Jump to content

Heatblur A-6 Intruder


Recommended Posts

Anyone interested in using the CorsairCat's A-6 Intruder Mod mentioned above as as interim until the Heat Blur model is released, my find this usefull.

 

To enable spawning and placing as a static object with the wings folded, make the following edit.

 

Open the file "...Saved Games\DCS\Mods\tech\DCS-A-6E-Intruder-main\A-6E.lua"

Edit line 176. Change from:

" wing_type= 0,"       to      "wing_type= FOLDED_WING,"

 

I hope that helps.

 

 


Edited by norman99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2021 at 7:15 PM, BBCRF said:

А добавили уже или нет?

No, the pictures above are from an unfinished MOD for DCS and from a different game. The HB A-6 is not released for DCS.

 

Google translation:

Нет, изображения выше взяты из незаконченного МОДа для DCS и из другой игры. HB A-6 не выпускается для DCS.

Modules: KA-50, A-10C, FC3, UH-1H, MI-8MTV2, CA, MIG-21bis, FW-190D9, Bf-109K4, F-86F, MIG-15bis, M-2000C, SA342 Gazelle, AJS-37 Viggen, F/A-18C, F-14, C-101, FW-190A8, F-16C, F-5E, JF-17, SC, Mi-24P Hind, AH-64D Apache, Mirage F1

System: Win 11 Pro 64bit, Ryzen 3800X, 32gb RAM DDR4-3200, PowerColor Radeon RX 6900XT Red Devil ,1 x Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe, 2 x Samsung SSD 2TB + 1TB SATA, MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals - VIRPIL T-50CM and VIRPIL MongoosT-50 Throttle - HP Reverg G2, using only the latest Open Beta, DCS settings

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, unknown said:
On 3/24/2021 at 9:15 PM, BBCRF said:

 

No, the pictures above are from an unfinished MOD for DCS and from a different game. The HB A-6 is not released for DCS.

Thanks

I7-8700K 4,7Ghz, MSI MPG Z390 Gaming EDGE AC , 32 Gb Ram DDR4 Hyper X, RTX 2080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, norman99 said:

Anyone interested in using the CorsairCat's A-6 Intruder Mod mentioned above as as interim until the Heat Blur model is released, my find this usefull.

 

To enable spawning and placing as a static object with the wings folded, make the following edit.

 

Open the file "...Saved Games\DCS\Mods\tech\DCS-A-6E-Intruder-main\A-6E.lua"

Edit line 176. Change from:

" wing_type= 0,"       to      "wing_type= FOLDED_WING,"

 

I hope that helps.

 

 

 

Oh thank you I have been trying to find the lua and code to make it do that for weeks, do you know what code and lua I would need to allow Players to fold wings via a keybind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@aviation360Sorry, I only use it for AI/statics so I can't help.

 

I have however added some additional munitions to better match their 90s capabilities (lack of a TRAM system not withstanding). So far I have added GBU10s/12s, HARMs and Harpoons. I also changed the inner pylons to carry 6xMk82s like the outer pylons, allowing up to 30 in total!  Walleyes and Mavericks still to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2021 at 7:24 PM, Tomcatter87 said:

Also, I need some help with creating a description.lua, so that users can change liveries in DCS. Because until now, the mod only has a "texture" folder and I have to replace the files each time I want to have a different Intruder in a mission. Anyone who could help me with that?

 

 

 

 

 

Awesome liveries, I’d love to check them out.

 

To help with a better installation, within the A-6E mod folder create a “liveries ” folder and an “A-6E” subfolder so it looks like this:

“A-6E main mod folder\Liveries\A-6E\...”

Then simply add each additional livery as a separate folder in the “Liveries\A-6E\” location. They should all be visible and selectable in game now. No lua file editing required, as the livery folder reference is actually already included in the entry.lua.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, norman99 said:

Awesome liveries, I’d love to check them out.

 

To help with a better installation, within the A-6E mod folder create a “liveries ” folder and an “A-6E” subfolder so it looks like this:

“A-6E main mod folder\Liveries\A-6E\...”

Then simply add each additional livery as a separate folder in the “Liveries\A-6E\” location. They should all be visible and selectable in game now. No lua file editing required, as the livery folder reference is actually already included in the entry.lua.

I already tried that way - somehow didnt work. But I found out that you can use the model viewer to create a despription.lua that works - not perfectly, though. It has been brought to me that somehow the throttle texture seems to be missing in my liveries. Didnt have the time to fix it yet.

 

Oh, and you can find the liveries here:

 


Edited by Tomcatter87

Modules: F-14A/B | M-2000C | AJS-37 | Mi-24P F/A-18C | A-10C II | F-16C | UH-1H | F-5E | Mi-8 | FC 3 | AV-8B | A-4E | Gazelle | Ka-50 | Yak-52 | CE2

Maps: Syria | Marianas | NTTR | Persian Gulf | Caucasus

Setup: Virpil WarBRD Base & VFX TM Warthog | Arozzi Velocita Stand | Monstertech Mount | MFG Crosswind | Cougar MFDs | VRInsight Panel | JetSeat 908 | TrackIR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I admit that this is the module I am most looking forward to. Mostly because I recently watched "Flight of the Intruder" though, I admit I'm better at strike flying than fighter flying, so this is going to be great, I think, if the HB 14 is anything to go off of. 

I also hope that we get things like the MK-83 Snake eye bombs. If only to make "SAM CITY" videos from flight of the Intruder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

something that crossed my mind

 

Would it be possible for the A-6 to get its nuclear weapons? (B43 or B61)

third party devs can add them (as seen with the Mig-21) and the A-6 would give NATO their nuclear capability as counterpart to the Mig-21

 

 

 

even a basic A-6 would have all controls to deliver nukes in any setting

 

grafik.png

 

and your ballistic control panel can be programmed with airburst in mind:

grafik.png

 

 

 

here the nuclear controls in the weapon system diagram:

grafik.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

something that crossed my mind

 

Would it be possible for the A-6 to get its nuclear weapons? (B43 or B61)

 

 

I really hope that they not add those .. nukes are disgusting, even in simulated form.

  • Like 2

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

I really hope that they not add those .. nukes are disgusting, even in simulated form.

what about all the Cluster bombs in DCS?

WP rockets?

the planned Napalm for the F-18?

 

all weapons that are frowned upon today, but we use them all the time to blow eachother up in a pixel world.

Nukes are a big part of the cold war and would fit perfectly to the A-6, a cold war attack aircraft build for nuclear delivery, specially when you do "cold war gone hot" missions.

 

the Mig-21 already has 2 nuclear bombs in DCS with the RN-24 (10KT) and the RN-28 (1KT), giving one to the A-6 (B61 would fit best in 2 settings to mirror the russian ones) would just give NATO a option as well.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

... Nukes are a big part of the cold war and would fit perfectly to the A-6 ..

 

I wouldnt miss them, after all the A-6 never actually dropped one of those weapons in action.

  • Like 2

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

I wouldnt miss them, after all the A-6 never actually dropped one of those weapons in action.

same with Mig-21, and many other nuclear capable aircraft

 

you propably also would not apply "but it never used it in anger, so it should not have" argument with other weapons, right?

because it is not a strong argument that would just artificially limit aircraft to weapons they actually fired in anger.

 

A-6 did carry nukes, not only that but the crews also all went through nuke school until about the mid 90s.

A-6 crews after Nuke Cert:

1556018352608-asdvvvvvv.jpg?quality=60

 

Nukes where also present on US CVNs while on deployment in Desert storm:

A-4 Skyhawks Had These Crazy Thermal Shields To Protect Pilots From Nuclear  Blasts

 

 

 

 

 

 

small tactical nukes (sub 10KT) would open up alot of options in tactics and missions you can fly and create
its not just "bomb the city", it would be more like: "stop this russian tank formation pushing through fulda" or "take out this airbase"

 

tactical nukes would be used on the battlefield, rarely ever to destroy cities, because thats the job of strategic weapons in the megaton area.

and because we do have Cold war gone hot as scenarios, nukes most definately would be one of the main weapons used, more so than other weapons like cluster bombs.


Edited by Iron_physik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't want to debate this .. I will just hope that Heatblur will not simulate this type of weapon.

  • Like 5

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rudel_chw said:

I really don't want to debate this .. I will just hope that Heatblur will not simulate this type of weapon.

and why not?

 

so far you only stated that you dont want it, without any good reasoning behind it

 

ethically they are fine, considering we got cluster bombs, White phosporous and soon Napalm

and also because we only shoot pixels

 

other flight sims have them as well, and there they are a nice option to play around with for different missions such as a long range low level deep strike on a airfield to then Loft a nuke at it and try to escape the blast, its a kind of rush you wont experience with other weapons and its great fun to do in IL-2 1946 with Mods, I wish we had something like that in DCS as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I (and others) were of the impression that if you use Nukes, YOU have lost.

The negatives are just too great.

 

RW? You can lose land that will become uninhabitable for X amount of years, the fallout will create problems far and wide, you have lit the touch paper for any and all belligerents to go full retard and make the world glow.

 

Sim? You can lob your weapon of mass annoyance on an MP server and gain a whole load of new people who, once back in the air, will be specifically looking for you, and maybe you will have lit the touch paper for any and all who wish to drop Nukes all over the place and turn the map into a sim impression of a popcorn maker.

 

Offline single player? It’s your world if you wish to make it burn. 

  • Like 1

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

RW? You can lose land that will become uninhabitable for X amount of years, the fallout will create problems far and wide, you have lit the touch paper for any and all belligerents to go full retard and make the world glow.

Fallout only happens on ground detonations, or detonations very close to the ground

both of which are highly ineffective when you want to have a strong blast wave for maximum destruction

 

lets say we use a 10KT bomb and drop it on batumi airfield:

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=10&lat=41.6099878&lng=41.5997744&hob_psi=20&hob_ft=1286&crater=1&fallout=1&fallout_wind=12&ff=50&fallout_angle=230&psi=20,5,1&cloud=1&zm=12

 

optimized for a 20PSI overpressure (At 20 psi overpressure, heavily built concrete buildings are severely damaged or demolished; fatalities approach 100%.)

you wont get any Fallout (burst height needs to be about 200m lower)

 

17 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

Sim? You can lob your weapon of mass annoyance on an MP server and gain a whole load of new people who, once back in the air, will be specifically looking for you, and maybe you will have lit the touch paper for any and all who wish to drop Nukes all over the place and turn the map into a sim impression of a popcorn maker.

 

lets again take our 10KT example

 

Airplanes only really take major damage at a 5PSI shockwave, which for 10KT is only 1,36km radius

the nuke of the Mig-21 is greatly extravagated with its 30km kill radius for 10KT

 

even if we make planes gest destroyed by a 1PSI overpressure that still is only 3.62km away from the bomb

so all you need to tell people is to clear the city of batumi, or fly above 6km (20kft) alt.

grafik.png

 

 

 

and yes, even when you use the maximum 340KT of a B61 bomb you wont get any of the effects against planes the Mig-21 bomb does:

grafik.png

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=340&lat=41.6099878&lng=41.5997744&hob_psi=20&hob_ft=4167&crater=1&fallout=1&fallout_wind=12&ff=50&fallout_angle=230&psi=20,5,1&cloud=1&zm=12

 

 

People greatly overestimate the destruction capabilities of nuclear bombs.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . . It’s your playground fella, do it how you see fit.

 

When serving, we were from the ‘use the smallest amount of bang for the same desired effect’ mentality.

You really don’t need to go Nuclear.

  • Like 3

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mig-21 may have nukes, but a) they are not simulated well in DCS anyway, b) they are more of a joke and more importantly c) ED have said they won't allow any more modules to include anything like it again. So yeah, the discussion is kind of pointless. It's not happening.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TLTeo said:

ED have said they won't allow any more modules to include anything like it again.

not true, ED said that they dont plan develop it themself

third party devs are not ED, so when a third party make a nuke its likely to be added (as seen with the Mig-21)

 

here the official statement I found from a older thread:

grafik.png

 

ED has no plans of making nukes themself.

 

7 hours ago, TLTeo said:

b) they are more of a joke

and?

lets be serious about nukes

 

proper implementation may actually be a good thing, because it opens a very large set of possible missions for "cold war gone hot" and maybe "war with china escalates"

it also adds stakes to intercept missions

 

right now its: oh no this bomber with some small bombs may get through

with nukes you actually have to worry about something, and for the person flying the aircraft: you need to do more pre planning for the attack, a nuclear bomb is not just your typical MK.82, it needs to be set to the proper burst alt, you need to decide if you want to use a parachute or not and you need to decide on attack patterns more than you do with conventional bombs.

nukes require a very different skillset compared to conventional bombs

https://vimeo.com/341822377

 

 

 

also there is very little games where you personally can control nuclear bombs and use the power of them

I thought people like blowing virtual things up, so why not use the biggest bombs imaginable? large bombs are fun to use

the best kind of kill is overkill.

 

there is some kind of enjoyment in droping large bombs on small targets in DCS, like using a GBU-10 on a single guy with an AK, why not go bigger and turn our Pixel people into dust?

 

as someone who just likes messing around with the mission editor nukes would be a great tool, not only for cool visuals, but also as basis for great missions (lonely and brave)

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MiG-21's RN-24 and RN-28 are just a buggy mess. They aren't in anyway accurate simulations of a nuclear weapon and that'd probably either require a platform update or a third party developing that infrastructure themselves.

 

It's within HeatBlur's skillset, but I'd rather them work on other systems long before giving us a weapon whose only real impact on the game will be forcing mission makers and server owners to go in and restrict one more weapon at all usable airfields and carriers in a mission.

 

Also, Cold War gone hot usually implies a conventional war in most circles that discuss the topic. Otherwise, it's just a real fast route to literal armageddon.


Edited by MiG21bisFishbedL
  • Like 2

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

... also there is very little games where you personally can control nuclear bombs and use the power of them

 

Maybe there is a reason behind that fact 🤔

  • Like 3

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

not true, ED said that they dont plan develop it themself

third party devs are not ED, so when a third party make a nuke its likely to be added (as seen with the Mig-21)

 

here the official statement I found from a older thread:

grafik.png

 

ED has no plans of making nukes themself.

 

and?

lets be serious about nukes

 

proper implementation may actually be a good thing, because it opens a very large set of possible missions for "cold war gone hot" and maybe "war with china escalates"

it also adds stakes to intercept missions

 

right now its: oh no this bomber with some small bombs may get through

with nukes you actually have to worry about something, and for the person flying the aircraft: you need to do more pre planning for the attack, a nuclear bomb is not just your typical MK.82, it needs to be set to the proper burst alt, you need to decide if you want to use a parachute or not and you need to decide on attack patterns more than you do with conventional bombs.

nukes require a very different skillset compared to conventional bombs

https://vimeo.com/341822377

 

 

 

also there is very little games where you personally can control nuclear bombs and use the power of them

I thought people like blowing virtual things up, so why not use the biggest bombs imaginable? large bombs are fun to use

the best kind of kill is overkill.

 

there is some kind of enjoyment in droping large bombs on small targets in DCS, like using a GBU-10 on a single guy with an AK, why not go bigger and turn our Pixel people into dust?

 

as someone who just likes messing around with the mission editor nukes would be a great tool, not only for cool visuals, but also as basis for great missions (lonely and brave)

 

 

 

 

 

You can already pretend in single player.  Just load up any big iron bomb and pretend away. In multi player it will just bring the critters out of their holes and there would be daily armageddon. 
If you want to simulate a real “cold war gone nuke” exchange, just flip the power button off.  
show all the maps and drawings you like but miserable idea....

  • Like 1

I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.

Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People tend to overestimate the damage nukes can do. Sure, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no picnic, but people live there today. The fallout is dangerous, but highly radioactive components are short-lived, and long-lived components aren't highly radioactive (and even then, most modern nukes would airburst). A tactical nuke is little more than a huge HE shell that leaves some radiation behind. The unitary, multi-megaton "city buster" warheads of old are the weapons of apocalypse people think of when they think "nukes", but they aren't even that common anymore. Smaller, more precise, more numerous MIRV warheads are the name of the game.

 

The biggest problem would be, I suspect, the actual functionality of that nuclear panel being classified. These things tend to be kept under wraps. Just like the MFD pages on Hornet and Viper, in theory they can carry nukes, in practice we don't know how the interface (particularly the PAL) looks like. The MiG-21's nuke box is not based on any real hardware. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

For me the issue with nukes is that while I understand the notion of a MAD strategy, the fact is the use of nuke weapons is instant genocide, even using the smallest tac nuke. In a European scenario, such as the use of a tac nuke on a Soviet armored column, you are guaranteed to have civilians killed and maimed, because there's just so many small towns all close together. When I lived there, you couldn't be on the B-roads for more than 2 minutes before you had to slow down for another town. In northern Canada it would be the opposite, we might not even notice or discover a tac nuke detonation from a very remote location, we'd probably need NASA or NRO to inform us it happened. But most places that commanders might employ a tac nuke, tend to have high population density.

 

Military oriented people tend to dismiss the nuke weapon by looking at radius and pressure, and how ten years later radioactivity is low. What they fail to consider is just how much the flash blinds people from being able to save themselves, how much fallout poisons people long after and at significant distance away from the original blast. And that's only considering a single detonation, which in military scenarios would often see lots of nukes being used.

 

One reason given for not wanting to use them in the first place, is that apparently in exercises, once a commander has decided to employ a tac nuke, it tends to open the floodgate and next thing you know small nukes are being lobbed here and there, everywhere. It's not a surprise to me that the people of Germany are so concerned about nuclear weaponry, especially duing the Cold War.  Canada's F-104 fighter jets were in Germany for much of the Cold War, and many of them were tasked not as fighters, but as nuclear bombers: if the balloon goes up, they scramble into the air, and head straight for an enemy military airfield in what used to be Czechoslovakia. Thing is, Red Air and the Soviets would be doing the same to us. And although the town was not the target... it would have been devastated just by being next door to the blast. Thing is, with the old manual navigation, and the use of bomb toss, it's quite likely a moderate miss could drop the weapon ONTO the town unintentionally, killing them all. 

 

I'm not personally opposed to nukes in sims, but I also don't see much point in them either... it's not like they require a lot of accuracy in pilot skill. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...