[NO] GBU-39 “Small Diameter Bomb”?

[Tippis]

No the primary end user, in this case the USAF, was heavily involved in the F-16s development, it was not a private venture by the manufacturer, they built it on contract and under the direct supervision of the end user.

Yes, but the end user did not build it. They did not go into the process and tell the manufacturers of the various pieces involved that, “hey, we see it can do this… remove that capability.” They simply determined that, while possible — while the capability was there — it was not something that should be utilised because of the downsides. The capability was there, it was tested, and it was determined to not be desirable. The capability wasn't removed; it was just left unused for various reasons.

 

It’s not capable of that loadout because it’s neither recommended by the manufacturer or desired by the operators.

Recommendation is not capability. “Did” is not “can” — the two words and the two modalities exist as separate things for a reason. It is not recommended by the manufacturer or desired by the operators that you do loops in a Dash 8 Q400, and yet the capability is there as so spectacularly demonstrated a year ago…

 

 

Removing actual proven capabilities because of recommendations means you've wilfully made some dumbed-down fantasy version of an aircraft rather than a realistic simulation. If you strive for ultra realism, that means you've chosen to abjectly and deliberately fail your stated mission.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Tippis

[Exorcet]

Realistic doesn't mean limited to what historically occurred. If the F-16 can carry it then I think it should be allowed even if it never did carry it.

 

 

If you're worried about historical accuracy, DCS already has configurable aircraft options. We just need a tickbox to choose between US cleared weapon loads and all available weapon loads.

[Wizard_03]

please re-read my posts. Can is not the same is will. They won’t ever deploy the jet like that, so therefore it’s not realistic. If you want to have triple maverick or 12 120s or whatever that’s fine, but don’t say that it’s realistic cause it’s not. There are no circumstances where they would change the doctrine.

 

Let me put another way, I can paint unicorns all over my jet if I wanted. Is that realistic?? No because they wouldn’t allow me too. You’re never gonna see that in combat because is tactically irresponsible..like tripe mavs. Can is not the same as will so for all intents and purposes I can’t.

[Exorcet]

please re-read my posts. Can is not the same is will.

That's the point. The US might not have used or planned to use a loadout historically or part of current doctrine. We're not limited to simulating those situations. We can simulation the test flights that lead to the decision not to use the loadout or we can simulate a situation where the loadout has been approved for whatever reason. So long as the plane can carry out the loadout it's realistic. We've created a situation where the plane will carry that load.

 

 

 

They won’t ever deploy the jet like that, so therefore it’s not realistic. If you want to have triple maverick or 12 120s or whatever that’s fine, but don’t say that it’s realistic cause it’s not. There are no circumstances where they would change the doctrine.

 

Let me put another way, I can paint unicorns all over my jet if I wanted. Is that realistic?? No because they wouldn’t allow me too. You’re never gonna see that in combat because is tactically irresponsible..like tripe mavs. Can is not the same as will so for all intents and purposes I can’t.

It happens. We can simulate those situations in DCS. You can limit yourself to historical conflicts, and that's fine, but being realistic doesn't mean that we need to constrain ourselves to those situations. It just means we have the option to abide by those restrictions.

[Wizard_03]

The problem is; there’s no where to draw the line, then DCS becomes Ace combat. It defeats the purpose of using a simulator.

 

And no it’s doesn’t happen they are simulating a specific aircraft not a frankinplane

[Exorcet]

The problem is; there’s no where to draw the line, then DCS becomes Ace combat. It defeats the purpose of using a simulator.

 

And no it’s doesn’t happen they are simulating a specific aircraft not a frankinplane

I see a clear line. Simulate the plane including operational limitations. Add checkbox for capabilities that the aircraft has that are outside of normal operations. Immortal/Unlimited Fuel/Unlimited Ammo don't make DCS Ace Combat. Neither does easy/game mode.

 

 

 

DCS is a simulator, so it should focus on the simulation. This includes adding realistic limitations. The end user can then determine if they want to abide by these or not.

[Wizard_03]

It discredits the work and research that goes into these modules. The realism is lost, it doesn’t matter that they chose an ANG block 50 from 2007 because we’re gonna allow users to put any weapon in any configuration that the jet “might” have had in its lifetime

[Tippis]

Can is not the same is will. They won’t ever deploy the jet like that, so therefore it’s not realistic.

And the point is that, can is not the same thing as will, so whether or not they ever actually deploy the jet like that is irrelevant — to make the simulation of the aircraft realistic, the actual capability of the jet should be replicated. Otherwise you've created something that does not operate like the real thing does. It's really that simple.

 

If you want to have triple maverick or 12 120s or whatever that’s fine, but don’t say that it’s realistic cause it’s not. There are no circumstances where they would change the doctrine.

…and that's the point you keep missing: doctrine is something that is replicated in the mission, not the simulation. If the simulation is dumbed down because of doctrine, then it fails to simulate the aircraft. If you want to have a realistic mission, then that's a wholly separate matter, and if there are limitations to what tools are available to mission makers in making those realistic scenarios, then that's where you should ask the developers to fix things, not by creating fantasy aircraft that do not match the real thing.

 

Let me put another way, I can paint unicorns all over my jet if I wanted. Is that realistic??

Depends on the scenario the mission wants to depict. There is nothing in the aircraft that categorically removes the ability to paint unicorns (almost) all over it, and as such, to keep things realistic, there is nothing in the simulation that keeps you from doing so either.

 

If you want to pay a mission where unicorn-painted jets are not allowed, you should be looking into what tools are available for restricting the player's ability to choose liveries. If the tools are insufficient for that purpose, then the solution is not to remove the ability to apply liveries, but to add the ability to enforce specific restrictions.

 

The problem is; there’s no where to draw the line, then DCS becomes Ace combat

Yes there is. It's quite trivial. Simply ask the question “can the aircraft do/use X?” Note the subject of that question: the aircraft. Not [whatever] airforce. If you want to replicate a specific airforce, the question you have to ask is slightly different: “can I specifically restrict/allow the use or availabiility of X?” Note that the actual aircraft is not part of that question.

 

No matter what options you turn on in DCS, it can never become Ace Combat because the underlying simulation simply does not allow for it. Simulating the full capabilities of an aircraft does not in the slightest make it any more AC-like either. Quite the opposite.

 

And no it’s doesn’t happen they are simulating a specific aircraft not a frankinplane

So why would you ever want the devs to arbitrarily create a frankenplane where real, actual capabilities have been removed? Edited August 3, 2019 by Tippis

[Wizard_03]

They are simulating a specific aircraft from a specific time period by a specific operator.

[AeriaGloria]

I don’t think two extra Mavericks require a whole different software version. Seems SDBs do. I’m all for time of war loadouts but I don’t think a squadron is gonna tell themselves if war breaks out “let’s update to that software version we have had in our back pockets for a while”

[Tippis]

They are simulating a specific aircraft from a specific time period by a specific operator.

No, they are simulating a specific aircraft, period. The rest is up to the mission maker to decide.

 

I don’t think two extra Mavericks require a whole different software version. Seems SDBs do.

Pretty much, yes. There's an actual case for the SDB:s — the specific aircraft simply does not allow for their use. Thus, short of also adding a duct tape simulation layer, they won't be included. Not so with the triple-rack, where a full simulation of the system would allow for it (and preferably also dole out the appropriate punishment).

Edited August 3, 2019 by Tippis

[Exorcet]

It discredits the work and research that goes into these modules. The realism is lost, it doesn’t matter that they chose an ANG block 50 from 2007 because we’re gonna allow users to put any weapon in any configuration that the jet “might” have had in its lifetime

I need an explanation because I don't see this.

 

 

They're making a 2007 ANG F-16 Blk 50. As a DCS user I can fly that exact aircraft by setting up the sim to simulate it. Immortality, infinite fuel/weapons, and triple Mav racks are off. The option to turn all of these on are there, but they don't have to be enabled and they take nothing away from the simulation.

[Silver_Dragon]

No, they are simulating a specific aircraft, period. The rest is up to the mission maker to decide.

 

The mission maker can decide build a mission with F-16s on 2000 or a 2023 aircraft, but ED has very clear....

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=241132

Our Viper will be an F-16C with the Common Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP) upgrade. We feel this to be the most versatile version of the F-16 with capabilities for SEAD, precision attack, close air support, anti-ship, and of course air-to-air. We will be taking great care though to develop a very accurate simulation of the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007.

[Tippis]

The mission maker can decide build a mission with F-16s on 2000 or a 2023 aircraft, but ED has very clear....

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=241132

And guess what? That specific version of the aircraft — the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007 — had the capability of running a triple-mav rack. Removing that capability would mean that they are no longer accurate simulating the aircraft version in question.

 

Technically, going by that rather vague description alone, they could easily allow for the SDB as well, but they've then clarified to specify the software version they could get info on which does not offer that capability.

 

If I'm allowed to nitpick, the missing word here is “as”. There's a difference between “the F-16C Block 50 as operated” (meaning it's their operation of the aircraft that is being simulated) and “the F-16C Block operated” (meaning it's this specific version of the aircraft that is being simulated).

Edited August 3, 2019 by Tippis

[Silver_Dragon]

And guess what? That specific version of the aircraft — the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007 — had the capability of running a triple-mav rack. Removing that capability would mean that they are no longer accurate simulating the aircraft version in question.

 

Technically, going by that rather vague description alone, they could easily allow for the SDB as well, but they've then clarified to specify the software version they could get info on which does not offer that capability.

 

If I'm allowed to nitpick, the missing word here is “as”. There's a difference between “the F-16C Block 50 as operated” (meaning it's their operation of the aircraft that is being simulated) and “the F-16C Block operated” (meaning it's this specific version of the aircraft that is being simulated).

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3914563&postcount=5

I worked on USAF F-16 From 1997 to 2012. Never saw LAU-88,never saw weapons crews train to load it in load barn, never saw any load competition to load them. When deployed or TDY it never carried it.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3917557&postcount=30

Edited August 3, 2019 by Silver_Dragon

[Tippis]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3914563&postcount=5

…and that's doctrine, not software (or hardware) capability. Again, “didn't” is not the same thing as “can't”.

 

 

Also, I may be mistaken about this since I can't actually find the post now, but last I heard we're getting the Lau-88. Could it possibly be that in their research, they found that this was indeed a capability the aircraft had, irrespective of whether the ground crews ever handled them…?

Edited August 3, 2019 by Tippis

[Wizard_03]

I need an explanation because I don't see this.

 

 

They're making a 2007 ANG F-16 Blk 50. As a DCS user I can fly that exact aircraft by setting up the sim to simulate it. Immortality, infinite fuel/weapons, and triple Mav racks are off. The option to turn all of these on are there, but they don't have to be enabled and they take nothing away from the simulation.

 

Why not allow for Israeli weapons or Greek ones too, how about CFTs? where does it end? Laser guns and photon torpedoes??

 

If we don’t nail down a specific time, operator, and DOCTRINE it becomes a video game instead of simulator.

[Tippis]

Why not allow for Israeli weapons or Greek ones too, how about CFTs?

Because the aircraft does not support those, and adding arbitrary capabilities create just as much of a frankenplane as arbitrarily taking them away.

 

 

 

If we don’t nail down a specific time, operator, and DOCTRINE it becomes a video game instead of simulator.

Bad news: it's already a video game. It is also a simulator. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Wizard_03]

The aircraft dose the USAF/ANG doesn’t are you telling me that doctrine matters now?

[Exorcet]

Why not allow for Israeli weapons or Greek ones too, how about CFTs? where does it end? Laser guns and photon torpedoes??

It ends at the checkbox that separates operationally used loadouts from other loadouts. Weapons that don't exist or can't be physically carried are excluded (I guess you could add them too if you want, they just won't get used if you're simulating real combat, much like immortality and unlimited fuel/weapons).

 

 

If we don’t nail down a specific time, operator, and DOCTRINE it becomes a video game instead of simulator.

This isn't a reasonable definition of a simulator. It's what you want to simulate, which is fine, but that isn't what simulations are limited to. All that a simulation does, is simulate something. That something does not have to be explicitly defined to the smallest detail. The generic AI F-16 in DCS is still a simulation, just not as specific as the F-16 module we're getting. One key difference though is that the AI F-16 is missing features that the F-16 module will have.

 

 

As for what ED is doing, I'll grant you nailing down a specific time and operator (sort of, all DCS modules are flyable by all nations, which is a good thing even if it's not historically realistic - it adds flexibility to create situations outside of established history without taking away realism). It's not nailing down a doctrine, DCS doesn't really simulate that yet. Let's say it did though. Having the options to simulate a scenario outside of these targets takes nothing away from the sim. I take it that you only want fly your F-16 with USAF used loadouts. I don't understand then why the existence of say triple Mavs bothers you. You know the USAF doesn't use them so you just don't equip them. Now you have your time/operator/doctrine simulation. If the issue is being unsure of what's operationally accurate or not, that's what the checkbox I proposed solves. It also solves the MP issue if the mission creator can apply it to all aircraft.

[Tippis]

The aircraft dose

Not this specific version, no. Well, unless you dig up some documentation that says otherwise, in which case you should probably not post it because that would be against the rules… :D

[Wizard_03]

Why listen to documentation? It’s written by the same people that come up with the doctrine.

[Tippis]

Why listen to documentation? It’s written by the same people that come up with the doctrine.

Not the documentation that would be required to show those capabilities, no.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Tippis

[Wizard_03]

the stores loading manuals are written by the operators not the manufacturer

[Tippis]

the stores loading manuals are written by the operators not the manufacturer

…so in other words, they're not the documentation that would be required to show those capabilities.