Hentai Paisen
-
Posts
69 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Hentai Paisen
-
-
The thing I find hilarious in this whole argument is that some kept throwing around the PACAF SCL with the JSOW in 2003. Clearly they have no military service, otherwise they would know what a SCL is, and why it is developed. Here's the thing, they said the JSOW is on the list and demanded the JSOW. Guess what isn't on the list and no one hasn't said anything.... 6x65s (6A65) with LAU-88. Guess what else isn't on there....4x65s (4A65). :pilotfly:
Second armchair quarterbacks find images of aircraft configured with 6x65s and throw that around. What they don't know is the story of that image. Aircraft all have a story, those of us who have been around the jets long enough know a test bird when we see it. Every single image that shows 6x65s or 4x65s is a test jet. TEST where flight testing is performed and determined whether or not something should be operationally tested. Edwards is the home to that flight testing, and their tail flashers are ED or blank. Every image has a ED or blank tailcode.Operational testing is done by Eglin test and they have tailcodes ET, OT.
Wow many of the pictures show testing jets. Guess what the result of those tests was: the loadout was approved and triple mav launches authorized during wartime.
-
billeinstein THAT is a great idea...Load 3 MAVs...ailerons burn off and are inoperative following firing...:megalol:
Launching the third maverick does not “burn the ailerons off.” I’m not sure where this myth came from. It was shown in testing that REPEATEDLY launching the third maverick would damage the aircraft over time which is why it was limited to wartime usage only. The plane will not explode or spiral out of control after firing the last mav.
-
2
-
-
I just want to say thanks to those of you that worked on the F-16s in the past (I was a Crew Chief on the KC-135) and are providing valuable feedback to not only ED but to us as well. Some people just don't want to listen, it's a shame.
As much as I would love the have the F-16 with 3 mavs... if it didn't happen in real life I think ED should stick to their guns and keep to what was actually used. This isn't some sort of game where min/maxing is the purpose, it is a simulator where we strive to be as close to the real thing as we can. If you want to alter loadouts use mods, etc.
If you want to use currently operational load outs just don't load the LAU-88s. Easy, everyone is happy.
-
If the server can preset the payload for every single client, and disabled ground crew's rearm ability in that airfield.
Maybe make a check box option tab in the ME can do it better, if devs consider it.
The simplest option is just have the LAU-88 for the F-16 be considered a different weapon from the A-10 LAU-88. Not complicated.
-
I sat IN an F-16, flew IN an F-16 (backseat), ran the F-16 engine, ran F-16 system diagnostics.
Again, what is YOUR experience on the F-16?
You seem to be under the impression that your bog standard air force enlisted maintenance experience somehow makes you qualified to discuss all things F-16 related(it doesn't). So you worked near F-16s for 3 years and got an incentive ride, it really doesn't mean you're qualified to discuss USAF doctrine or the actual physical capabilities of the F-16 Block 50.
-
Allow me, I have three years experience as a maintainer (crew chief) we NEVER loaded a F-16 with three Mavericks, even during war time.
If you want TRUE simulation, seems you would utilize the system as it was used in the real world and not as an arcade game.
You never stated what your REAL WORLD F-16 experience is besides simulations and what you read.
So in the three years you were a maintainer world war 3 never happened, good to know thanks.
-
Because the F-16C never used it. Only the F-16A.
Now, if you don't think that makes a difference, you are wrong.
Look at the F-16A cockpit vs the F-16C cockpit. Night and day.
This means the F-16CM was never wired for it, the avionics not programed for it, and its modified version of the airframe never ran with tripple rack mavs. So an F-16C never ran the LAU-88 because it was removed from F-16s during the F-16A era MLU era.
You keep saying that only the F-16A used this loadout when there are Air Force loaders who have stated that they were loading LAU-88s (albeit with only two mavericks per)on block 50 F-16Cs as late as the mid 90s. I think you need to check your facts.
-
I'm just curious...how many time will you have to be told F-16s did not fly operationally with triple Mavericks? How many times will you have to be told why it was not done before you accept it as fact?
I flew in the Air Force for 22 years as a Boom Operator. I have flown combat missions during Desert Shield, Desert Storm, operation Deny Flight, operation Allied force, Operation enduring freedom and operation Iraqi Freedom.
I've refueling F-16As on their way to become target drones and F-16CGs and CJs so new their tail number information wasn't in our database...I have refueled literally hundreds and hundreds of F-16s in combat zones carrying yellow banded weapons...
And not once in 22 years did I ever see an F-16 in a combat environment with Six Mavericks.
If the load out was used for decades and so wide spread...show us pictures.
First of all how does acting as a boom operator in any way shape or form qualify you to discuss the weapons loading of the F-16? You were not a pilot and you did not work in maintenance or as a loader. Your anecdotal evidence means nothing quite frankly.
Second the point of the triple AGM-65 load is to bust soviet tanks. Why do you think it was approved for wartime usage only? Because the scenario being considered is literally world war 3. Guess what DCS is actually pretty good at simulating? World War 3. There are some of us out there that prefer larger and more intense scenarios than anti-insurgency or literally stomping an outgunned and outnumbered opponent.
Third are we simulating an aircraft or a doctrine? Just because the USAF or ANG doesn't use a certain weapon load in combat doesn't mean the aircraft isn't capable of it.
Finally what is the point in excluding it? To prove a point? There really isn't a good one. The weapons would work on a Block 50 F-16 and it adds another option for load outs for those who want it. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to load up triple mavericks.
-
No, JASSM is certainly out of the window for 2007 operations.
Thanks
Fair enough. JSOW + TERs for AGM-65s will keep us busy.
-
Indeed, certainly not an operationally valid loadout. However, after talking with the team yesterday, we'll probably allow it for those that want to be so inaccurate.
Thanks
I could kiss you right now Wags.
-
I’ll calm down when we get the LAU-88 racks for double and triple AGM-65 loadouts, which block 50s were approved to use and DID use for decades.
Why did ED decide to be so anally specific on the loadout for the viper but is including everything from IOC to 2007 for the Hornet?
-
1
-
-
Source?
That’s from nineline on the Ed discord. Check the planned weapons and systems post in this forum and you’ll see the Sniper is gone.
-
I see it’s been removed from the weapon list.
-
Upon further research, neither would have been accurate for an F-16CM, USAF/ANG, in 2007.
Thanks
So why not consider your F-16CM a 2008 model instead? It seems a bit ridiculous to omit two highly anticipated weapon systems from your module because your target date is six months before a software update. Why not include them to give customers more options? Really struggling to see why I should buy the F-16 when I already own the F-18, especially after what seems to be a string of anti-consumer decisions and posts from ED over the past several days.
Why not err on the side of more content and options for players?
-
Cool great news. Even more accurate it will seem. I can't wait to try this module.
What is wrong with you?
-
Both of these have been removed from Wags’ post talking about planned weapon systems. Are they out despite the fact that the hornet will get them and the only thing required for the F-16 to utilize them is a software update?
You’re a month late for April fools day ED.
-
https://images.app.goo.gl/uRD8hVYrYoNfzd3Z8
They were used in some capacity, what I can find says it was approved for use in wartime only and withdrawn at some point.
-
This was an approved loadout on F-16s at one point, will ED include the LAU-88 for those of us that want some extra firepower?
-
I know you're trying to be diplomatic, and believe me, I applaud you for it. Not sure that I could do the same. But this guy only seems to want to rant about expectations that he's formulated in the depths of his own mind.
Expectations formulated in the depths of my own mind??? Just because you do not keep up with DCS news and developer statements does not mean I am somehow just inventing these release dates for my own entertainment.
Let's ignore the F-14 for a minute and look at the MiG-19. Numerous times it has been stated that it would release in 2018 and yet there we are and it clearly is not going to release for another two or three months at least. This is not a single developer's issue. DCS as a whole has a massive problem for announcing or signaling release dates and then missing them by a huge margin.
Like I said, I find it simply exhausting that all of these modules are being teased and then delayed for HUGE amounts of time. It really does kill the hype for me.
-
I have no way to meet or mitigate your grievance. I'd rather be blunt for once. I've lost track of how many 120 hour weeks we've put in this year. Things change, features expand or get added. That's the (unfortunate) way the cookie crumbles in game development. Our ultimate responsibility is to deliver quality. Purely quality based goals and subsequent planning are directly at odds with being transparent because things will inevitably change. Think for a moment how much money we burn per month of delay with the cost of our staff. Imagine the significant loss of revenue if we don't launch for Christmas.
There is probably noone on planet earth that wants the Tomcat to launch more than I do.
I can. But I can't do anything about it except deliver an excellent product in the promised Winter timeframe. And that's what I intend to do.
Fair enough. Thanks for responding and being blunt, I like that. Good luck and God speed. I can't wait to kick the tires and light the fires. If it takes another month or two, so be it. I'll just be bored until then.
-
There will be a development update soon.
I look forward to it. As I said, I'm sure most people, myself included, would prefer a month or two delay in order to release the module in a more complete state. I know personally the Hornet launch put a terrible taste in my mouth that has persisted to the current day.
I get that development delays happen and are unavoidable, I respect that. What I don't appreciate and what drives me up the wall is your company making statements that seem 100% certain and then not following through.
I am EXTREMELY excited for the F-14B and the F-14A. I have no doubt that these jets will become my most flown modules in DCS. But that excitement is a double edged sword. The let down of realizing we have to wait another two to three months for your product is almost enough to kill the hype. That's really my main issue. The same thing happened to the Hornet with its six month preorder period. It's not just Heatblur that is guilty of this.
-
Stop.
F22xRaptor, I'll refer you to the pre-purchase page which makes the one and only guarantee of a release date that has been made: https://store.heatblur.com/products/test-product
I'll quote the bolded part for your clarity:
Winter stretches from 21st of December 2018 to 20th of March 2019. We will release on a date on or between those two dates. Full stop.
I expect this thread to be clean from now on.
If you wish to voice your extreme displeasure at our apparent incompetence, you are welcome to vote with your wallet.
So the statement from your Youtube account was a mistake then? Come on man I hoped you guys would learn from last year.
I'd like to note that my "extreme displeasure" is not directed at the QUALITY of the module, which I am 100% sure will exceed my expectations, but rather is directed at the quality of your public relations. Quite frankly I find it extremely petty that you would tell me to simply not purchase what will likely be a genre defining module to express how annoyed I am at not your module quality, but at your marketing.
I hope you can see from my point of view why I am frustrated about this.
-
I see you down there in the currently active users viewing this thread thing Cobra.
You guys make the best modules, but please, the anticipation is painful. Just let us know if it's gonna be this year or next already. I'd rather y'all delayed a month to make sure the launch is more complete than the Hornet's but at least let us know so we can plan.
-
There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that the anticipation of something desirable is more enjoyable than what is anticipated. Why not just enjoy the speculation as it is intended, to stir that anticipation?
There's a fine line between expectation and entitlement. Remember that nobody owes you anything in 2018. If you preordered, the agreement was winter, and even then still with stipulations and out clauses.
Getting indignant over social media posts alluding to release dates before money ever changed hands is a bit overboard.
Lighten up, Francis.
I'm sorry boomer, what part of this post is ALLUDING to a 2018 release? Because to me, and again maybe I'm just insane, this seems like a 100% certain release in 2018.
[Planned] LAU-88 and triple AGM-65s?
in Wish List
Posted
You are completely incorrect. Believe what you want though, it doesn’t matter because we’re getting the LAU-88 anyway.