ARMAT?

[OxideMako]

How the missile works, its limitations, etc. are completely hidden from view.

 

This is one of the reasons, the other being no conclusive proof the missile was ever used by a M-2000C or M-2000E. The photo of a missile in the inboard pylon at an air show, could be nothing more than a sales pitch and thus not relevant.

 

It it isn't realistic it should not be there. While having more options is always nice, If it was not possible there is no way it should be on the DCS version. However if it was possible but not used, that should be available in sim. (i.e. KH-66, R-77) Honestly one photo of it mounted with no idea of what, if any cockpit additions are needed is dubious at best.

 

We have two other weapons systems to develop:

The BLG-66 BELOUGA and the BAP-100, which IMO are more interesting. Specially the BAP-100.

 

Please do the BAP-100 properly, the current anti-runway stuff in DCS has some client/server sync issues and poor graphical representation of lasting runway damage. This makes them more often than not, pointless ATM. Although this may need to be something ED has to fix, it is worth mentioning.

[QuiGon]

Anything doing to the AS-37 MARTEL or ARMAT is totally WAGuess. Like the RWR and other self-defense systems, this is totally classified and no public documents exists. We only know the missiles exists because they have been seen and from statements made by the manufacturer, which are nothing more than sales pitches.

 

How the missile works, its limitations, etc. are completely hidden from view.

 

This is one of the reasons, the other being no conclusive proof the missile was ever used by a M-2000C or M-2000E. The photo of a missile in the inboard pylon at an air show, could be nothing more than a sales pitch and thus not relevant.

 

We want to keep the WAGuess factor to a minimum. But no decision has been made on the missile yet.

 

We have two other weapons systems to develop:

The BLG-66 BELOUGA and the BAP-100, which IMO are more interesting. Specially the BAP-100.

 

Thanks for clarifying that. So, with no data or even evidence of its usage I hope you're not gonna implement it, because it would just be a wild guess at best and a fantasy weapon system at worst and, contrary to the RWR (which is also confirmed to be in use with the M2K), it isn't an essential system.

 

I hope that, when we get the F/A-18 from ED, people will stop to demand a SEAD-weapon for any kind of aircraft just because they desperately want a SEAD-platform.

Edited January 11, 2016 by QuiGon

[Hook47]

Anything doing to the AS-37 MARTEL or ARMAT is totally WAGuess. Like the RWR and other self-defense systems, this is totally classified and no public documents exists. We only know the missiles exists because they have been seen and from statements made by the manufacturer, which are nothing more than sales pitches.

 

How the missile works, its limitations, etc. are completely hidden from view.

 

This is one of the reasons, the other being no conclusive proof the missile was ever used by a M-2000C or M-2000E. The photo of a missile in the inboard pylon at an air show, could be nothing more than a sales pitch and thus not relevant.

 

We want to keep the WAGuess factor to a minimum. But no decision has been made on the missile yet.

 

We have two other weapons systems to develop:

The BLG-66 BELOUGA and the BAP-100, which IMO are more interesting. Specially the BAP-100.

 

Interesting. I haven't researched it and I find it surprising no public data can be found, but I stand corrected. None the less, the RWR and other systems you mentioned are guesstimation, which is totally fine for a sim that cannot access classified data, so I for one would be perfectly satisfied with a WAGuess ARMAT! I hope the ARMAT will be something you guys eventually decide to incorporate! Thanks for the response, I love this aircraft!

 

I am also very excited for the BLG and the BAP-100!

 

Thanks for clarifying that. So, with no data or even evidence of its usage I hope you're not gonna implement it, because it would just be a wild guess at best and a fantasy weapon system at worst and contrary to the RWR it isn't an essential system.

 

 

I still see that as a double standard. If it is ok to guesstimate for a critical system like the RWR, then so much more so for a limited role weapon like the ARMAT that doesn't even have to be used. I have heard the weapon WAS fired off the aircraft, which makes it far from a fantasy weapon system. If this isn't OK for the ARMAT then we should rip the RWR and other simulated systems right out of the aircraft, and ditch the non french liveries...

 

This is a sim, we aren't flying the real plane (sadly!) and we just can't have classified documents for systems like the RWR and apparently missiles like the ARMAT. We are still getting an experience that is mind blowingly good and would have been the subject of our wildest dreams 20 years ago.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Hook47

[TomCatMucDe]

Anything doing to the AS-37 MARTEL or ARMAT is totally WAGuess. Like the RWR and other self-defense systems, this is totally classified and no public documents exists. We only know the missiles exists because they have been seen and from statements made by the manufacturer, which are nothing more than sales pitches.

 

How the missile works, its limitations, etc. are completely hidden from view.

 

This is one of the reasons, the other being no conclusive proof the missile was ever used by a M-2000C or M-2000E. The photo of a missile in the inboard pylon at an air show, could be nothing more than a sales pitch and thus not relevant.

 

We want to keep the WAGuess factor to a minimum. But no decision has been made on the missile yet.

 

We have two other weapons systems to develop:

The BLG-66 BELOUGA and the BAP-100, which IMO are more interesting. Specially the BAP-100.

 

Thanks Zeus for doing your best to keep your module as realistic as possible. You serve well DCS. Looking forward for the Belouga and BAP-100. Cant wait for the later and do some runway bombing

[QuiGon]

I still see that as a double standard. If it is ok to guesstimate for a critical system like the RWR, then so much more so for a limited role weapon like the ARMAT that doesn't even have to be used. I have heard the weapon WAS fired off the aircraft, which makes it far from a fantasy weapon system. If this isn't OK for the ARMAT then we should rip the RWR and other simulated systems right out of the aircraft, and ditch the non french liveries...

 

This is a sim, we aren't flying the real plane (sadly!) and we just can't have classified documents for systems like the RWR and apparently missiles like the ARMAT. We are still getting an experience that is mind blowingly good and would have been the subject of our wildest dreams 20 years ago.

 

As far as I know the RWR is confirmed to be in use with the M2000C, while the ARMAT is not. That makes a huge difference IMHO. I would have no problem to ditch the non-french liveries though.

[Hook47]

As far as I know the RWR is confirmed to be in use with the M2000C, while the ARMAT is not. That makes a huge difference IMHO. I would have no problem to ditch the non-french liveries though.

 

Fair enough, although I think the ARMAT is in use with M2000Es but I haven't looked into it personally, but ask yourself this- How will the ARMAT being included harm (no pun intended) your experience, as a purists who never even needs or will be required to so much as strap it to the plane versus how will it impact people who may actually buy this aircraft simple because it is SEAD capable. Something to consider!

[spiddx]

IMO it harms the module's and the developer's credibility in the long run. Look at LNS and the MiG-21. Everytime a new guy asks about realistic modules someone jumps out and mentions this, this and this wrong with the MiG. I don't think this is very good publicity and doesn't help sales to the purist crowd.

[Hook47]

IMO it harms the module's and the developer's credibility in the long run. Look at LNS and the MiG-21. Everytime a new guy asks about realistic modules someone jumps out and mentions this, this and this wrong with the MiG. I don't think this is very good publicity and doesn't help sales to the purist crowd.

 

Mentions what? All I ever hear for the MiG is high praise, same for my friends some of which recently bought it based on how great of a module it is. It certainly ranks as one of the best. If you are talking about the Grom I've never heard or seen anyone either not buy or been told not to buy the MiG because it has the Grom lol, and I personally love the Grom and have had a lot of fun with it despite the couple of people I've seen on the forums complain about it (who don't even own the MiG IIRC).

 

Oh well, to each their own. I am just glad to hear Razbam is still considering it after they do the other weapons that I am also looking forward to using!

Edited January 11, 2016 by Hook47

[spiddx]

Just an example:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157590&page=3

#26 onwards...

 

And I'm obviously not talking about you when I mention the purist crowd. ;)

Edited January 11, 2016 by spiddx

[QuiGon]

Fair enough, although I think the ARMAT is in use with M2000Es but I haven't looked into it personally, but ask yourself this- How will the ARMAT being included harm (no pun intended) your experience, as a purists who never even needs or will be required to so much as strap it to the plane versus how will it impact people who may actually buy this aircraft simple because it is SEAD capable. Something to consider!

 

Well, it actually does affect me and it does in two ways:

 

- It affects me indirectly as a customer of DCS, a flight simulator with high reputation for beein as close to the real thing as possible. If we start to make exceptions to that by adding something, that is not really realistic just lowers the bar and leads to more and more stuff beeing incorporated that is not realistic. I hope you get what I'm trying to say. I'm afraid that if we make an exception to the realism, that it will become the new normal in the future and cause damage to the high reputation of DCS as a true flight sim.

I can understand your desperate wish for a SEAD-platform (I actually share that wish ;)), but giving aircraft the ability to do SEAD in the sim while they can't do that IRL isn't a solution. We will probably get the F/A-18 Hornet this year and then we will have a fast jet truly capable of doing SEAD. The M2000 serves other purposes.

 

- It also affects me directly: You said I don't have to use it if I don't want to. True, but as someone who is mostly playing MP I would be affected by other players using the ARMA to exploit the actual capabilities of the M2000C.

Edited January 11, 2016 by QuiGon

[baltic_dragon]

Well, it actually does affect me and it does in two ways:

 

- It affects me indirectly as a customer of DCS, a flight simulator with high reputation for beein as close to the real thing as possible. If we start to make exceptions to that by adding something, that is not really realistic just lowers the bar and leads to more and more stuff beeing incorporated that is not realistic. I hope you get what I'm trying to say. I'm afraid that if we make an exception to the realism, that it will become the new normal in the future and cause damage to the high reputation of DCS as a true flight sim.

I can understand your desperate wish for a SEAD-platform (I actually share that wish ;)), but giving aircraft the ability to do SEAD in the sim while they can't do that IRL isn't a solution. We will probably get the F/A-18 Hornet this year and then we will have a fast jet truly capable of doing SEAD. The M2000 serves other purposes.

 

- It also affects me directly: You said I don't have to use it if I don't want to. True, but as someone mostly playing MP I would be affected by other players using the ARMA to exploit the actual capabilities of the M2000C.

 

That. +1.

[TomCatMucDe]

Well, it actually does affect me and it does in two ways:

 

- It affects me indirectly as a customer of DCS, a flight simulator with high reputation for beein as close to the real thing as possible. If we start to make exceptions to that by adding something, that is not really realistic just lowers the bar and leads to more and more stuff beeing incorporated that is not realistic. I hope you get what I'm trying to say. I'm afraid that if we make an exception to the realism, that it will become the new normal in the future and cause damage to the high reputation of DCS as a true flight sim.

I can understand your desperate wish for a SEAD-platform (I actually share that wish ;)), but giving aircraft the ability to do SEAD in the sim while they can't do that IRL isn't a solution. We will probably get the F/A-18 Hornet this year and then we will have a fast jet truly capable of doing SEAD. The M2000 serves other purposes.

 

- It also affects me directly: You said I don't have to use it if I don't want to. True, but as someone mostly playing MP I would be affected by other players using the ARMA to exploit the actual capabilities of the M2000C.

 

Him wanting a SEAD aircrafts isn't a reason to make a non SEAD aircraft a SEAD aircraft. Best thing for him is to wait for the F18 or Tornado. I am glad that Razbam is sticking with realism and not following the wishes of some customers who dont care that much about realism.

 

The argument that if you don't want to use it, then dont, don't hold ground either. If a developper allows it, you can be sure that you will see it in MP. It would become a Digital Combat Fantasy in my taste.

Edited January 11, 2016 by TomCatMucDe

[chev255]

That. +1.

+2, fully agree :)

[shagrat]

So we need to incapacitate the 3rd Maverick rail in the A-10C, as it is not used in reality. (Damages the landing gear when launched).

We shouldn't be able to switch laser codes through DSMS on LGBs, right?

The issue is, can the ARMAT be used on the M-2000C or does it require a specific variant?

I don't care if it was never used on a Mirage 2000 C, as long as the Mirage is capable of using it.

If not, they shouldn't trick or tweak it in.

 

As for the MP aspect, it is up to the mission designer to limit the weapons available in a mission, or plan for a SEAD flight, or even how he implements Air defense systems/SAMs at all.

 

I'd rather have a choice on multiple SEAD capable aircraft, especially when the mission has heavy SAM cover implemented.

At the moment a "Georgian" SU-25T on the side of NATO/UN/U.S. is as realistic as a M-2000C with ARMAT, right?

 

In the end it boils down to a decision Razbam has to make, based on their models capabilities, options in DCS World and workload.

[TomCatMucDe]

So we need to incapacitate the 3rd Maverick rail in the A-10C, as it is not used in reality. (Damages the landing gear when launched).

I didn't know about this, but if it is the case then yes, a 3rd Maverick should be removed.

 

We shouldn't be able to switch laser codes through DSMS on LGBs, right?

This is a different story. Now you are talking about a limitation of DCS not allowing to simulate a ground crew setup in the armament interface. It is not only about the laser code but also all the weapon configuration.

In the end of the day, this particular thing doesnt harm the sim as it doesnt give you combat advantages you don't have in real. In fact, it would have been more comfortable to let the ground crew do it for you and you don't bother about it.

[QuiGon]

So we need to incapacitate the 3rd Maverick rail in the A-10C, as it is not used in reality. (Damages the landing gear when launched).

We shouldn't be able to switch laser codes through DSMS on LGBs, right?

The issue is, can the ARMAT be used on the M-2000C or does it require a specific variant?

I don't care if it was never used on a Mirage 2000 C, as long as the Mirage is capable of using it.

If not, they shouldn't trick or tweak it in.

 

As for the MP aspect, it is up to the mission designer to limit the weapons available in a mission, or plan for a SEAD flight, or even how he implements Air defense systems/SAMs at all.

 

I'd rather have a choice on multiple SEAD capable aircraft, especially when the mission has heavy SAM cover implemented.

At the moment a "Georgian" SU-25T on the side of NATO/UN/U.S. is as realistic as a M-2000C with ARMAT, right?

 

In the end it boils down to a decision Razbam has to make, based on their models capabilities, options in DCS World and workload.

 

I really don't want to get unrealistic features "tweaked in". That's not what DCS is about!

I'm sure we will get true SEAD-platforms in the future with the F/A-18 just marking the beginning. Until then we just have to be patient. Desperately tricking features into a DCS module that aren't even real just for the sake of it is no solution!

 

About your examples:

- The triple maverick launcher is a real thing. A Q&A-session with a real A-10 pilot just showed that again (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157896)

- Switching A-10C laser codes in the DSMS is not realistic? It's the first time I hear someone saying that. If that's true then yeah, I would say that feature should be removed.

- The C-Version of the M2000 is different to the export versions. But even if you don't care about that difference, I haven't seen a proof that the exports can use the ARMAT, not to mention the documentation on how it works.

- Participation of georgian Su-25s in NATO operations is not that unrealistic. Georgia is a member of NATOs Parthnership for Pace programme and participates in NATO excersises. Of course, it also depends on the specific operation, but since we're using a Black Sea map in DCS which covers entire Georgia it should really not be difficult to create a reasonable scenario with Georgia in it ;)

[nomdeplume]

- Switching A-10C laser codes in the DSMS is not realistic? It's the first time I hear someone saying that. If that's true then yeah, I would say that feature should be removed.

The code needs to be physically dialed into the bomb while on the ground, there's no way for the pilot to set it within the aircraft. The code is shown in the DSMS inventory page, though I think that's just displaying whatever was read from the data cartridge and not actually read from the bomb.

 

I think the Height Of Function of some of the CBUs is also selected on the ground and cannot be changed in-flight, but I'm not 100% sure.

 

Anyway, since DCS doesn't have any way to configure these types of settings prior to "entering the cockpit", and they're displayed in the DSMS inventory page anyway, they decided to just make the settings entered into the DSMS also apply to the munitions.

 

The Mirage provides a bit of a challenge here for Razbam, since not only is there no way to set the laser code for carried bombs (physically impossible), there also isn't any place where it's displayed that can be re-purposed.

 

I'm hopeful that ED will one day implement some means of setting these kinds of parameters pre-mission, however the ability to rearm within a mission adds a lot of complications to that. Could still be done though - maybe be able to click on each hardpoint and have any relevant additional options appear.

Edited January 11, 2016 by nomdeplume

[QuiGon]

The code needs to be physically dialed into the bomb while on the ground, there's no way for the pilot to set it within the aircraft. The code is shown in the DSMS inventory page, though I think that's just displaying whatever was read from the data cartridge and not actually read from the bomb.

 

I think the Height Of Function of some of the CBUs is also selected on the ground and cannot be changed in-flight, but I'm not 100% sure.

 

Anyway, since DCS doesn't have any way to configure these types of settings, and they're displayed in the DSMS inventory page anyway, they decided to just make the settings entered into the DSMS also apply to the munitions.

 

The Mirage provides a bit of a challenge here for Razbam, since not only is there no way to set the laser code for carried bombs (physically impossible), there also isn't any place where it's displayed that can be re-purposed.

 

Thanks, that's nice to know. In that case I would say the possibility to change the code in the DSMS should be removed and a standard code ( 1688 ) should be used until they implement a solution for the rearming window. Same thing with the M2000.

[TomCatMucDe]

Thanks, that's nice to know. In that case I would say the possibility to change the code in the DSMS should be removed and a standard code ( 1688 ) should be used until they implement a solution for the rearming window. Same thing with the M2000.

 

and what about the bomb configuration? that is also done by the ground crew.

Because of the current limitation of DCS it is fine to do that in DSMS. It really doesnt harm the experience neither gives you any combat advantage. In fact, it is only something boring to do, I would have been glad to let the ground crew do it.

 

This situtaion is really different from giving a SEAD role to an aircraft that doesnt SEAD. We compare 2 different things.

[nomdeplume]

Thanks, that's nice to know. In that case I would say the possibility to change the code in the DSMS should be removed and a standard code ( 1688 ) should be used until they implement a solution for the rearming window. Same thing with the M2000.

Well, I'd say the other way around - incorporate the functionality into the re-arm dialog and mission editor, and then remove the functionality from the DSMS.

 

If all bombs seek the same code, then it becomes impossible for multiple aircraft to use LGBs in the same area without risking guiding each other's weapons. This then becomes a significant deficiency when it comes to the combat capabilities in terms of simulation; the DSMS being able to configure settings it shouldn't be able to is a much smaller sin IMHO. (Even better: only allow the DSMS to change these settings when on the ground.)

 

Hopefully Razbam will be able to come up with a better solution than "all LGBs dropped by M2000C use seeker code XXXX", as that will create some limitations that shouldn't actually be there.

 

I'd much prefer slightly unrealistic implementations than actual functional limitations because the game UI doesn't provide a means to do something.

[QuiGon]

and what about the bomb configuration? that is also done by the ground crew.

Because of the current limitation of DCS it is fine to do that in DSMS. It really doesnt harm the experience neither gives you any combat advantage. In fact, it is only something boring to do, I would have been glad to let the ground crew do it.

 

This situtaion is really different from giving a SEAD role to an aircraft that doesnt SEAD. We compare 2 different things.

 

I'm not comparing them, because they are indeed two very different things ;)

 

Well, I'd say the other way around - incorporate the functionality into the re-arm dialog and mission editor, and then remove the functionality from the DSMS.

 

If all bombs seek the same code, then it becomes impossible for multiple aircraft to use LGBs in the same area without risking guiding each other's weapons. This then becomes a significant deficiency when it comes to the combat capabilities in terms of simulation; the DSMS being able to configure settings it shouldn't be able to is a much smaller sin IMHO. (Even better: only allow the DSMS to change these settings when on the ground.)

 

Hopefully Razbam will be able to come up with a better solution than "all LGBs dropped by M2000C use seeker code XXXX", as that will create some limitations that shouldn't actually be there.

 

I'd much prefer slightly unrealistic implementations than actual functional limitations because the game UI doesn't provide a means to do something.

 

Is it really that much of a problem? Two bombs need to be dropped pretty close to each other to be confused by a wrong laser. I've never experienced that problem, not even when working a target area on the 104th together with several other A-10Cs.

I can understand your point logic-wise though. I really hope they come up with a ground crew solution for these problems (laser code on A-10C and M2000, bomb/fuze settings and maybe even trimming for WW2 aircraft). Is ED even working on such advanced ground crew options?

[Tirak]

I didn't know about this, but if it is the case then yes, a 3rd Maverick should be removed.

 

Honestly this just does my head in. The plane has the ability to do it, it can carry the weapon and in a war gone hot scenario it would, but they never used it operationally because it reduced the lifespan of some of the parts of the aircraft. And because we haven't had a real air war so maintenance concerns outweigh firepower concerns, people like you come along and whine about totally realistic capabilities on aircraft being used. By your logic, the Tomcat shouldn't be capable of equipping 6 Phoenix's because it was never done operationally. :chair:

[QuiGon]

Honestly this just does my head in. The plane has the ability to do it, it can carry the weapon and in a war gone hot scenario it would, but they never used it operationally because it reduced the lifespan of some of the parts of the aircraft. And because we haven't had a real air war so maintenance concerns outweigh firepower concerns, people like you come along and whine about totally realistic capabilities on aircraft being used. By your logic, the Tomcat shouldn't be capable of equipping 6 Phoenix's because it was never done operationally. :chair:

They actually did carry 6 Phoenix's on the Tomcat regulary onboard the USS Enterprise in the mid-80s when she was commanded by Captain Robert L. Leuschner who was nicknamed Crazy Bob because of stuff like that :D

 

And as far as I know it is quite similar with the triple maverick launchers which have been used during the cold war and are still ready for use today.

See (or rather listen) here for example: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2637329&postcount=70

Edited January 11, 2016 by QuiGon

[TomCatMucDe]

Honestly this just does my head in. The plane has the ability to do it, it can carry the weapon and in a war gone hot scenario it would, but they never used it operationally because it reduced the lifespan of some of the parts of the aircraft. And because we haven't had a real air war so maintenance concerns outweigh firepower concerns, people like you come along and whine about totally realistic capabilities on aircraft being used. By your logic, the Tomcat shouldn't be capable of equipping 6 Phoenix's because it was never done operationally. :chair:

 

Apparently, you read read what you quoted in my post. It was only one line though.

 

I said that I didn't know the information Shargat wrote. I don't know how correct it is, but I said if this claime is true and the A10C doesnt allow a 3rd Maverick then it should be taken out, if it allows then leave it.

 

This claim was not mine so it is not "my" logic.

[shagrat]

Apparently, you read read what you quoted in my post. It was only one line though.

 

I said that I didn't know the information Shargat wrote. I don't know how correct it is, but I said if this claime is true and the A10C doesnt allow a 3rd Maverick then it should be taken out, if it allows then leave it.

 

This claim was not mine so it is not "my" logic.

The point is: it "allows" to mount the third Maverick! But(!) If you fire it, it will damage the landing gear/burn the tire, thus you cannot land the plane undamaged! So realistically you should never load the inner Maverick, ever!

 

Luckily the damage isn't modeled. ;)

 

The point is, if the Mirage can realistically load and fire the ARMAT, I'm all for it.

If it can't, because the necessary systems are not part if this model, then leave it out, rather than make up something stupid...

 

The GBU laser code in the A-10C is acceptable, as you need to change the code somehow and a fixed code in Mission design, was not possible as far as I understood.