DCS: F-5E!

[Dudikoff]

I don't think the AN/APQ-159 used in the tiger II has the abality to fire the mavericks...

 

That capability was exclusive to the AN/APQ-159-1, that was used in later models IIRC...

 

It has nothing to do with the radar, but a different radar display (among some other things probably) used on -1 and -2 models (and again it wasn't there on the -3 and -4 models according to the wiki) which could present the TV signal from the Maverick's seeker.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Dudikoff

[mattebubben]

I don't think the AN/APQ-159 used in the tiger II has the abality to fire the mavericks...

 

That capability was exclusive to the AN/APQ-159-1, that was used in later models IIRC...

 

As Dudikoff states it was only a Modification in the display (and pylon wiring) allowing it to carry / View the Seeker info from the AGM-65 Maverick.

 

Multiple Customers Acquired F-5E Tiger IIs with AGM-65 Maverick Capability.

 

And both variants of the display were available to go with the APQ-159 from the start it was simply up to the customer if they wanted that capability or not.

 

The word we have gotten from Belsimtek is that the variant we are getting will have the APQ-159-3 Display so will not come with the Maverick but if they discovered info on how the Maverick capability worked (Display Functions / Targeting Procedure etc) it would likely change.

Edited May 2, 2016 by mattebubben

[Tomhatter]

"The word we have gotten from Belsimtek is that the variant we are getting will have the APQ-159-3 Display so will not come with the Maverick but if they discovered info on how the Maverick capability worked (Display Functions / Targeting Procedure etc) it would likely change."

 

Wouldn't they be able to use the A-10 system, minus the MFD?

[ФрогФут]

It is not big deal to implement the maverick from A-10. There is a problem, how the radar and maverick modes are switched on the display, what is the logic of operation for Maverick in F-5.

[mattebubben]

And while they could easily do some guess work and add it (i would be ok with that) they want to make sure to get everything like it should be.

 

So without a Step by Step or Manual etc (Solid information describing operation in depth) they are not likely to add it.

Atleast for now.

[mjmorrow]

Finally we'll have a rival for the MiG 21Bis...

 

Will be nice to explore the stregths and weaknesses of each one of them!

 

A very challenging and excellent rival for the Mig-21, but also an excellent complement and ally of the Mig-21, too. I think Vietnamese F5's & Mig-21's served together on the same side during the Sino-Vietnamese War. :thumbup: MJ

Edited May 2, 2016 by mjmorrow

[Kev2go]

I defiantly like the idea of adding a bit of precision air to ground with the maverick. Not having the napalm however is something ED must solve with their game engine first. From the little I know flames are very hard to recreate. Recreating that rolling, roiling effect I shudder just thinking of the CPU cycles that would cost. I just don't know if we will see it in the near future.

 

ed should be capable of figuring it out or finding a work around.

 

 

id still want a BLU napalm canisters even if its splash damage from the spread of the flames was gimped due to engine limitations.

 

that didnt stop leatherneck from adding R24 or R28 tactical nukes for the mig21bis, even if effects were unrealistic due to engine limitations.

 

 

strike fighters : project 1, and remake strike fighters 2. did it, and that was in a game from 2002 . much older and very outdated now, compared than current DCS with its new Edge engine (would have been very dated even for DCs's old DX9 engine)

 

so i have faith in ED they just need to put in the time to make it happen.

 

 

some images of napalm being dropped by thuds and mig28s :thumbup:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

while the flames looked realisti for the game of its time, the napalm would destroy targets from flame spread, unless you dropped almost dead on target.

 

so ED could compromise to something similar, if they cant get fully simulated napalm ingame.

 

 

 

its also worth noting soviets also had thier own napalm and incindiery bombs in service, so mig21bis ought to get napalm too, if ED ever decides to invest time in development in flame effects.

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by Kev2go

[mattebubben]

Id like having napalm.

 

But as said it would likely be hard to implement.

 

But i want Napalm on The F5 for one simple reason.

 

[ame]

[/ame]

[Kev2go]

Id like having napalm.

 

But as said it would likely be hard to implement.

 

But i want Napalm on The F5 for one simple reason.

 

 

 

hard?

 

if a 2002 game could do it, , im sure ED would be able to do it with less issue, on a much more modern game engine, thats been recently reworked with DX11/ edge.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Kev2go

[pegleg1972]

Whats the chance they release it this friday.Im hoping high myself.

[Angelthunder]

Whats the chance they release it this friday.Im hoping high myself.

I don't think it will be this week,i believe ED is giving another 1.5 update this friday to include the Gazelle and the EFM Hawk trainer for the main Caucasus map.Going by previous releases of new aircraft,the Tiger II probably won't be ready until the last week of May.

[splash]

I hope someone could provide more information about Maverick operation. Anyway, this module is going to be a day-1 buy for me.

[Vedexent]

hard?

 

if a 2002 game could do it, , im sure ED would be able to do it with less issue, on a its much more modern game engine, thats been recently reworked with DX11/ edge.

 

It's not "hard" - no question that ED/Belsimtek could do it - but it's a question of "Return on Investment" (ROI). Investment here being developer time/effort.

 

"Does the time and modelling efforts required to simulate one specific effect for one particular mission role, for one particular aircraft - or alternatively to add the support in the main system that would allow Belsimtek to do it - justify pulling developers off the DCS 2.0 development/debug project?"

 

I'm guessing - especially given the lack of actual nuclear explosion modelling for the MiG-21 - that their answer is likely "no".

 

But I guess we'll see when it comes out.

[Vedexent]

Whats the chance they release it this friday.Im hoping high myself.

 

Not for another "two weeks". :D

[Azrayen]

for all intents and purposes F5E will better suited for most players in DCS

 

WE dont have simulated ground controllers intercept guidance, therefore the whole interceptor aspect of migs real life aspect is essentially null.

 

That's up to the players, really. Simulated GCI doesn't exist indeed, but human GCIs do. Using LotAtc for example... It's a all new game. ;)

[mattebubben]

hard?

 

if a 2002 game could do it, , im sure ED would be able to do it with less issue, on a its much more modern game engine, thats been recently reworked with DX11/ edge.

 

It would not be that Hard to implement Napalm (if ED decided it was worth doing)

 

But it would be "Harder" to simulate it with accurate effects / a "realistic" damage/performance.

 

And just because a earlier game can do something does not mean a later game can do it as easily.

 

In many cases its harder for a more modern Graphical engine to do the same thing a much older Graphical engine because they are just alot more complicated so even something simple can be harder to do because the system / Coding is much most complicated.

 

And since there is not really a large need for Napalm atm since few of the aircraft use it and its it not all that suited for the Theatre / Timeframe etc.

 

But ofc if they made a Vietnam Theatre / timefram or south easy Asia Theatre in general napalm would likely be something they would develop for it.

 

But for a single of aircraft or two (especially since they are not aircraft developed by ED themselves) i dont think its too likely atm.

 

And seeing that many of the air to ground weapons atm like Bombs and Rockets (especially WP rockets) could already need work on better Impact effects i feel like an improvement in areas like that is probably prioritised then adding a new weapon with a brand new type of damage effects / Visual Effects.

[Kev2go]

It would not be that Hard to implement Napalm (if ED decided it was worth doing)

 

 

And since there is not really a large need for Napalm atm since few of the aircraft use it and its it not all that suited for the Theatre / Timeframe etc.

 

But ofc if they made a Vietnam Theatre / timefram or south easy Asia Theatre in general napalm would likely be something they would develop for it.

 

effects / Visual Effects.

 

It's not "hard" - no question that ED/Belsimtek could do it - but it's a question of "Return on Investment" (ROI). Investment here being developer time/effort.

 

"Does the time and modelling efforts required to simulate one specific effect for one particular mission role, for one particular aircraft - or alternatively to add the support in the main system that would allow Belsimtek to do it - justify pulling developers off the DCS 2.0 development/debug project?"

 

I'm guessing - especially given the lack of actual nuclear explosion modelling for the MiG-21 - that their answer is likely "no".

 

But I guess we'll see when it comes out.

 

 

 

 

Napalm isnt specific to Vietnam. US was already using it on fighter bombers and attackers since korean war.

 

Napalm and such similar incendiaries were still kept in inventory post vietnam and even today a Incendiary based on napalm still exists.

 

the Mark 77.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

 

modern Incindieary munitions would be valid on modern fighters like the F/A-18C, as well as older ones that served into the 1980s, such as the A6 & A7 corsair

 

 

so napalm is not a insignificant thing, or limited to Vietnam and a Small group of aircraft.

 

 

so atm there are 3 aircraft that should have so form of napalm ( F5E, F86F & mig21bis)

 

Planne aircraft/ WIP ( A6 intruder, A7 Corsair by RAZBAM) & F/A18C by ED.

 

so put together 6 aircraft is by no means small amount. This is excluding other aircraft that are currently not planned WIP that are likely be added in the future ( F4 phantom and Century series)

 

so its a really bad to make excuses saying napalm is not worth having in game or putting effort in its development. There is no better time to start developing flame effects for napalm/incendiary based muntions than now . it takes time, and by that point so the developers from these distant upcoming modules can add it to their aircraft's inventories.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Kev2go

[Medic8ed]

Well one thing they are going to be working on in the future is better flames/explosion effects (I think for DCS 2.5 if I'm not mistaken), which they definitely need. With the way explosions look right now, napalm wouldn't look very good nor would it likely to be modeled properly. Once they have the new effects, hopefully they would revisit creating napalm.

 

I think napalm would be good to have for all the reasons mentioned above. Plus, I think it would look cool on MP server where you are flying CAP and then see a big fireball off in the distance - if you're the one dropping the napalm, you better get out quick because you just brought a lot of attention to yourself!

[mattebubben]

Napalm isnt specific to Vietnam. US was already using it on fighter bombers and attackers since korean war.

 

Napalm and such similar incendiaries were still kept in inventory post vietnam and even today a Incendiary based on napalm still exists.

 

the Mark 77.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

 

modern Incindieary munitions would be valid on modern fighters like the F/A-18C

 

 

so napalm is not a insignificant thing, or limited to Vietnam and a Small group of aircraft.

 

 

so atm there are 3 aircraft that should have so form of napalm ( F5E, F86F & mig21bis)

 

Planne aircraft/ WIP ( A6 intruder, A7 Corsair by RAZBAM) & F/A18C by ED.

 

6 aircraft is not a small amount not to mention future modules that can follow, that used it.

 

so its a really bad to make excuses saying napalm is not worth having in game or the to have time to develop it. There was no better time to start develeoping effects for napalm than now. . it takes time, and by that point so the developers from these distant upcoming modules can add it to their inventories.

 

I never said it has not been used or that it is no longer being used (Even though there have been a UN convention against the US of Incendiary weapons since 1980 that the US has recently joined with some limitations)

 

Its just that in most modern wars even if Napalm was still in the available ordnance options it has not been one of the default weapons used (Last conflict were it was used on a mass scale was vietnam)

 

For example when it comes to the Mark 77 the last recorded use i know of was the 2003 Iraq war were around 30 of them were used.

 

So while its still a weapon type that exists and saw use (atleast untill recently in the US forces) there are many others that are alot more important.

 

And id say getting the Visual effect and Splash damage on things like dumb bombs and rockets improved should be a much more important thing then adding Napalm/Incendiary bombs.

 

And also how effective would Napalm / Incendiary bombs be in DCS with the type of missions we have now?

 

With Mostly armored (Heavy or light) targets.

 

Yes i would be overjoyed when and if Napalm is implemented and is modeled well.

 

But i feel like there are so many other things and weapons that should probably get added or refined first.

Edited May 3, 2016 by mattebubben

[Kev2go]

I never said it has not been used or that it is no longer being used (Even though there have been a UN convention against the US of Incendiary weapons since 1980 that the US has recently joined with some limitations)

 

Its just that in most modern wars even if Napalm was still in the available ordnance options it has not been one of the default weapons used (Last conflict were it was used on a mass scale was vietnam)

 

For example when it comes to the Mark 77 the last recorded use i know of was the 2003 Iraq war were around 30 of them were used.

 

So while its still a weapon type that exists and saw use (atleast untill recently in the US forces) there are many others that are alot more important.

 

And id say getting the Visual effect and Splash damage on things like dumb bombs and rockets improved should be a much more important thing then adding Napalm/Incendiary bombs.

 

again with already having korean - vietnam era/ 1970s aircraft, and taking into consideration the aforementioned planned release such as by razbam, napalm bombs are very much a necessary development now.

 

once the flame effects are developed than making variations of napalm based bombs would be a short tastk. a mk77 wouldnt be be much more issue than Blu1 napalm, for older aircraft.

 

Furthermore soviets also used napalm based incidiereys in thier inventory. , Ingame it can be added to the Mig21. the ZAb 200-500 series, and also ZB-500

 

saying napalm isn't worth it just because it hasnt been used by usa in combat since 2003 isnt the best argument. . thats like saying there no point in having the aim7M sparrow, because its been phased out in favor of the aim120 series.neither is the scale of usage. we have fictional scenarios too. in dcs.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Kev2go

[mattebubben]

again with already having korean - 1970s iarcraft, and taking into consideration the aforementioned planned release such as by razbam, naplam bombs are very much worth having.

 

once the flame effects are developed than making variations of napalm based bombs would be a short tastk. a mk77 wouldnt be be much more issue than Blu1 napalm, for older aircraft. Furthermore soviets also used napalm based incidiereys which could be mounted on the Mig21

 

you cant say napalm isnt worth it just because it hasnt been used by us in combat since 2003 isnt the best argument. . thats like saying there no point in having the aim7M sparrow, because its been phased out in favour of the aim120 series.

 

Did i even say its not worth adding?...

 

Or that they should not add Napalm.

 

All i said was in my opinion there are other weapons and systems that should be refined and added first as they make more sense and are of more importance.

 

I have nothing against Adding Napalm and would love if they added well modeled Napalm / Incendiary weapons.

 

But that does not mean i think they should drop everything else and only add napalm right away.

 

I feel like Improving HE/Fragmentation weapons (Unguided bombs and rockets) should be of more importance (in the short term)

 

I would love having Incendiary weapons especially well modeled / Simulated WP rocket / Bomb Visual Effects etc.

 

But im of the opinion its better to fix what you already have and then add new things then add new things while what you already have is not perfect/Working as it should.

[Kev2go]

Did i even say its not worth adding?...

 

Or that they should not add Napalm.

 

All i said was in my opinion there are other weapons and systems that should be refined and added first as they make more sense and are of more importance.

 

I have nothing against Adding Napalm and would love if they added well modeled Napalm / Incendiary weapons.

 

But that does not mean i think they should drop everything else and only add napalm right away.

 

I feel like Improving HE/Fragmentation weapons (Unguided bombs and rockets) should be of more importance (in the short term)

 

I would love having Incendiary weapons especially well modeled / Simulated WP rocket / Bomb Visual Effects etc.

 

But im of the opinion its better to fix what you already have and then add new things then add new things while what you already have is not perfect/Working as it should.

 

and i never said they should drop it entirely just work on napalm, just that were at a point were development of flame effects for napalm is Viable.

 

 

anyways they can always do both ( flame and explosive effects)

 

[ame]

[/ame] Edited May 3, 2016 by Kev2go

[pepin1234]

and i never said they should drop it entirely just work on napalm, just that were at a point were development of flame effects for napalm is Viable.

 

 

anyways they can always do both ( flame and explosive effects)

 

I think the trouble there is the frame fall with the Napalm graphic effect.

 

 

I would like have two graphic engine levels. One for ground forces and the other for air forces, not sure if this is possible.

[ThorBrasil]

:cry:

[Gecko6]

That will be the first thing I shut off when I get the Tiger. Had to go with the Top Gun knock off.