Tirak

Not really. DITERs on the inner racks alone give you 6 GBU-54s, and if there's no spacing problem you can mount two more DITERs on the outer ones, giving you 12. If there is space concerns, then you're at 8, and if APKWS comes in, well the A-10 can smile all he wants as the Harrier clears the field before he can ever get there.

There are two examples of "Fantasy" stuff on aircraft in DCS. The one is minor, the other is blatant. The minor one is the missile launch warning system on the Mirage 2000C5. Now the sensors are found on other export versions of the Mirage 2000, and there is nothing preventing its installation on a Mirage 2000C5, but technically it never had it. It's a semantic argument to be sure, but it can be an issue to some players. The major one is the ability to fire the Kh-66 Grom on the MiG-21Bis. The Sapphir radar is incapable of firing the weapon. Full stop. Absolutely. So it is "fantasy" in that regard. The reason its included is because there are so many versions of the MiG-21 and some versions of the MiG-21 used a different radar that was capable of firing the weapon, but the one we have in game is flat out incapable of doing so. In addition, the MiG-21Bis has unrealistic pipper behavior when it comes to its IR missiles. Again, pure fantasy, but included anyway. Personally, I don't mind small things like this. I'd be perfectly happy with an F-14 that could fire Harpoons or AMRAAMs as they were tested on the flight test squadron, or a MiG-19P with some form of RWR, but there are others who take their realism very seriously and don't want to see that sort of thing included in the module as it does impact realism.

When did this get moved up from Block V to Block IV?

The Mirage IICJ is also in the works by RAZBAM, which will be very well suited to matching up against the MiG-19P. Also under certain limited weapon loadouts, the MiG-21 and F-5 can be considered as well, Both of those aircraft are superior, however not overwhelmingly, if used in conjunction with limited loadouts, when comparing aircraft like the MiG-21 and F-5 against the SU-27 and F-15. As far as I know the MiG-19P cannot carry flares, though the Chinese ones were modified to be able to do so.

Yep folks, unlock the ECCM version of the AIM-54 for just the low payment of $5.40. Feel like getting into some close range dogfights? The Sidewinder upgrade for $3.99 is just for you, includes TWO versions of the sidewinder! Or make it a Combo Air Weapons Pack for $9.99. You can **** right off with paid capability.

Because in this hyperbolic example, there is no other maker of Chess, but several other makers of Canadian Checkers. By taking away the maker of chess so they can provide you with yet another game of Canadian Checkers, you narrow the field of entertainment. In this way, the person who prefers Canadian Checkers becomes an inherent threat to the hobby of the person who prefers Chess. As to your second point, I find horror movies to be silly and pointless, but I wouldn't say ban horror movies or that they are a 'wrong' form of entertainment. Yes, that is explicitly what I am saying. There is no point to doing a check ride in DCS as there is no persistence or benefit to doing so. An argument can be made that it makes you a better pilot, but the only reason why checkrides exist in real life, is that it's dangerous to put a total novice in a plane and let them fly because they might get themselves or others killed. This is not a problem we have in DCS because it's a simulated environment. This is touching on the debate that sparks on and off in DCS about the inclusion of civillian aircraft, and while yes there are many players who would like these sorts of noncombat, non conflict aircraft to be included, there is an equally vocal and if I'm recalling the polls correctly, more numerous faction of players who would prefer that DCS focus on the Combat aspect in game, as there are alternatives for the non conflict pilots to use. I wouldn't say that your desire to create a scenario where you adhere yourself to a set of out of gameplay rules to be wrong, I would however say that development time shouldn't be spent to support that thing. The reason is rather simple. No amount of gameplay simulation, however accurate, will have an impact on the way in which you constructed that scenario. Because it is based primarily on the out of game rules that you set up, the difference between modeling TARPS as a fully functional system versus TARPS as a dud 3d model is negligible to the point of being unnoticeable. Your style of play does not rely on in game assets to be simulated. The same cannot be said for a tangible in game combat system. If the Phoenix missile is not modeled, I cannot implement it through an out of game roleplay system and have a definitive result. As such, development time quite clearly should be spent on what will have impact. In the case of TARPS, there is no impact on how the game is played, since the structure of the game, by lacking persistence, does not allow for it. Because we're discussing how we feel development time for HB should be utilized, not the formation of Tirak Simulations Inc. The 104th is not the entirety of the multiplayer environment. Missions like Blue Flag and smaller group missions allow for very realistic approaches to operations. As to why it deserves more development time than elements such as TARPS, see the above example in regards to your Red Vs. Blue statement. The discussion was started prior to Cobra stating that they were not spending huge amounts of time coding nonsense systems like TARPS potentially at the expense of useful systems like LANTIRN. As to why they shouldn't create it; I have no problem with modeling it, however spending large amounts of development time on it would be a waste, as described in the above example in response to the Red Vs Blue comment. Because it will divide the community. The Asset Pack already has been confirmed that if you do not have it, you cannot join a server running it. The DCS multiplayer community is not so large that we have dozens of populated servers running a host of asset packs. As more of packs like these show up, the more divided the community becomes. As to individual module components, this is the path straight to hell, a hyperbole, but an emotive one. How long until DLC becomes based on the weapon, until developers begin to segment their modules to the point of "If you want that ECM pod to be able to fight in this mission, you gotta pay another 5 bucks". It's anti consumer. In the same way that games used to be developed in their entirety and expansion packs were added, it slid quickly to essential content being cut and repackaged as DLC. I am vehemently against any sort of price model that encourages this behavior. So yes, in my opinion there should be a banning of such DLC from being allowed to be produced by 3rd parties. I'm not sure I understand your comparison here. I do want to take a moment here to make sure something is clear. I have no issue with TARPS being implemented, even at a full simulation level where it acts exactly how it does in real life. The only issue I would have with it, is if it were to happen at the expense of an impactful part of the module, I.E. if LANTIRN were being not included so that TARPS could be. Cobra has stated explicitly this is not the case, so I have no real issue with that then. What we're talking about at this point is purely theoretical, and as such, mentions of implementing TARPS are on a hypothetical level when discussing limited development time.

Lol, I thought for sure a checkerboard was 12x12 squares. EDIT: Turns out that's Canadian Checkers

I disagree. There is no gameplay value to be had from TARPS. You may personally enjoy it, but at that point, you're roleplaying beyond the games capabilities. It no longer matters if you dragged along any piece of equipment to simulate TARPS, as it would have the same in game effect. When I say gameplay value, I'm confining the statement to the capabilities of the game, not whatever roleplay value you assign to it outside that. And along those lines, I find that TARPS has no merit to be included. As to your TLDR, we're debating, this is my position I've staked out. I'm not going to go all wishy washy in how I discuss it because it is the way I firmly believe. I don't hold your position that it's valuable and so I argue against it. If you want to argue for it, like you're doing, that's fine, and I'm not going to expect you to coddle to my view when you hold literally the opposite one.

It makes addressing points in order easier, especially as I don't always disagree with some parts of what people say. Look at it this way. You have a chessboard, and chess pieces. But with them, you instead decide you want to play Canadian checkers. The board is the wrong size, the number of pieces is wrong, but hey, you're going to shoehorn it in anyway. And then you try and claim that the chessboard should be made with the number of squares a Canadian checkerboard has so that you can enjoy playing Canadian checkers better with your chess set. I'm not going to tell anyone how to play their game, I'm not even going to tell them they're wrong for playing the game in a way I don't find fun. But I will argue strenuously against someone trying to push development down a path I don't agree with. It's debate. I disagree that your way is as fun, and therefore I view time and effort spent on what you want to be frivolous. I'm not just going to say I disagree, I'm going to say why I disagree so that we can discuss it, and if at the end of a discussion we disagree, fine. Just because I argue against something, doesn't mean I have disdain for the people who enjoy the thing I argue against. It would be prudent I think, if you understood that instead of taking it personally. See the chessboard example above. It seems you're having trouble reconciling that we're having a discussion from differing viewpoints. I'm presenting my reasons, you're presenting yours. There's no "attitude" here, just debate. Facetious: treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor. I'm not being humorous, I'm presenting a straightforward argument with solid reasoning, this part of your argument is not on the level and you know it. Again, I'm surprised you'd take the approach where you believe we should be nickle and dimed for capability. I have serious disagreements with that pricing approach as I find it to be anti consumer and inherently anti community. As I'm a fan of the multiplayer side of the DCS street, it is something that I argue strenuously against when it comes up. Because I don't view developers as buddies, I view them as businesses, and businesses are out to make money. I point to things like FSX and Prepar3d where every airport, GPS system and scene pack is an add on that costs money. If you want to make your game look good you have to spend literally hundreds of dollars, and just recently ED has opened the door to that pricing system. So yes, I am glass half empty because I know how businesses work, and if for one second any third party thinks they can get away with it, they will. I'm not being facetious in my arguments at all. Sanctimonious, perhaps a bit, but not not condescendingly directed at you, which is what you've been implying. Blacklion, I respect you immensely on these forums, and I'm not attacking you as a person, but I will attack your arguments with all the vim and vigour that I have, because that's what people do when they debate. Where am I being condescending towards you? I attack the argument, not the man.

I'm not inventing whole scenarios out of whole cloth when I play a mission in DCS. There is an objective on the map, it is engageable and the results of my engagement will have a tangible effect on the mission completion. TARPS offers none of this. You have to make up the mission in your mind, there is no result from accomplishing it in any way. You're playing imagination land on your own, and if that's the criteria for what you're looking for, then quite frankly such an experiance is already on offer in FSX. Mock dogfights, simulated bombing runs and recon runs are quite frankly pointless in the realm of DCS as it is a combat simulator with objectives that can be completed beyond what we make believe in our own minds. It's frankly make believe crap which offers no gameplay experiance. And I have to disagree with the person who asked the point of SEAD packages or mission viability at all without a dynamic campaign.. Especially in the context of larger packages, SEAD strikes can be run in conjunction with actual interdiction strikes. If run on their own, DEAD strikes are a contest between the pilot and the air defense system. A recon run is simply aerobatics, fly through this point in airspace and go home in the current configuration of the sim. There is no payoff for accomplishing them, whereas there is for eliminating ground targets. If all you want to do is missions where you must fly through a box in enemy air space, then no time is required to simulate TARPS in any way beyond the 3d model and the drag it brings with it. This argument is facetious and you know it, and frankly I'm astonished you've come down on the side of being in favor of nickle and dime DLC for every bit of capability. When I purchase one of these modules, I expect the full experience, as that's what I pay for. Not the pay to win model of a free to play game. Save the sanctimonious attitude for someone else Blacklion, I don't mind HB deciding they don't want to do a LANTIRN pod, I take issue however with Cobra trying to spin it as "Oh, we want to spend extra time coding more important things about the F-14" in reference to yet another dead weight pod that serves no other purpose than to look pretty on exterior shots.

Not really. You use the same avionics to guide yourself to a target whether you want to bomb it or take a picture of it. Furthermore, there is zero point to using it for single missions, as recon is used in prep for a strike or to assess a strike. Turning it into the end all be all of a package is rather pointless. Getting a good picture of the target area doesn't mean anything because you can't use them, because there's no persistence in game. Taking a photo of the target doesn't help later missions, even if in a campaign chain because the campaign chain won't run using your information that you've gathered, it'll have its own stock images for briefings. Essentially that means your roleplaying. The TARPS pod in game could be simulated perfectly accurately, but without any persistence there is zero difference between an accurately simulated TARPS pod and a 3d model that has a couple of lights turn on in the cockpit when its armed. Not to put too fine a point on it, it'll be another of LNs old dead weight pods. And it is more fun to drop bombs on them. Since there's no persistence, destruction is preferable to information gaining. You're not photographing targets to call in later strikes, or to pass accurate locations to the navy for bombardment. You may as well run a strike mission against the same target, as it will have the same results, with the added bonus of actually killing something. The LANTIRN begin integration in 94, with the first bombs being dropped using the system in 95, with the first active tour of duty being in 96 with LANTIRN equipped F-14s. Widespread use wouldn't be until the late 90s and early 00s, butsaying it's out of timeline is wrong. See above. I hope very much that you're wrong. The direction of nickle and diming us for every asset pack, pod or bloody sidewinder is anti consumer and liable to push people away from DCS.

Considering there is no dynamic campaign and no recon system in DCS, with the last attempt at implementing it by another third party was abandoned, it would seem that TARPS would be a waste of time.

We finally have an official answer folks. Heatblur's F-14B will not have LANTIRN capability.

It's a debugging tool. AFAIK US Harriers never had an HMD.

I disagree. When you buy a module, you should be buying the whole package and able to use all of the content without any other module. The training mission MUST BE on the Georgia map, otherwise you're screwing over anyone who hasn't bought NTTR. If you want to make a more extensive Red Flag style training campaign for NTTR, then that should not be the training missions bundled with the package. Furthermore, the campaign also should be on the Georgia map again because you shouldn't have to own another module to get the full experience out of this one. Extra campaigns on top of that are fine on other maps, but the base module should have both a training campaign and regular campaign on the free map.

This needs clairifcation! Does Magnitude 3 or Cobra hold the third party agreement with ED?

So can someone check my organizational math in this? Nick/Cobra has left Leatherneck Studios and is no longer affiliated with them. Leatherneck Studios is changing its name to Magnitude 3 LLC. Magnitude 3 maintains all tradmarks and agreements had concerning Leatherneck Studios, as well as the MiG-21Bis module. Nick/Cobra has taken the Viggen and Tomcat teams and is forming a second studio. So my question is, does Cobra need to negotiate a third party agreement with ED now?

Only the early versions and the prototypes didn't move. Pilots found it incredibly uncomfortable, and it tended to result in overcorrection. The stick was given a bit of play in all directions to help the pilot get a feel for maneuvers commanded.

aPXh0SpQU6w

Never integrated. The USMC wasn't interested in splitting the cost with Spain, and so Spain looked into Penguin integration.

The F-5 was a sound business choice. Demand for a counterpart to the MiG-21 as well as its own Hollywood pedigree made it a good choice, and it sold well. The Viggen is quirky, but half of LNs business model has been based around slightly off color choices and making them work. The MiG, at least in most western circles was not seen as a good choice initially because it was the bad guy jet and had a poor reputation, however it succeeded initially because it was the first full fidelity fighter, and word of mouth spread how much fun it was, which then lead into learning about the aircraft's rich and storied history by the East Bloc, it was a confluence of circumstances. I don't think the Viggen was nearly success as the MiG was, though I have no numbers to back that up.

I disagree. Recognition is absolutely a reason to include or exclude certain aircraft from being made. The reason is simple, this is business. When given a choice, if the community would want a T-2 Buckeye or an A-7 Corsair, the answer will overwhelmingly favor the Corsair because it is better known, has superior capabilities and thus will sell better. And I'd be more than willing to make you a bet that when the Tomcat releases, it will have sold far better than the Viggen. RAZBAM makes sound investment choices in their aircraft, and completing a trainer that most people have ever heard of and fewer still have a real desire to purchase and fly makes no sense when compared to other aircraft they have expressed an interest in producing. I don't want a company like RAZBAM, who has demonstrated competency to waste time on such pointless airframes.

We don't have 3 trainers by choice mate. The market on trainers is very niche, and the learning cycle is over, there's no reason to continue making such pointless modules. The time and effort to bring the T-2 up to release status would be a waste of resources on a module that would sell poorly, especially in an environment where a free A-4 is being made, and aircraft like the Tomcat and Hornet will fill any desires for carrier based strike aircraft. RAZBAM would lose money trying to shove a T-2 out the door. Or, they could go ahead with making more full combat modules like the A-7 and sell them like hotcakes, because the Corsair has a hell of a lot more name recognition than the Buckeye.

RAZBAM stated when they suspended the project, that without working two seater code and support for carrier operations, there was no point in completing the T-2, and in that, they're not wrong. VEAO (yeah yeah, I know), got burned badly by assuming how the two seater code would be implemented, and there's no reason to think that the T-2 does not have the same shortcomings in that department, neither is it wrong to be concerned that ED may implement their carrier code for AFMs in a way that is not intuitive to third parties, leading to lots of backtracking to make things work. Until ED releases its Carrier support, RAZBAM will not place itself in a position to get screwed over by the mercurial development cycle that ED operates under. Every decision they have made about module development has been logically consistent with that, the only exception being the MiG-23 fiasco. The initial picks of the trainers was to be a simple aircraft to learn how coding in DCS worked, and make a little extra money on the side to kickstart main projects. RAZBAM has already completed any sort of learning cycle that the T-2 provided thanks to the completion of their Mirage 2000 module and so the only reason at this point to put resources into completing a project like the T-2 would be to cater to a niche market of people who actually enjoy the trainers. The community has been quite vocal about their lack of support for such modules, which is something I have no doubt helped spur them to securing the rights to make an A-29 after having put so much time into developing the less capable AT-27. The sales demand for niche trainers is very weak, and the fact that essential code to allow full operation of the T-2 is still missing means that it would be unwise for RAZBAM to put work into a module that can only be released on another companies time table, requiring extensive updating and coding, and will only be sold to a small market. That is why the T-2 won't be done. Because at the end of the day, even after the carrier code gets implemented and the two seater code is more refined, there are far more popular aircraft that can be done and will sell much better.

Gonna need a citation for this here because from everything I've ever seen, the top pilots want the F-22.