Wizard_03

The only time I can see a benefit of using it over the Lpod for targeting is gonna be in a weather/smoke situation. The resolution of SAR is nowhere near an actual image of the target. You almost need to already know it’s location to be able to pick it out of a radar picture.

JTAC/FAC or pre-planned intelligence is gonna be the ideal method for obtaining that data IRL. In the DCS environment your right though, it should give you more precision at range then the Lpod. Which could be useful for our purposes Same way you can do it with just the HUD right now.

It’s an interesting capability for sure. But as an active sensor it’s not always desirable in emcon situations, and the availability of Lpods make it somewhat moot anyway. The HMD dose not need surface radar for that either, It can use it but it’s not essential. Don’t get me wrong I’m excited to see EDs implementation of it too, but it’s just not gonna be a huge game changer for AG.

Other then harpoon attacks Surface radar is almost never used IRL. The lpod is gonna be a better choice in pretty much every scenario. There’s no advantage to using the surface modes over what we already have in game now. EA or not withstanding. It’s hardly the aircrafts heart and soul of ground pounding.

Even at slow speed, if you jam the pedals around the tires are gonna slide. It’s a big heavy jet with relatively small wheels, in a tricycle configuration. NWS has to use enough hydraulic pressure to turn the wheels under the jets weight. Think If you could turn a steering wheel in a car as fast as you can pedal turn. You probably could create a similar situation. This behavior seems reasonable IMHO.

Makes sense, your in a quasi drift at this point. Need to be very slow and smooth with Hi.

:)

Well according to you, it can’t be the stores loading manuals, because they only abide by doctrinal rules..so if we can’t trust the manuals why can’t we have other features that they don’t allow for?

Ok so how do we know what capabilities the aircraft has?

Is it because they aren’t permitted in the aircraft their modeling?

So how come they don’t model python or CFTs too? The aircraft can carry them...

So ED should model weapon configurations that weren’t permitted for the specific aircraft their modeling. Feels like we’re in a logic loop

Because the documentation doesn’t permit the loadouts your describing

I’m saying we’ll have to throw them out the window to give you guys what you want

the stores loading manuals are written by the operators not the manufacturer

Why listen to documentation? It’s written by the same people that come up with the doctrine.

The aircraft dose the USAF/ANG doesn’t are you telling me that doctrine matters now?

Why not allow for Israeli weapons or Greek ones too, how about CFTs? where does it end? Laser guns and photon torpedoes?? If we don’t nail down a specific time, operator, and DOCTRINE it becomes a video game instead of simulator.

They are simulating a specific aircraft from a specific time period by a specific operator.

It discredits the work and research that goes into these modules. The realism is lost, it doesn’t matter that they chose an ANG block 50 from 2007 because we’re gonna allow users to put any weapon in any configuration that the jet “might” have had in its lifetime

The problem is; there’s no where to draw the line, then DCS becomes Ace combat. It defeats the purpose of using a simulator. And no it’s doesn’t happen they are simulating a specific aircraft not a frankinplane

please re-read my posts. Can is not the same is will. They won’t ever deploy the jet like that, so therefore it’s not realistic. If you want to have triple maverick or 12 120s or whatever that’s fine, but don’t say that it’s realistic cause it’s not. There are no circumstances where they would change the doctrine. Let me put another way, I can paint unicorns all over my jet if I wanted. Is that realistic?? No because they wouldn’t allow me too. You’re never gonna see that in combat because is tactically irresponsible..like tripe mavs. Can is not the same as will so for all intents and purposes I can’t.

No the primary end user, in this case the USAF, was heavily involved in the F-16s development, it was not a private venture by the manufacturer, they built it on contract and under the direct supervision of the end user. They decide what they can and can’t or should and shouldn’t do in close collaboration with the manufacturer. Same thing with hornet and 99 percent of military aircraft. Doctrine and capability in this case are the same thing. It’s not capable of that loadout because it’s neither recommended by the manufacturer or desired by the operators. So wether or not the jets physically able to mount the weapons in that way is irrelevant because it shouldn’t be used that way and therefore won’t be.

And I think that’s the real issue, DCS strives for ultra realism and some people want a video game, which is fine I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but this sim is not well suited for that. There are games featuring jets out there already that allow just that, and are much better for that kind of thing. But the point of my last post here, was that even if a “serious” war broke out they would never operate the jet like that. That argument is not valid because, those loadouts would be less advantageous in combat.

The problem with that is; the people making up the doctrine also decide what the jet “can and cannot carry” an infantry man is physically capable of carrying a shoulder mounted rocket launcher and a sniper rife at the same time. Would he ever be sent into combat like that...nope never so it’s unrealistic out side of halo. Would the F-16 ever be sent in with triple Mavericks? nope never. Would the hornet be sent in with 12 AMRAAMs? nope never. The doctrine exists for a reason, not only do those loadouts make zero sense from a tactical perspective, they also are potentially harmful for the jet. So no it’s not REAListic because you would never see that in the REAL world. No one would operate the aircraft like that under any circumstances. Regardless if the weapons can physically fit on the hard points.