[NO] GBU-39 “Small Diameter Bomb”?

[Wizard_03]

I’m saying we’ll have to throw them out the window to give you guys what you want

[Tippis]

I’m saying we’ll have to throw them out the window to give you guys what you want

How do you figure that? Do you even know what “we” want?

[Wizard_03]

Because the documentation doesn’t permit the loadouts your describing

[Tippis]

Because the documentation doesn’t permit the loadouts your describing

Oook… so why would you need to throw the documentation out? And how do you still manage to confuse permission with ability? And remember, you're the one arguing that unrealistic loadouts should be allowed in this case.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Tippis

[Wizard_03]

Oook… so why would you need to throw the documentation out? And how do you still manage to confuse permission with ability? And remember, you're the one arguing that unrealistic loadouts should be allowed in this case.

 

So ED should model weapon configurations that weren’t permitted for the specific aircraft their modeling. Feels like we’re in a logic loop

[Tippis]

So ED should model weapon configurations that weren’t permitted for the specific aircraft their modeling.

If the aircraft has the capability to carry them, then of course, otherwise it's not actually simulating the aircraft correctly. And isn't that what they're striving for, after all: ultra realism?

 

If you prefer dumbed-down systems that don't work like the real thing, then maybe simulators like DCS aren't for you, and that's fine, but don't use realism as an argument to promote unrealistic feature sets for the aircraft. There are other games that cater just fine to such desires.

[Wizard_03]

So how come they don’t model python or CFTs too? The aircraft can carry them...

[Tippis]

So how come they don’t model python or CFTs too? The aircraft can carry them...

This has already been answered.

[Wizard_03]

This has already been answered.

 

Is it because they aren’t permitted in the aircraft their modeling?

[Tippis]

Is it because they aren’t permitted in the aircraft their modeling?

Nope. No need to guess — just read the existing answer.

[Wizard_03]

If the aircraft has the capability to carry them, then of course, otherwise it's not actually simulating the aircraft correctly. And isn't that what they're striving for, after all: ultra realism?

 

Ok so how do we know what capabilities the aircraft has?

[Tippis]

Top tip: repeating questions that have already been answered will not change the answer.

[Wizard_03]

Well according to you, it can’t be the stores loading manuals, because they only abide by doctrinal rules..so if we can’t trust the manuals why can’t we have other features that they don’t allow for?

[Tippis]

Well according to you, it can’t be the stores loading manuals, because they only abide by doctrinal rules.

No, that's not actually what I said. Look up the concept of evidence of absence and its related problems.

[Wizard_03]

Interesting...

 

:)

[mvsgas]

Didn't have or couldn't have? Because one of the two is unrealistic and the other is not, and the reason why the triple-mav rack went in was because it turned out it wasn't actually as unrealistic as some people wanted it to be.

 

The A-10C in DCS is a mid-200s Suite 3 jet in which the LAU-88 with two AGM-65 was station was certainly valid.

 

The same cannot be said true for an 2007 F-16CM.

 

Thanks

 

Indeed, certainly not an operationally valid loadout. However, after talking with the team yesterday, we'll probably allow it for those that want to be so inaccurate.

 

Thanks

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3920366&postcount=21

Edited August 3, 2019 by mvsgas