Polychop Simulations OH-58D Kiowa

[NeedzWD40]

59 minutes ago, Scott-S6 said:

While I agree with the sentiment, BS3 has opened that door for better or worse...

Well, I suppose that a B61 is the ultimate "screw with me and I'll kill us all" weapon for the OH-58D then.

[Silver_Dragon]

On 1/20/2023 at 6:54 PM, tomcat_driver said:

I sure do want to have the possibility do whatever I want. If I mount a stinger in my Apache, what do you care?

ED has building a AH-64D UsArmy version. The Stinger ATAS on Apaches never was aproval on AH-64D UsArmy versions and the A versions was only tested as test versions, as Sidewinders on wingtips.

For more info, check here:

 

[Rick50]

About a year or two ago, a real KiowaW veteran described how in "hot and high conditions", the KW would not handle 4 Hellfires well (can't recall if it COULD do it, or if it was unsafe) with a good amount of fuel... so they'd reduce the combat load to one Hellfire per side (might have something else on the other side though). 

 

Keep in mind that with helicopters, the heavier the load, the faster you burn your fuel... so if you need loiter time, you might want to trade munitions for time airborne. Another issue is that all that weight has a HEAVY penalty for helicopter agility. 

Just because you can, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

 

[Paladin1cd]

4 hours ago, Rick50 said:

About a year or two ago, a real KiowaW veteran described how in "hot and high conditions", the KW would not handle 4 Hellfires well (can't recall if it COULD do it, or if it was unsafe) with a good amount of fuel... so they'd reduce the combat load to one Hellfire per side (might have something else on the other side though). 

 

Keep in mind that with helicopters, the heavier the load, the faster you burn your fuel... so if you need loiter time, you might want to trade munitions for time airborne. Another issue is that all that weight has a HEAVY penalty for helicopter agility. 

Just because you can, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

 

Same thing with any helo - Apaches often don't fly with full loads in the latest theaters. 

[NineLine]

7 hours ago, Scott-S6 said:

While I agree with the sentiment, BS3 has opened that door for better or worse...

BS3 is based on a mostly experimental helicopter that never saw more than a few missions in one conflict. This allowed us to have a Redfor helo that we could mold into something that fit the needs of DCS World (and not worry about any government officials coming for us). This doesnt mean that we need or want to do this with every aircraft we do. To be honest all other aircraft, including the Kiowa have enough realistic options to not need fantasy loadouts. Not to mention we learned with the Viper than many people didnt like a loadout that might have been possible, worked well for gameplay, but not really a operational common loadout. 

SO long story short, the BS3 opens the door for a dev that might wanna do an airframe that never saw action, was never produced, etc but for all others we (and our 3rd Parties) try and be as real as documentation allow. 

[Scott-S6]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

BS3 is based on a mostly experimental helicopter that never saw more than a few missions in one conflict. This allowed us to have a Redfor helo that we could mold into something that fit the needs of DCS World (and not worry about any government officials coming for us). This doesnt mean that we need or want to do this with every aircraft we do. To be honest all other aircraft, including the Kiowa have enough realistic options to not need fantasy loadouts. Not to mention we learned with the Viper than many people didnt like a loadout that might have been possible, worked well for gameplay, but not really a operational common loadout. 

SO long story short, the BS3 opens the door for a dev that might wanna do an airframe that never saw action, was never produced, etc but for all others we (and our 3rd Parties) try and be as real as documentation allow. 

All military aircraft have equipment, ordnance and variants that never made it past the prototype stage and a subset of the community asks for them and more (see in this thread where people are asking for things that physically don't fit). I suspect that BS3 is going to make them more vocal but I guess we'll see.

Although, if we're doing prototype aircraft then F-16XL please.

[Shadok]

And then, the VF-1 valkyrie !

I out...

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, Scott-S6 said:

All military aircraft have equipment, ordnance and variants that never made it past the prototype stage and a subset of the community asks for them and more (see in this thread where people are asking for things that physically don't fit). I suspect that BS3 is going to make them more vocal but I guess we'll see.

Although, if we're doing prototype aircraft then F-16XL please.

Negative, remember the "give my the AIM-120 on Tomcat" and the HB block. F-16XL has only a prototype, and that has not War Thunder or similar.

[Nahen]

5 hours ago, Shadok said:

And then, the VF-1 valkyrie !

I out...

Wait, don't leave, maybe we'll get X-Wing or TIE Interceptor... And then it's just a step to Star Destroyer and Death Star...

[Coota0]

19 hours ago, Rick50 said:

About a year or two ago, a real KiowaW veteran described how in "hot and high conditions", the KW would not handle 4 Hellfires well (can't recall if it COULD do it, or if it was unsafe) with a good amount of fuel... so they'd reduce the combat load to one Hellfire per side (might have something else on the other side though). 

 

Keep in mind that with helicopters, the heavier the load, the faster you burn your fuel... so if you need loiter time, you might want to trade munitions for time airborne. Another issue is that all that weight has a HEAVY penalty for helicopter agility. 

Just because you can, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

 

Usually a single hellfire and either the M3P or rockets.

[Rick50]

So the idea of a Kiowa carrying 8 Hellfires is a wee bit "optimistic" then? 

 

 

[Scott-S6]

On 1/22/2023 at 10:47 PM, Rick50 said:

So the idea of a Kiowa carrying 8 Hellfires is a wee bit "optimistic" then? 

 

 

I guess you could jack it up and put it on blocks so that you could get the quad racks attached. And the pilot would have to remember to get rid of the bottom four so that he could land. 

That's ignoring the weight issues.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Scott-S6

[Coota0]

If it was cold enough and at a low altitude (sea level) and you dumped enough fuel, you can do 4 Hellfires. It's feasible, but you have to have the right environment and be willing to reduce your loiter time.

18 hours ago, Rick50 said:

So the idea of a Kiowa carrying 8 Hellfires is a wee bit "optimistic" then? 

 

 

 

[Hammer1-1]

On 1/22/2023 at 2:42 AM, Scott-S6 said:

All military aircraft have equipment, ordnance and variants that never made it past the prototype stage and a subset of the community asks for them and more (see in this thread where people are asking for things that physically don't fit). I suspect that BS3 is going to make them more vocal but I guess we'll see.

Although, if we're doing prototype aircraft then F-16XL please.

I want my F-15 with ASAT. And to keep that on topic, ..would the GAU-5A be a loadable weapon? And I dont mean on the dashboard either; point, click, shoot out the window.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Hammer1-1

[armsupwithlawrence]

An M134 would be cool and realistic for the Plattform. If not for the US army one but who cares. Liveries can do the rest. Here in Austria we are using the kiowa with an m134 minigun on the left side.

[Bananabrai]

On 1/22/2023 at 7:13 AM, NineLine said:

Not to mention we learned with the Viper than many people didn't like a loadout that might have been possible, worked well for gameplay, but not really a operational common loadout.

I just feel like the puristic people are the louder crowd on the forums.

There will always be 2 factions, 2 squadrons, 2 wings, 2 villages, next to each other...
The checkbox option on the Viper showed perfectly that mission builders can be in control whether MilSim or Casual missions are wanted.
The crying was big back then, but now it really seems like everybody is happy, so for me it does seem like a very good solution.

On one hand I can fully understand that it takes time to program stuff out of scope, and it will always be up to the developer to decide.
But something can be "the most realistic simulation of ... something" and give nice game play options for people with different taste at the same time, I believe in that.
I like Milsim game play as well, I just also like to do it in RAF role, or GAF role, or JASDF role, etc.

IRL, at least in European air forces, it happen several times that equipment was used that wasn't supposed to be used in the first place -> called "Einsatzsofortbeschaffung".
Would translate to something like "immediate war time integration".

What I am not happy with is: hardcore people trying to teach non hardcore people what fun is.
And I don't have the impression that it is the other way round.

Loadout checkbox, not using it, restriction by mission date, there are already good solutions to solve this an make both factions happy.
It just feels like loosing for the hardcore village for some reason.

[Lace]

29 minutes ago, Bananabrai said:

I just feel like the puristic people are the louder crowd on the forums.

There will always be 2 factions, 2 squadrons, 2 wings, 2 villages, next to each other...
The checkbox option on the Viper showed perfectly that mission builders can be in control whether MilSim or Casual missions are wanted.
The crying was big back then, but now it really seems like everybody is happy, so for me it does seem like a very good solution.

On one hand I can fully understand that it takes time to program stuff out of scope, and it will always be up to the developer to decide.
But something can be "the most realistic simulation of ... something" and give nice game play options for people with different taste at the same time, I believe in that.
I like Milsim game play as well, I just also like to do it in RAF role, or GAF role, or JASDF role, etc.

IRL, at least in European air forces, it happen several times that equipment was used that wasn't supposed to be used in the first place -> called "Einsatzsofortbeschaffung".
Would translate to something like "immediate war time integration".

What I am not happy with is: hardcore people trying to teach non hardcore people what fun is.
And I don't have the impression that it is the other way round.

Loadout checkbox, not using it, restriction by mission date, there are already good solutions to solve this an make both factions happy.
It just feels like loosing for the hardcore village for some reason.

I think the main argument against hypotheticals, is not that it shouldn't be done, it's just that it by their nature, they are difficult to do right.  Adding an untested or untried weapons system will mean applying guesswork, to a greater or lesser degree.  The devs are unlikely to have any hard data on how that a/c performs with an untested load out.  There is more to it than W&B and drag factors.  Aerodynamics come into play, and without flight test data, then how can an accurate simulation be made?  It may be as simple as a couple of lines of code, which will physically add the weapons in the game, but the aircraft will not be flying in a realistic manner (for all we know) for that particular loadout.  And if we are saying we are happy with guesswork, then it is a slippery slope.  It stops being a high-fidelity simulation.  There is nothing 'hardcore' about wanting DCS to remain a simulator.  There are other options out there for people who just want a more casual experience, and there is nothing wrong with that, and there are of course non-official mods which offer all kinds of untried and untested alternatives, if that is your particular cup of hot beverage.  Let's just keep the official stuff accurate and legitimate, so as not to dilute the authenticity of DCS.

[Hiob]

I think there is a lot of guesswork already included in all more "modern-ish" weapons across all modules. Probably more than we are aware of or do assume.

However. Even if parts of DCS are very guessworky or arbitrary simulated (radars, electronic countermeasures, ATC .... you name it) - that doesn't keep DCS from being the most sophisticated simulator of military aircraft we ever had.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Hiob

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

I just feel like the puristic people are the louder crowd on the forums.

There will always be 2 factions, 2 squadrons, 2 wings, 2 villages, next to each other...
The checkbox option on the Viper showed perfectly that mission builders can be in control whether MilSim or Casual missions are wanted.
The crying was big back then, but now it really seems like everybody is happy, so for me it does seem like a very good solution.

On one hand I can fully understand that it takes time to program stuff out of scope, and it will always be up to the developer to decide.
But something can be "the most realistic simulation of ... something" and give nice game play options for people with different taste at the same time, I believe in that.
I like Milsim game play as well, I just also like to do it in RAF role, or GAF role, or JASDF role, etc.

IRL, at least in European air forces, it happen several times that equipment was used that wasn't supposed to be used in the first place -> called "Einsatzsofortbeschaffung".
Would translate to something like "immediate war time integration".

What I am not happy with is: hardcore people trying to teach non hardcore people what fun is.
And I don't have the impression that it is the other way round.

Loadout checkbox, not using it, restriction by mission date, there are already good solutions to solve this an make both factions happy.
It just feels like loosing for the hardcore village for some reason.

ED build expecific version, no a general version by resources, develop time and available info. If you like a country specific version, you need a MOD, and DCS has no WT or BMS. Other 3rd Parties as M5 has building some expecific versions by country, but not a "general" version.

OH-58D has the UsArmy version, no a european version.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[Bananabrai]

17 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

If you like a country specific version, you need a MOD, and DCS has no WT or BMS.

Ah ok, because DCS automatically equals WT in that case, didn't know that.

Other option: A developer who is willing to do it, with the proposed options to restrict it.

[Scott-S6]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

ED build expecific version, no a general version by resources, develop time and available info.

ED do that but other developers have done more non-specific versions of the aircraft. The Eurofighter we're getting is a bit of a Frankenstein, for example.

Access to good data on both flight characteristics and systems integration really is the limiting factor and focusing on a specific service and point in time makes that easier.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Scott-S6

[Silver_Dragon]

3 minutes ago, Scott-S6 said:

ED do that but other developers have done more non-specific versions of the aircraft. The Eurofighter we're getting is a bit of a Frankenstein, for example.

Access to good data on both flight characteristics and systems integration really is the limiting factor and focusing on a specific service and point in time makes that easier.

 

Do you read all my post or only a part?
 

Quote

Other 3rd Parties as M5 has building some expecific versions by country, but not a "general" version.

 

[Scott-S6]

16 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Do you read all my post or only a part?

I did and you said "not a general version" even in the bit you quoted but the EF we're getting is pretty generic. (It's mostly German but only mostly)

 

 

4 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

The checkbox option on the Viper showed perfectly that mission builders can be in control whether MilSim or Casual missions are wanted.

My 2c is that the focus needs to be 100% on delivering that point in time snapshot of the aircraft. We have a significant issue with some developers having aircraft with substantial missing or broken functionality years after release and even after leaving early access. Got to get that core functionality right before adding features from other periods, other services or more speculative options. Every option added to an unfinished module increases the testing and troubleshooting load.

4 hours ago, Bananabrai said:

It just feels like loosing for the hardcore village for some reason.

Because you're having fun the wrong way and this is clearly a bad thing.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Scott-S6

[Bananabrai]

37 minutes ago, Scott-S6 said:

Got to get that core functionality right before adding features from other periods, other services or more speculative options.

Absolutely agreeing. Now we could start a discussion, what is considered core functionality.
Not kicking that one off though, leaving it for someone else, fuuuuuu, it's so tempting...

37 minutes ago, Scott-S6 said:

Because you're having fun the wrong way and this is clearly a bad thing.

Sorry, like I will stop to smoke this year, I will start having fun the right way from this day on, I promise!
Anyone in for playing some ground aborts next THU?

37 minutes ago, Scott-S6 said:

even in the bit you quoted

I have to admit, I cannot really read his English. I understood him the same way you did.

41 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The Eurofighter we're getting is a bit of a Frankenstein

Yes, it' awesome. We can actually play like GAF is cool...^^

But:
- we can not use METEOR on the wings, GAF did't buy the launchers,
- no, not use at all actually, not really working,
- leave the FLIR off,
- and might not use the radar for *censored* many sessions,
Should be realistic then.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Bananabrai

[Bremspropeller]

12 minutes ago, Bananabrai said:

We can actually play like GAF is cool...^^