31s dialed back down?

[ENO]

I think it was when 127 came out that the 31 penetrators were adjusted. I remember testing them and it only took 2 to take out a comms center. (Okay- now I'm doubting myself... maybe it was an ammo dump...)

 

I just went to destroy a CC in a mission tonight and it took 4 of them again... did these AWESOME weapons get pushed back to mediocrity? :cry:

[NineLine]

You are talking the one the A-10 carries correct? Its not meant for hardened targets. (Although those giant antennas should blow up shouldnt they :) )

[ENO]

So in the change log for the 127 release that 31 isn't even the one we can use?

 

"Added new GBU-31(V)3 penetrating bomb."

[Stuka]

No, just like IRL, the A-10C can't carry those.

You could put them on AI planes, and let them do the job. (F-16C, F-18, F-15E, B-1,... can take them)

[NineLine]

So in the change log for the 127 release that 31 isn't even the one we can use?

 

"Added new GBU-31(V)3 penetrating bomb."

 

Yeah, I believe in the changelog it shows which aircraft it was added to, but the Hawg isnt a bunker buster.

[ENO]

I thought it was more like the Mav in which actual "load" and guidance systems were more modular- swap out something hard cased for the soft case and voila bunker buster. Swap out this package for that package and you have something that looks the same but is in fact very different.

 

Okay well that clears that up. Thanks.

[txmtb]

I remember trying to destroy one in a mission you created back during the Firehouse beta period, took 2 trips because I only brought 2 to begin with. :music_whistling:

[ENO]

During the stress test I'd made I had a couple of HQs that needed to be destroyed- at least I thought they were HQs but now I'm thinking they were ammo bunkers...

 

Anyway- that was what lead me astray.

[ENO]

Well- just checked on the ammo bunkers too and it takes 4... so something is astray.

[kontiuka]

Yeah, I believe in the changelog it shows which aircraft it was added to, but the Hawg isnt a bunker buster.

Is it because you need a high speed jet to give the bomb enough momentum?

[NineLine]

Well- just checked on the ammo bunkers too and it takes 4... so something is astray.

 

4 what? The ammo bunkers are hardened as well.

[NineLine]

Is it because you need a high speed jet to give the bomb enough momentum?

 

I believe so. Or at least part of the reason.

[GGTharos]

They're just like that. You put a JDAM kit on a BLU-109 and you have a penetrating JDAM, the GBU-31v3. This weapon was not approved for use with the A-10C at the time DCS A-10C was made, and so will not be added to the inventory.

 

Every type of weapon must go through separation tests and electronics tests to be certified for carriage, and at that time it was not.

 

Since we don't have a more modern A-10C in-game, we're not getting GBU-31v3's for it.

 

I thought it was more like the Mav in which actual "load" and guidance systems were more modular- swap out something hard cased for the soft case and voila bunker buster. Swap out this package for that package and you have something that looks the same but is in fact very different.

 

Okay well that clears that up. Thanks.

[Scrim]

So just generally speaking, is the A-10C module never ever going to be upgraded to get something it received IRL after the module was first released? Not even simple things like this bomb?

[GGTharos]

As far as I know, that's correct. Things are always subject to change, but until things do change, if they ever change, the A-10C module is staying as is.

 

So just generally speaking, is the A-10C module never ever going to be upgraded to get something it received IRL after the module was first released? Not even simple things like this bomb?

[ENO]

4 what? The ammo bunkers are hardened as well.

 

4 31s...

 

 

The whole point of my thread came from that announcement that the 31 v3 was being introduced and it fit in line with an experience I had where I was able to use 2 to destroy one or the other (I can't remember, it was during the stress tests for 127)... but it's been made quite clear to me that whatever the reason, it isn't modeled for the A-10C version of the weapon.

 

 

No biggie either way- but it's good to get it cleared up in my mind.

[Flagrum]

So just generally speaking, is the A-10C module never ever going to be upgraded to get something it received IRL after the module was first released? Not even simple things like this bomb?

The version ("suite") of the A-10C that is modelled in DCS is unlikely to change. And everything else, like weapons and so on, has to match that specific version. Otherwise it would be inconsistent.

[NineLine]

 

Either way, ED appears to have given up on anything A-10 related.

 

For adding new suite versions and such, I dont think there is any plans that I know of, as far as bugs and such, no.

 

ED hasnt given up on anything, but at times priorities dictate changes in direction.

 

But this is all off-topic. The A-10C carries the GBU-31(V)1/B, which I believe the SME's at the time confirmed this, it cant carry the GBU-31(V)3/B, also confirmed by the SME's at the time... you would want to use the GBU-31(V)3/B to bust a bunker as I understand it.

[NineLine]

Not sure where you are getting the idea they don't care, or aren't interested in bugs in any of their products.

 

Well there are an awful lot of unresolved A-10 bugs and omissions that ED doesn't seem interested in fixing. So it would seem that ED has given up on it; a reasonable conclusion given the contents of the patch changelogs.

 

And you'll notice that I directly addressed the GBU-31(v)1 vs. GBU-31(v)3 issue in my post.

[NineLine]

Its not a reasonable conclusion what-so-ever...

 

And yes, I generalized and said products because someone else might complain about their bug as well on their favorite module. But see ED has a lot going on, they cant always be everything to everyone. So no... your conclusion is completely unreasonable.

 

Many bugs are reported and active, they need available resources to be dealt with... software development has a sort of triage... priorities are based on level of importance. Perhaps getting a new rendering engine in place so that new maps can be released takes priorities over a bug that doesn't block or crash the game.

 

I know I am probably wasting my effort typing this all out... but that's it... its not some grand plot to drop the A-10C from support... its just how things are right now.

 

I think I stated it pretty clearly. There are many known/documented errors and omissions in the A-10, and those errors persist. A reasonable conclusion is that ED is not interested in fixing them.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I implied ED "doesn't care about bugs in any of their products"? I very clearly made my comments with respect to A-10C.

[NineLine]

Bottom line... ED hasnt stopped caring or become uninterested in fixing anything that might be wrong with the A-10C. Its more reasonable to assume that the people concerned with programming avionics may be busy with other projects, and non blocking or game crashing bugs might be lower priority....

 

Your right, I should have let it go, but I hate the little digs on ED, the fact that your favorite bug might not be fixed yet and zero to do with this thread to begin with... you just took advantage of another opportunity to take a shot.... or at least that's what it feels like...

 

So tell me... what bug would need to be fixed to load a penetrating version of the 31? Otherwise all this has been off-topic nonsense...

 

Sorry ENO, this hasnt helped your original question in the least.

 

 

Are you kidding me right now? It was a passing comment; one that I feel completely justified in making. But in your zeal to defend ED against any and all criticism, you're just making them look worse than if you had just let it go.

 

So out of curiousity, how long must one wait before one can "reasonably" conclude that a company is not interested in fixing something? One patch? Three patches? Six months? A year?

 

And to be frank, I'm tired of moderators playing both sides of the fence. You guys are always saying that graphics engine programmers don't program avionics, therefore starting new projects doesn't have any impact on existing projects. Now you're saying exactly the opposite. You guys like to change the rules by adding your own opinions, supposition, interpretation and wild-ass guesses, then crush the nuts of forum members who have the audacity to offer a contrasting opinion.

 

Moderators are supposed to be impartial, but I don't get that feeling around here...

[NineLine]

If you'll be kind enough to actually read my first post, you'll see that I directly answered the OP's question, and at no time did I ever imply that the missing JDAM variant was a bug or omission...quite the opposite.

 

 

Ok, so its been all off-topic nonsense then... good enough. Lets stop... question has been answered.

[ENO]

No problem guys- I see both sides... I still willingly drop dozens of hours a week in the mission editor creating or editing broken stuff and have an epic hate on for some things that are going on with ed while not being particularly discrete about it... But at the same time I realize this is a concept nobody will ever touch and I defend it every chance I get.

 

Noodle- some of the guidance and direction I've gotten from you- nevermind the others who have learned from you... Top shelf. Sith- you've carried me through more than my share of low points...

 

Anyway guys- I get it and we all get it. I didn't want to turn same sides against one another but it is undeniable that frustration is taking its toll. If we were handcuffed to snail mail right now- this sim would be off the charts and we wouldn't have expectations. All our updates would be through magazines once a year.

 

Sometimes I miss those days.

 

There are some nagging bugs left on the a10 side... Let's make sure we keep posting them in the right section with the right files and hope they get fixed.

[NineLine]

Thanks ENO, I am going to close this thread now. But if anyone still feels there are questions about the subject, feel free to PM me, I'll answer the best I can.

 

No problem guys- I see both sides... I still willingly drop dozens of hours a week in the mission editor creating or editing broken stuff and have an epic hate on for some things that are going on with ed while not being particularly discrete about it... But at the same time I realize this is a concept nobody will ever touch and I defend it every chance I get.

 

Noodle- some of the guidance and direction I've gotten from you- nevermind the others who have learned from you... Top shelf. Sith- you've carried me through more than my share of low points...

 

Anyway guys- I get it and we all get it. I didn't want to turn same sides against one another but it is undeniable that frustration is taking its toll. If we were handcuffed to snail mail right now- this sim would be off the charts and we wouldn't have expectations. All our updates would be through magazines once a year.

 

Sometimes I miss those days.

 

There are some nagging bugs left on the a10 side... Let's make sure we keep posting them in the right section with the right files and hope they get fixed.