONE), and quite a few other technological advancements have been made besides the jet aircraft.  How are Air Traffic Control Systems, Early Radar Warning Systems, Combat Air Support Systems, Forward Air Control System, Tactical Control Point Systems, Logistic Support Systems, Search and Recovery Systems, etc., being handled in the Korean War Theater?  Or better yet, handle in this Korean War simulation?

Will we see the C-119’s, C-54’s, C-46’s, SB-17’s, helicopters of all kinds, T-6’s and many other weapons systems of this era?

In other words, air combat by a select few aircraft by itself will not be enough to simulate an authentic combat environment without the periphery systems that are the glue that makes it a true simulation….makes it all work.

Airfields are not Wild West shows anymore - implemented ATC systems took care of that.  No more WWI style single sorties to pad your ACE count - Wing and Group staffs performing multi-sortie mission planning.  Recovery of downed pilots, and MASH provisioning.  CAS, TACP’s, Joint Operations Control Centers to direct missions in-flight - planned and unplanned.  Missions like “Operation Thunderbolt” and many others like it will be near impossible to simulate without both Forward and Airborne Air Traffic Controllers who were extremely pivotal to the ground war.

So, like I said…..many questions…..not a lot or answers.  

[Avimimus]

C-47 and Li-2T are both modelled for logistics/airlift simulation.

Early Warning Radar systems have been mentioned in development updates.

No mention of the T-6 or helicopters so far - I suspect they could use the F-51D as a stand-in for a propeller driven FAC?

[FuriousMeow]

Inferring from what you've listed out the real time full war simulation you're expecting would have time dilation that would make a super massive black hole blush.

[BraveSirRobin]

2 hours ago, KillerBee said:

Will we see the C-119’s, C-54’s, C-46’s, SB-17’s, helicopters of all kinds, T-6’s and many other weapons systems of this era?

We’re getting combat aircraft that drop big bombs and/or shoot things down.  I’ll be shocked if any of the unannounced aircraft are on your list.

[Aapje]

You have to be a bit realistic. They can't do everything.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

12 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

We’re getting combat aircraft that drop big bombs and/or shoot things down.  I’ll be shocked if any of the unannounced aircraft are on your list.

I could possibly see them doing a T6 + Po2 module. It provides a different gameplay experience and it should be achievable to extend their framework to artillery spotting (they already partially accomplished this in GB). The Po2 is relatively cheap for them to do since they already did all the research for GB. The Texan is probably a bit more work, but there should be plenty of data available.

Transport aircraft are already there (C-47/Li-2) and helicopters would require completely different aerodynamics modeling, so for those aircraft I'd be shocked as well.

[KillerBee]

Dreams and expeditions are what got us into the simulation business!  I think it’s very reasonable to expect CAS, FAC, CSAR, EWRS, AWACS, ATCS and CLTD capabilities, commensurate to the simulated period, in a modern day combat flight simulator.  Korea was, in many ways, the breeding ground for these newly refined concepts and capabilities.  Why shouldn’t they be highlighted?  Don’t tell me it’s not possible.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

5 hours ago, KillerBee said:

I think it’s very reasonable to expect CAS, FAC, CSAR, EWRS, AWACS, ATCS and CLTD capabilities, commensurate to the simulated period, in a modern day combat flight simulator.  Korea was, in many ways, the breeding ground for these newly refined concepts and capabilities.  Why shouldn’t they be highlighted?  Don’t tell me it’s not possible.

Nobody's saying it's not technically possible. The issue is whether or not it is financially possible. Properly implementing any of the "concepts and capabilities" you mention can easily take hundreds of hours. Having just implemented radar-guided Nachtjagd for IL2:GB, I think I'm at least somewhat qualified to make that statement.

That means that to investigate whether or not it is possible, you need to answer at least the following questions:

1. Does it create a large enough amount of added value to make a net profit, after subtracting the wages for hundreds of hours of work by (a) programmer(s) and support staff?
2. Are there other tasks that same programmer(s) could do instead, that generate even more added value?

Stating that it is "very reasonable" to expect such things, implies that you have used at least a minimum amount of reasoning to answer these two questions. Have you? If yes, what data and statistics is your reasoning based on?

Edited 2 hours ago by AEthelraedUnraed

[BraveSirRobin]

5 hours ago, KillerBee said:

Dreams and expeditions are what got us into the simulation business!  I think it’s very reasonable to expect CAS, FAC, CSAR, EWRS, AWACS, ATCS and CLTD capabilities, commensurate to the simulated period, in a modern day combat flight simulator.  

Name a WW2 combat flight sim with all those features.

[FuriousMeow]

Falcon4 tried to do it all with its dynamic campaign engine, and that resulted in the curtain call for MicroProse.