DCS: F-16CM Block 50 by EDSA Discussion Thread

[Fjordmonkey]

Ok, so now we will get CM version (which means CJ+CCIP upgrade) ?

 

That's what ED has said, yep. But remember: CM from around 2007, so it's not directly comparable to a Block 50 CM from today.

[DeathAngel1]

That's what ED has said, yep. But remember: CM from around 2007, so it's not directly comparable to a Block 50 CM from today.

 

Woow that will be great...we will have a modern multirole aircraft which is in active service.

[SouthernCross]

Woow that will be great...we will have a modern multirole aircraft which is in active service.

 

Isn't hornet still in service for marines?

[DeathAngel1]

Isn't hornet still in service for marines?

 

Yes, its my favourite aircraft and it is still in active service in USMC. And it will be used by Marines till 2030.

But Navy has retired Hornet in 2018. Last Navy Hornet squadron was VFA-34, which was decommissioned in 2018.

[Fjordmonkey]

Either way, the Charliebug we have in DCS is about as far away from an operational Charliebug in real life as the CM-Viper we're getting in DCS will be from the operational, real life Vipers.

[DeathAngel1]

Either way, the Charliebug we have in DCS is about as far away from an operational Charliebug in real life as the CM-Viper we're getting in DCS will be from the operational, real life Vipers.

 

 

Uhmmm, I don't think so.

DCS modules (especially Hornet) are the most accurate aircraft sims that you can find. There was few real Hornet pilots in this forum, and they said that Hornet's FM and systems are very well modeled.

Of course, for evident reasons there are no way for ED to make it absolutely 1:1 like real-life aircrafts.

Edited April 24, 2019 by DeathAngel1

[Fjordmonkey]

Uhmmm, I don't think so.

DCS modules (especially Hornet) are the most accurate aircraft sims that you can find. There was few real Hornet pilots in this forum, and they said that Hornet's FM and systems are very accurate modeled.

Of course for evident reasons there are no way for ED to make it absolutely 1:1 like real-life aircrafts.

 

They are accurate, yes, for the Block and for the year that they depict, and through what's possible within the DCS famework, which is usually quite a ways away from what's currently flown in the real world.

 

The F16CM Block 50 we're getting in DCS is NOT the same as the currently-flying F16CM Block 50, and doesn't have the same capabilities of their current-day, real-world cousins.

 

Just like the F/A-18C Lot 20's we've got in DCS isn't the same or has the same capabilities as the modern-day Charlies.

[Wizard_03]

They are accurate, yes, for the Block and for the year that they depict, and through what's possible within the DCS famework, which is usually quite a ways away from what's currently flown in the real world.

 

The F16CM Block 50 we're getting in DCS is NOT the same as the currently-flying F16CM Block 50, and doesn't have the same capabilities of their current-day, real-world cousins.

 

Just like the F/A-18C Lot 20's we've got in DCS isn't the same or has the same capabilities as the modern-day Charlies.

 

It’s pretty close though, as far as the hornet goes, it’s not really that different. Missing EGI and a few software updates that mostly have to do with navigation, and a couple weapons. But as far as usage, it’s very representative of what a current hornet drivers experience is.

 

However, the viper is constantly getting updated so it’s probably more like you said accurate for that time period. That being said, it will no doubt be as close as you can get without flying it.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Wizard_03

[mvsgas]

DeathAngel and Wizard 03,

What ShadowXP is trying to say (Don't mean to speak for you, please correct me if I am wrong) is that they are a multitude of differences from the Current (2019 ) USAF F-16C block 50 with CCIP ( commonly refer as F-16CM) and the circa 2007 F-16C block 50 ED announce.

 

For example:

- Operational Flight Program (OFP), is different. Currently they might be using M6.5+ or M7.1+. We might get M3.4+, M4.2+, or M4.3+ in DCS ( no sure which one was use circa 2007).

- Cockpit panels are in different locations. After CCIP, some cockpit panels where move. They where move again in 2009 and again in 2012 for different equipment.

- Equipment and panels where changed.

-- One of those is the Combat Edge Vest that was used around 2010 to 2012. If you look for video of the time, you can see it but the USAF stop using it (Again, not sure why)

-- Avionics power panel: There are different versions, the current version has EGI instead of INS.

-- Flight control computers and software was change (new ones introduce "Auto-GCAS" among other things)

-- OBOGS was introduce around 2010 IIRC

-- Both got JHMCS, but different versions. Symbology is different, the way it connects to the aircraft etc. Not to be confuse with Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) which is a different thing.

-- Pods have different software and capabilities (HTS, Sniper) all of these have their own software internally and provide different capabilities.

-- ARC-210 was introduce (not sure the year) so radios are different. Later, Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) communication where added (circa 2011).

- With different OFP, different weapons where introduce: GBU-54, GBU-39. I doubt we will gate these since they where introduce circa 2010 and 2014 respectively IIRC.

 

The list goes on and on.

 

And all these are ongoing. So a USAF Squadron might start to update/upgrade their aircraft, but they are not going to stop operation because of it. So they might update the aircraft one a time or the might update them all at once ( very unlikely). The completion of some updates might take months if not years. That is one of many reasons you might have squadron with varied capabilities.

Edited April 24, 2019 by mvsgas
spelling

[Wizard_03]

I understand that, I was speaking for the hornet. Most of the differences between the one we have and a current 2019 legacy bug are not that noticeable from a pilots perspective. They are different for sure but most people flying it wouldn’t know or care. The hornet we have is pretty definitive, details aside. At least in terms of navy usage.

 

The F-16 is a different story because it’s constantly being changed and modified. And you Shadow are right 07 viper is gonna be noticeably different from a 19 bird. The legacy hornet didn’t get the same treatment from the navy though. With lightning on the horizon They were not about to spend a whole lot of money updating old Cs and Ds

Edited April 24, 2019 by Wizard_03

[Pilotasso]

the US navy already ditched their C and D's. All the embarked examples are from the marines when they go embarked. Everything else is superbug right now.

[Gierasimov]

Well...

 

They are accurate, yes, for the Block and for the year that they depict, and through what's possible within the DCS famework, which is usually quite a ways away from what's currently flown in the real world.

 

The F16CM Block 50 we're getting in DCS is NOT the same as the currently-flying F16CM Block 50, and doesn't have the same capabilities of their current-day, real-world cousins.

 

Just like the F/A-18C Lot 20's we've got in DCS isn't the same or has the same capabilities as the modern-day Charlies.

 

..it's a simulator game and not real life simulator or real jet after all. As long as it is an enjoyable experience and authentic feel like Hornet or Warthog I will join the satisfied crowd.

[Fjordmonkey]

..it's a simulator game and not real life simulator or real jet after all. As long as it is an enjoyable experience and authentic feel like Hornet or Warthog I will join the satisfied crowd.

 

You completely missed the point of my post.

 

The problem is that people see F16CM Block 50, and then start bitching about wrong performace figures, missing systems and missing weapons because they compare the ingame jet to what exists in the real world and current, real-world capabilities.

 

THAT is the problem. Not whether or not it's an enjoyable esperience and has an authentic feel.

[Boris]

I really don't get the people who always want the latest and greatest in DCS. I quite like the fact that we have older aircraft with older systems and certain limitations. It's part of the charm.

 

I'd be completely happy for them to make an even older model F-16.

 

I kinda wish they had coordinated all the aircraft versions they have in DCS to fit maybe a late 80s / early 90s timeframe for consistency across scenarios. But of course I understand that it's all down to the information available.

[Gierasimov]

Thanks!

 

You completely missed the point of my post.

 

The problem is that people see F16CM Block 50, and then start bitching about wrong performace figures, missing systems and missing weapons because they compare the ingame jet to what exists in the real world and current, real-world capabilities.

 

THAT is the problem. Not whether or not it's an enjoyable esperience and has an authentic feel.

 

Cool, understood.

[probad]

theres a certain type of audience that has that distinct saudi prince car dealership syndrome

 

they're not there to buy a car, they're there to tick all the checkboxes

[Tomsk]

I kinda wish they had coordinated all the aircraft versions they have in DCS to fit maybe a late 80s / early 90s timeframe for consistency across scenarios. But of course I understand that it's all down to the information available.

 

Personally I'm pretty happy to be getting a fairly modern F-16, it seems a good balance to the fairly modern Hornet.

 

That said I also enjoy simulating slightly older era scenarios, the nice thing about a fairly modern jet is you can simulate an older era jet fairly well by just not using stuff. So our squadron often likes to do 80s scenarios by restricting weapons and systems that were not available then. You can also simulate more modern scenarios by using all the tools available. I think when the F-16 comes out in its early access form, it's quite likely we'll do a lot of Fox-2 only scenarios simulating various Middle Eastern engagements.

 

With that said, I also have sympathy with the view that DCS spreads itself a bit too thin.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Tomsk

[EcceHomo]

I have a question about when the U.S. Air Force will upgrade its APG-68V9.

[RaceFuel85]

I have a question about when the U.S. Air Force will upgrade its APG-68V9.

 

The USAF is currently in process of buying the APG-83 for approximately 70 Air National Guard F-16's. It's entirely possible that the active duty will get the radars as well, however the priority is to get the Guard refit as the thought process is that the ANG will be the primary operator of the F-16 in the coming years as the F-35 comes online.

 

Specific timeframes and what airframes get refit..that'll be falling under an OPSEC blanket.

[Fjordmonkey]

I have a question about when the U.S. Air Force will upgrade its APG-68V9.

 

Don't expect an answer to that coming anytime soon. Upgrades like that are often classified long after they're rolled out, and talking about them is to invite a smacking from the forum-admins due to Rule 1.16. Not to mention the amount of trouble anyone in The Know™ might end up in for talking about it.

 

There's still things on the Norwegian Vipers I'm not allowed to talk about, even though my info is 19 years old this year.

[Kev2go]

Don't expect an answer to that coming anytime soon. Upgrades like that are often classified long after they're rolled out, and talking about them is to invite a smacking from the forum-admins due to Rule 1.16. Not to mention the amount of trouble anyone in The Know™ might end up in for talking about it.

 

There's still things on the Norwegian Vipers I'm not allowed to talk about, even though my info is 19 years old this year.

 

1.16 basically applies to not posting documentation like manuals post 1980.

 

it does not prohibit "discussion or asking questions" about aircraft, based on general public information. Because by your very flawed logic then this thread should not exist or have been allowed community participation

 

The USAF is currently in process of buying the APG-83 for approximately 70 Air National Guard F-16's. It's entirely possible that the active duty will get the radars as well, however the priority is to get the Guard refit as the thought process is that the ANG will be the primary operator of the F-16 in the coming years as the F-35 comes online.

 

Specific timeframes and what airframes get refit..that'll be falling under an OPSEC blanket.

 

 

This user answered the other users question based on public available info without a cop out.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Kev2go

[Fjordmonkey]

1.16 basically applies to not posting documentation like manuals post 1980.

 

it does not prohibit "talking" about aircraft features. \

 

1.16 applies to ALL information about or pertaining to an airframe or its systems that may be classified. And even if it didn't, Norwegian law and the agreement I had to sign DOES prohibit me talking about certain aircraft features on the RNorAF Vipers, even after me being out of the service for 19 years.

 

Just like it is for anyone that has or currently are serving on military aircraft. There's things we're not allowed to talk about, that we can be prosecuted for and that quite happily will harm ED or third-party devs' possibilities of getting the license needed for the module.

 

You might think that my post is a cop-out. That's all on you. I know the oaths I've taken, and I hold myself to them.

[Majinbot]

F-16C training video with cockpit Functionality

 

[Kev2go]

1.16 applies to ALL information about or pertaining to an airframe or its systems that may be classified. And even if it didn't, Norwegian law and the agreement I had to sign DOES prohibit me talking about certain aircraft features on the RNorAF Vipers, even after me being out of the service for 19 years.

 

Just like it is for anyone that has or currently are serving on military aircraft. There's things we're not allowed to talk about, that we can be prosecuted for and that quite happily will harm ED or third-party devs' possibilities of getting the license needed for the module.

 

You might think that my post is a cop-out. That's all on you. I know the oaths I've taken, and I hold myself to them.

 

That isnt stated directly. it would at best be your interpretation:

 

"1.16 Posting images, file links, and file sharing links of military aircraft documents newer than 1980 is strictly prohibited on our forums. Such posts will be removed."

 

Answering said question would not ( and did not) break that rule. Besides the question in mind had nothing to do with sort of Norwegian F16's you worked on.

 

See how the question was answered without any drama by another user( FyI it information dervived in various open source defense articles) Let the moderators make thier own decisions on what violates rules or not instead of attempting to stonewall discussions before they even begin.

Edited May 5, 2019 by Kev2go

[mvsgas]

Yeah no... I understand what your saying

I send you a PM. Talking about other sims here wont tell us anything useful about DCS F-16.

Edited May 8, 2019 by mvsgas