Kev2go

But by current standards link 16 is slow. That why they are now looking at a replacements. IF your using lOS VHF/UHF frequencies that your only looking at either 2.4k or 16k speeds. Dial up has a max theoretical capability of 56K. IF using more modern Link 16 transmission techniques such as network hosted via TCP/IP protocols then only then are you looking at faster then dial up speeds to 115 Kilobits per second.

Exactly this is also something to take into consideration software has a deelopment cycle end. ED didn't set out to make APKWS, because when they started the project not only were they aiming for a certain time frame of aircraft, APKWS simply didnt even exist on Hornets until 2018. The reason they choose a specific timeframe and the weapons associated is because thy choose what they can get data on. IF you recaall early WIP screenshots from around 2013 -2015 of the Hornets showed an earlier lot with 1990s avionics ( no HMD and older MPCD display), and that it was only expected to get old Nitehawk TGP. When the project was approached closer to release they revealed a much more updated Lot 20 Hornet, with "mid 2000's" or circa 2005 features that we are now familiar with. However even due to lacking some information the screenshots and some of WAG's early hornet videps still had a Hornet with the older AN/ALE39 countermeasure suite, and at the last second prior to release they remodeled the Hornet yet again to have AN/ALE47 CM system ( which was the correct system for lot 20 production) because they found enough necessary information to model it. This was explained in wag's hornet mini updates. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3350852&postcount=26 AS another example many people were disappointed that F16C would not get JASSM for example, and BIGnewy constantly reminded everyone that it was omitted because they only had enough documentation to model a 2007 viper and not any more modern features. IF ED could , they would have made even more recent iterations of the Viper and Hornet, as we have seen they had in the past revised some features mid development AS such relating to APKWS They have no motivation to add it, unless, they are a upcoming module that uses such weapons system and maybe then they might have a reason to "port it over" to earlier modules But i basically said as much. The only module i see ED looking at APKWS is the upcoming Warthog 2.0, as the promised improved capabilities ( implying a later software suite) and from a more modern time frame may decide to include APKWS for the HOg. WHen ED makes thier own APKWS, maybe then we can actually have a serious conversation about having it included for the hornet.

The navy still uses legacies with reserve and aggressor units. The USMC is not phasing out F/A18C's they are going to operate C models ( the ones that can fly) along with the D models until 2030. Then there's a matter of export users. F/A18C's are still in operation by Finland, Switzerland, and various foreign F/A18A models have been upgraded to comparable USMC F/A18A++ standards such as the CF18 hornets, Aussie Hornets. They use all the stuff that current era F/A18C has but with the exception of retaining OLD analog engine/fuel indicators but in turn sport newer displaye due to having replaced the old school DDI's with LCD color displays, and a more ergonomic MPCD thats tilted at an angle upwards for easier viewing. Otherwise same weapons and software specs. Even Wag's said said they they were still asked to make small modification the Flight model just enough so it would not 100% reflect the performance charts. Yea we should have B61 ( i would be happy to have nukes just for the novelty of messing around in single player even if they would be banned from most MP servers like R24/R28 ), but ED have their reasons for not doing nuclear weapons outside of " oh nuke effect suck atm". IT is what it is. Those arent going to happen for any ED made product.

Its just about not whether or not a system can't be simulated but having the necessary documentation to realistically as possible emulate the real thing from a given time period. I mean just because you know on a general manner how a certain systems work on aircraft X doesnt mean they will function exactly the same in aircaftt Y even if thier purpose is the same. Take example heatblur. they denied not only F-14D as a future module after considering it ( no declassified data on weapons systems) . They had also have said that even a bit more modern F-14B with newer PTID display would be problematic, because they have missing some information, and would rather not guesstimate MFD pages and subpages for it even if they or anyone else have an idea of what their purpose is. Or perhaps is how ED decided to remove from planned weapons list the SNiper Targeting pod for the Viper and instead opted for the lightening 2. not so much foe ease of porting it, but because they themselves admitted did not have enough information as of right now to feel confident modeling it, although didn't outright deny it ever making a reappearance, so there still might be a chance that they do get what they need. Further example i can offer is F16C EGGS aspect of HUD gunsight. The way it was simulated in another sim is different than our DCS Viper is because its pretty obvious they are using a older documentation and from a foreign air force viper operator in spite of aiming to model a USAF based CCIP upgraded viper. i think in comparison you can see which one is more true to real life F16CM block 50. IN other instances they could theoretically model systems or a weapon but part of thier contractual agreement prohibited them from doing so. Like the Air force did not want ED to Model AGm65E laser maverick for the A10C thus it was ommited from that module. In turn apparently US navy and Boeing had no qualms and thus could model that same weapon type on the Hornet, or Razbam's Harrier.

wishful thinking..... its one thing to guesstimate missile performance of a munition type. , its totally another to create an entire aircraft to a study level simulation without getting access to enough necessary documentation or authorization. Kamov KA50 represented here is a prototype model and its no longer relevant or even in service. 11:44 https://alert5podcast.podbean.com/e/scramble-04-matt-wags-wagner/ IF you want to be in denial what wags and countless other ED officials have said be my guest but not i wouldn't hold my breath that a mere year later after the question was re-asked still denied in that podcast that ED is now going to do a 180 turnaround and announce a Modern Flanker derivative. IF anything its more likely to expect a 3rd party to attempt to do a eastern bloc aircraft.

by the redforce community. Considering ED repeated statements that they would be unable to work on a modern Russian aircraft for the foreseeable future as long they are headquartered in Russia, i doubt its going to be that. IM not a "rotorhead" but seems AH64D longbow would be highly anticipated from ED. From fixed wing the next request i also hear of people reminding ED to revisit the F4E phantom project that was put on hold to finish the F16C.

Wrong again. The Kiowa warrior never had colour LCD displays until more recent years. The original displays are Monochrome green CRT monitors. Yes i know what AAR47 control panel looks like. Thats why i called you out on your prior incorrect claim of the kiowa being a 1997 model. If i didn't know what AAR47 looked liked then i wouldn't have been able to call you out. Just because AN/AAR47 may have been available in 2003 for some other helicopter platforms but OH58D's still didn't get them at that time. There are improved version of the AAR47 in circulation since. This is a research paper from 2008. You can see images At this point OH58D still has NO AAR47 and still sporting old monochrome displays. https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1524&context=utk_gradthes Also this a presentation from 2008 regarding AAR47 integration. Does not list OH58D as a platform that using this system. https://manualzz.com/doc/36209088/an-aar-47-v-1-2-sensor-upgrade-program You also will see any deployment videos with pilot cockpit footage from this time frame. Kiowas don't have updated avionics you see in the polychop simulation until about 2012 which coincides with the completion of WRA program. The era of simulations based on these updated avionics is very much circa 2012 or later Oh58D. It doesn't matter if you assume it can theoretically be used with older systems. These OLDER systems are no longer around in their respective branches, let alone tested to verify compatibility! So yos it would be anachronistic to have APKWS for AH64A or A10A, or for that matter if we hypothetically had pre 2012 OH58D ( which I demonstrated we obviously don't). Certainly not a Uh1B. since it a totally analog platform and has no means to self designate targets. Therefore it is still an assumption made on your behalf that it can work with the "oldest systems".

Last time i checked you can't find a 2007 USAF F16C blk 50 flight manual, similarly dated dash 34, or its CCIP program supplemental manual via google. Nor Luftwaffe Euro-fighter manuals for that matter. Guess what? Just because you can't find something online via google search doesn't mean a software company that has signed a license agreement with a defense contractor to make a simulation of their aircraft won't be provided documentation that are non classified but still restricted in distribution have not yet been leaked to the internet.......

The primary reason most people are recommending the F/A18 over F16 purely because its in a more finished state. Right now the Viper is only viable for a2a. ITs ground attack is limited to unguided bombs, rockets . yes it has LGB' ans a TGP but as of now self to self designating for now in the F16 messes up your waypoints. when both are 100% complete out of EA, I would still say the Hornet will remain bit more versatile of the two due to anti shipping ( AGM84 harpoon) and long stand off attack capability with the AGM84 SLAM ER. the closest equivalent to the SLAM ER would be agm 158 JASSM which the DCS viper is not modern enough to get. ( post 2007 feature) Also to note the Hornet has a better navigation suite as it can overlay a moving map if need be on HSI and SA pages, and that the Hornets radar will have better A/G radar mapping. SAR quality imaging and EXP 3 magnification as opposed to being limited only Doppler beam sharpening method and EXP 2. The Hornet is also expect to get a second targeting pod the ATFLIR.

looks like ED is extending thier stay at home sale. for thier E shop ( only steam ended)

Sounds about right considering the Kiowa they are modelling is representative of a 2012 + version..... so its not out of the question for them to decide to to also include APKWS for Oh58D. Not anachronistic at all. AS the developers even stated, when other forum user asked about other systems ( specifically about AN/AAR47) not referenced in their copy of a manual the response was something along the lines of "you have very dated manual. The ones our team is using you won't find online."

Wrong. Anyone should be able to tell from cockpit screenshots alone that this OH58D is definitely not just " 1991 model with some 1997 updates". It has much more recent features. HInt Hint AN/AAR47 V2 MWS, and LCD based colour cockpit displays.

IM pretty sure if they wanted to they will model the av8b plus any time soon they would have already said so. Any plans for av8B plus were loosly mentioned as considerations long ago when av8B was not yet even in EA, and at a time when Razbam was't trying to be overly ambiguous in planning to model every aircraft in existence, that theyl never have the time to do. At this point however perhaps its not worth the time and $$ spent on developing it unless they make it a paid DLC. Even the ED simple NS430 GPS was not free but as a paid for DLC type modification. for mi8 and L39C just to have it directly integrated into the 3d cockpit . there far more effort than a single piece of avionic for the harrier plus. Integration of a multimode Radar, radar based delivery procedures and time spend adjusting the flight model. So given such a comparison So when you consider this, and also note that Razbam has thier plate full with a ton of other projects, i wouldn't be surprised if its either becomes paid upgrade, or they abandon their original plans for the plus because they are busy with so many other things. Alot has changed since initial av8B project was annouced. So learn to manage your expectations even if you think its "so easy"

ED has never said they would add it. And its unreasonable to expect it. we have a 2005 era hornet. It doesnt matter how simple it is. even if it requires no modifications. Plug and play typically referes to more modern aircraft. It can be a sometimes misleading statement You can't or e "plug and play" a Litening 2 or ATFLIR to an F14. Remember that old Lantirn integration was not and easy plug and play ordeal due to the analog nature of the A and B versions of the tomcat. They literally had to create a unique lantirn Control panel for the TGP specific for the cat, and install necessary wiring to a pylon that was going to have the LAntirn carried. There are plenty of other weapons that could be added that require no modifications yet we dont have them such as AIm9X block 2, or a newer iteration of the Litening 2 targeting pod with purely better image resolution ( IE litening 2 G4). BUt in 2018 when APKWS is cleared for USMC hornets i dont think any hornet is operating same avionics or software suite a 2005 era hornet is, purely because all are updated to newer standards.

Its not a simple as that. Nothing is slapped on without first being testing, and a official manual being revised to document new procedures for new integrated weapons so other pilots can be taught how to use it. Using such line of reasoning to justify any weapon is a quite a slippery slope to getting totally speculative fiction genre of loadouts.

Yor the one who doesn't get it. Believe what you want. Your can put a spin on things and rationalize your desires for such a weapon all you want. And yes whilst ED may not have performance diagrams for more modern A2A weapons like AIm9X or Aim120C5, they almost certainly would have at least have have tactical or weapons delivery ( USN and USAF respectfully) manuals for written and illustrated procedures of weapons operations for specific aircraft. You wouldn't have such an accurate simulation purely on seeing couple of few second cockpit go pro video stills. Just because you logically assume it works like any laser guided munition isn't a good enough reason to have it. Even for such a simple weapon you see how many years APKWS has been in development, and how many years it was being tested in controlled environments before it is actually adopted for use. 2012 is not the universal adoption date for all platforms with APKWS as you implied . Just like 2007 F16C viper has JHMCS, but not an F15E strike eagles until a few years later. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/apkws-ii-hellfire-jr-hydra-rockets-enter-sdd-phase-02193/ IN 2012 it was only operationally used on AH1W super cobra and the UH1y Venom. 2016 for A10C integration and deployment. 2017 for av8b integration and 2018 before USMC legacy hornets are cleared to use. You know why ED is not gonna make APKWS even if it is easy to estimate its procedures? None of the current platforms use them at the timeframe they are being represented. DCS F16C is a 2007, and DCS F/A18C Lot 20 is circa 2005-07 aircraft. Even Razbams Av8b harrier is not a post 2010 aircraft. Like i Said, maybe A10C 2.0 might have it if its a recent enough software suite ( from maybe 2016-ish when APKWS comes around for it) we might see APKWS on that specific platform. This is the best hope. IF you want to be in denial go ahead., or you can choose to accept reality and stop promoting anachronistic weapons for simulation of a specific timeframe of aircraft. Otherwise keep calm, stop ranting, and learn to manage your expectations.

From what i noticed nations with demogrpahics with an larger elderly senior population are the ones who are suffering the most, wheras the youth - adult population will pull through such an illness if they get get sick. Anyone remember remember the Swine flu? this was far more dangerous pandemic to most demograhics as this strain of flu was potent enough that it was more people under the age of 65 were perishing from it relative to covid 19 is so far. With Covid 19 the death toll is much larger in the elderly category. Those at an age where they have weak enouh immunue systems, that even the "everyday flu" would be a threat to them. yet back in 2009- 2010 daily business operations were not stopped, people were not being ordered to confinement in their homes. I did not know anyone in family or freinds that had was affected by H1N1. Yet when the Swine flu pandemic was around it was not covered by media as much. Life carried on almost as normally as thing had. With this current pandemic mainstream media seems to be much more keen on causing a "panic". Adding fuel to the fire is not the answer, especially to a flu based pandemic that is not as bad as the last one. They have made it out to seem like a bigger crisis than it really is. if day to day activities don't resume ( considering statements made they won't) it will result in a global recession.

Probably not the anticipated project, but to remind everyone of ED to do list. They did mention DCS warthog 2.0 ( discounted upgrade to current A10C owners) wheras the A10C had a free facelift, this one would be also with a later Software suite. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4160206&postcount=232 to quote " What follows is a listing of aircraft projects that we and our valued partners will be working on in 2020. We do not expect all these projects to be released in 2020, but this is where our development focus will be in 2020. Following the free A-10C cockpit update, we will be releasing A-10C Warthog 2 in 2020. This will be a dramatic visual and systems upgrade to our A-10C. Once the new features have been finalized, we look forward to sharing them with you. In addition to DCS: A-10C Warthog 2 being available as a new module that will replace DCS: A-10C Warthog, it will also be available to existing A-10C Warthog owners at a significant discount."

yeah you missed out not being able to buy Hornet for 50% off, but that would be your best bet for the A/G options currently present on it. compare to the harrier waaaaay Long loiter time, greater weapons carry capacity, and better protective suite ( Automatic CM dispensing and IR Missile warning system) and it has a datalink system. The Hog will become even better when ED gets around to making Warthog 2.0, as they made mention a later software suite, but the disadvatage is the slow speed. The most well rounded option is just going for a multirole fighter like the F/A18 since it can do both A2A, A2G weaponry options are more versatile than either A10C or Harrier

It doesn't matter if it doesn't require software modifications IF you yourself are incapable of describing how exactly information and symoblogy is presented via MFD, HUD, etc and utilization of already existing targeting pod laser designation for guidance and the exact weapons procedures for the APKWS with the level detail you find in a manual, then you can't seriously expect it to be simulated. This is exactly why the devs have not done APKWS. IT's not pertains to the era of aircraft they are simulating ( irregardless if it doesn't need modifications) and because more importantly ain't happening unless theyve get a recent enough documentation on hows its used on specific platforms to simulate it. Its not hard to understand why devs have not done it any current modules. SO deal with IT!

^ This thank you.

It doesn't matter how simple APKWS integration is. To simulate weapons you need to know for example its symology for the MFD pages, and the various HUD indicators, and various weapons procedures specific not only for the weapon type but how its used on that specific platform. Just because we can understand based on general knowledge of how the weapon works and similarities to other laser guided munitions should not be reason to implement it on any aircraft. This is not World of Warplanes. IF this was the case we would have JASSM for the F16C because its "similar" enough in role and function to AGM84 SLAM ER on the Hornet but we don't. Hate to break it to you but unless the developers get a Tactical/ weapons manual for each specific aircraft with a recent enough publication(s) when APKWS was introduced that documents all the aforementioned bits from the prior paragraph your unlikely to ever see them on the aircraft you want.

apkws is too recent to expect for the timeframe respective harrier and F18 aircraft being simulated. APKWS didn't reach IOC until 2012 with the usmc ( and even then it was on helos initially) , it was only began trials in 2013 for fixed wing aircraft , but not received operationally until 2017 for the av8b harrier. In turn it wasn't integrated with USMC Hornets until about 2018. Maybe if ED A10C warthog 2.0 is going to be recent enough of a software suite in a 2013+ timeframe they might add it for that.

as someone who lives in a country where metric system is the one in use i can't complain. ;)

There is video of a Cf18 pilot describe functions of the aircraft and claimed that he liked to use FLIR on the MPCD. and ive seen some vidoes that show the MPCD pages don't have green text but white text kind of like the Super Hornets. But perhaps this varies on software suite.