GBU-39

[Bl00dWolf]

Hello!

 

Any chances to see GBU-39 on F-16C in DCS?

[Mira73]

Simple question = simple answer .

No.

[Bl00dWolf]

Simple question = simple answer .

No.

 

Why?

[QuiGon]

Why?

Because it hasn't been in use on the variant of the F-16C that ED is modeling. It was introduced on a variant that came later.

[Bl00dWolf]

Because it hasn't been in use on the variant of the F-16C that ED is modeling. It was introduced on a variant that came later.

 

Shiiiiiiii :(

Ok...

No tfr, no 2 aim 120 on pylon, no gbu-39..... no sniper pod.... :doh:

[QuiGon]

But many other great features instead :thumbup:

[flavnet]

I look forward to the implementation of the JDAM (GBU-31 & GBU-38 ). It is much more realistic.

[nthere]

because ed pursue so-call "reality”

[MadCat1381]

The F-16 in the last picture is a Block 30 from 1986 btw.

The SDBs where implemented in the F-16 later than 2007, not in a later model.

And 2007 is the year ED wants to replicate.

[Revelation]

Shiiiiiiii :(

Ok...

No tfr, no 2 aim 120 on pylon, no gbu-39..... no sniper pod.... :doh:

 

The last I read, they are still planning to do the Sniper Pod, they need more time and info on it.

[Northstar98]

It's been removed from the planned features list - it's in a state of limbo and it's dependent on whether or not there's enough publicly available documentation for ED to work with - same goes for the JASSM

[FoxOne007]

It's been removed from the planned features list - it's in a state of limbo and it's dependent on whether or not there's enough publicly available documentation for ED to work with - same goes for the JASSM

 

 

Not the same for JASSM, JASSM was removed because it didn't match the time frame of the ED Viper

[Barrett_g]

Would love to see the GBU-39 for the F-16 and hopefully for the future F-15E module!

[Northstar98]

Not the same for JASSM, JASSM was removed because it didn't match the time frame of the ED Viper

 

Ahh okay then.

[Sharpe_95]

+1 For SDB.

 

I appreciate that perhaps they are not available on 'our' F16, but they are available on other F16s. I would still love to see these on 'our' F16 regardless of the realism.

 

-S

[raelias]

I'd REALLY love to see SBD's on the falcon but ED said they aren't doing it because it was only operational in the falcon the next year... from the 2007 they are modeling... it would be such an awesome weapon to have, I'd hope they would change their mind on that

[deadpool]

Because it hasn't been in use on the variant of the F-16C that ED is modeling. It was introduced on a variant that came later.

 

because ed pursue so-call "reality”

 

I really have a hard time not choking on tears when this "reality" argument is still held up.

It was announced as the best simulation of this particular verison of the F-16 etc. and there were even some snide remarks towards some other F-16 sims out there in terms of them offering dozens and dozens of subtypes, etc. an not getting it right.

 

and now we have this state and the admission (albeit not in the f-16 forum, but in the f-18 forum) that the f-16 started with too low of a rotation speed and is now falling back down hard on the ground and no one cares.

 

for crying out loud we are flying this plane since months with broken FCR, a waypoint and tpod system that is so far away from reality, ...

 

so, ed .. nice blahblah with the "realism" .. scrap it and give the f-16 folks some gimmicks and make it up to them whether they use it or not. I think after this is through, anyone who's still sticking to the f-16 and doesn't ragequit whenever the ACM modes frustrate the heck out of you again deserves some gimmicks.

[mvsgas]

What would be the point? To serve what purpose?

The moment Eagle Dynamics introduce this weapons, the next group would start criticizing the fact that was introduce just like they are doing now on the F/A-18 with the TGP. This cycle have been going on this forums for over 10 years. A group would complain and ask about item A, finally it get added and the next group would complain and ask for Item A to be removed. How many post we saw: release the F-16, we don't care if its not done, etc. F-16 was release, next group: What is this? is not ready! why release it? There was updated to the stable one week and an update to the openbeta the other week. Complain, complain don't release bugs on stable version they posted. Next group: Why no updated to stable for so long?

 

So I ask again:

What would be the point? To serve what purpose?

Edited May 22, 2020 by mvsgas

[deadpool]

Point is:

If you out them in, people can use them but don't have to.

If you don't put them in, people have no choice.

 

In milsim communities they might follow and not use them.

On public servers some things are already restricted.

Should I feel bad about firing off 6 phoenixes in the f14 and going back to rearm when I have just thus bankrupted a small country?

[Sharpe_95]

Point is:

If you out them in, people can use them but don't have to.

If you don't put them in, people have no choice.

 

In milsim communities they might follow and not use them.

On public servers some things are already restricted.

Should I feel bad about firing off 6 phoenixes in the f14 and going back to rearm when I have just thus bankrupted a small country?

 

Well if realism is the ultimate standard we are all to apply to I would argue you should feel worse for re-arming in about 30 seconds to a minute, or changing your skin instantly, when your flicking switches in your pit while executing a 9g turn or when you get easy and consistent locks on targets low to the ground as there is no ground clutter effect on radar or when you are firing amraams BVR having not achieved clear two factor authentication of the target. And by the way, I assume you fly in a full flight suit and helmet when your in the pit and naturally we all have 2-4 hour briefings before we fly - right? Oh btw when was the last time you drank alcohol as you clearly can't be under the influence when flying, nor can you drink a mug or tea or coffee while your flying ;-)

 

Point is, DCS is one of the best (also few) modern combat flight simulators. But just because it has the word 'simulator' in the title this does not mean people should confuse it for real life. ED know this and that is why they put in various 'player aids' to make the game more fun and pragmatic for eveyone. Thus, as you say, we play a game where people can take the realism factor as far as they like. ED do their bit by giving us models and an engine to fly in that are as well modeled as they can make it - the rest is down to how far the player wishes to go, and what the player wants and funny old thing, that varies person by person and it comes down to what they want and where they choose to draw the line.

 

In the mean time, in the same way we have options to fly the same module in game mode or sim mode - ED provide, we choose. Weapons, ED supply (as far as they can get suitable info to code it from in the first place) we choose to use it or not. For my part (IMHO) so long as there is a thread to the weapon being used on the aircraft (one variant or another) in genral as so long as ED have the ability and resources to model it (+/- some fudge factor) then as you say - give it us and let us work out if we want to use it or not.

 

Personally I would pay ED on a weapon by weapon basis for additional content.

 

Having the choice is the key.

 

-S

 

PS: On the subject of realism and amraams I would really recommend this short (open source) essay written by a member of the USAF war college; 'Promise and Reality: BVR combat'. There is no way all this can be modeled in the sim as it is mostly about human factors/ROE impacts on BVR but it's still a fascinating read when compared to how we all fling amraams at eachother with carnal abandon :)

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

Edited May 24, 2020 by Sharpe_95

[deadpool]

So, Sharpe_95, you agree with me.

 

Let me say that I do fly in a hardcore milsim community and most points you said hold true for our missions. Including different human AWACS/GND/TWR/LSO/JTAC/.. throughout the entire mission, etc. and I am very thankful to be a part of that, though no one there deludes themselves into thinking they are real fighter pilots.

 

That said, DCS is in such a horrible state, that half your statements sadly fail due to game reasons, for realisms sake most planes would be grounded:

- pulling 9g .. I wish in the F-16. Seat, Overpressurized mask, gsuit .. they don't do anything for me

- radar sadly doesn't need ground clutter not to work in the F-16. the ACM modes are just sluggish, take too long compared to any other plane in DCS, don't work at all like they should or (and this is my fav) you lose a target in the notch even though it's above the horizon.

( and this shows how messed up the radar model is, as even the 70s F-14 radar correctly models you still being able to get that target if you disable the notch filter (which in the f-16 is automatically done in over the horizon conditions) and/or don't give a crap about the doppler component of a PULSE doppler radar .. the pulse part works pretty fine in those conditions .. why wouldn't it??)

- BVR which in DCS means Barely Visual Range .. reminds me of the joke: How do you do BVR in DCS? You turn on the fog.

- two factor auth for IFF .. yeah .. until last patch we (f16) hat an all friendly datalink ..

 

And I don't see the problem in getting the information about a weapon to model it. I see the problem in actually writing the code to model *any* aspect of the weapon.

Look at the ridiculous guidance in the current OB AIM120 or even AIM9.

 

Just yesterday I saw multiple AIM9s flying towards a moving and flaring target. Pulling *away* from the target not towards the flares, but the other side (which makes NO sense) and then going for a ground contact .. just .. w .. t .. f?

 

 

But yeah, we advocate for the same thing. Realism is a mindset that we have to roleplay and have to enforce upon ourselves mainly. Yet DCS, the self proclaimed provider of the best sim for the F-16 enforces negative learning on people since 6 months and will keep doing so for a year to come.

They don't make it easy and they have a lot to make up for.

 

As for payment.

I paid for tons of modules, most of them unfinished. I think a subscription model would have been wiser also, but by now I am a customer. I demand the final product on a realistic schedule and I am willing to help with bug reports, etc.

But my trust in what ED can deliver nowadays is severaly diminished, and that's a point ED has to own and noddingly accept.

 

I'll have a look at that document, sounds like a good read! Thank you!

 

BR,

Deadpool

[Sharpe_95]

So, Sharpe_95, you agree with me.

 

Let me say that I do fly in a hardcore milsim community and most points you said hold true for our missions. Including different human AWACS/GND/TWR/LSO/JTAC/.. throughout the entire mission, etc. and I am very thankful to be a part of that, though no one there deludes themselves into thinking they are real fighter pilots.

 

That said, DCS is in such a horrible state, that half your statements sadly fail due to game reasons, for realisms sake most planes would be grounded:

- pulling 9g .. I wish in the F-16. Seat, Overpressurized mask, gsuit .. they don't do anything for me

- radar sadly doesn't need ground clutter not to work in the F-16. the ACM modes are just sluggish, take too long compared to any other plane in DCS, don't work at all like they should or (and this is my fav) you lose a target in the notch even though it's above the horizon.

( and this shows how messed up the radar model is, as even the 70s F-14 radar correctly models you still being able to get that target if you disable the notch filter (which in the f-16 is automatically done in over the horizon conditions) and/or don't give a crap about the doppler component of a PULSE doppler radar .. the pulse part works pretty fine in those conditions .. why wouldn't it??)

- BVR which in DCS means Barely Visual Range .. reminds me of the joke: How do you do BVR in DCS? You turn on the fog.

- two factor auth for IFF .. yeah .. until last patch we (f16) hat an all friendly datalink ..

 

And I don't see the problem in getting the information about a weapon to model it. I see the problem in actually writing the code to model *any* aspect of the weapon.

Look at the ridiculous guidance in the current OB AIM120 or even AIM9.

 

Just yesterday I saw multiple AIM9s flying towards a moving and flaring target. Pulling *away* from the target not towards the flares, but the other side (which makes NO sense) and then going for a ground contact .. just .. w .. t .. f?

 

 

But yeah, we advocate for the same thing. Realism is a mindset that we have to roleplay and have to enforce upon ourselves mainly. Yet DCS, the self proclaimed provider of the best sim for the F-16 enforces negative learning on people since 6 months and will keep doing so for a year to come.

They don't make it easy and they have a lot to make up for.

 

As for payment.

I paid for tons of modules, most of them unfinished. I think a subscription model would have been wiser also, but by now I am a customer. I demand the final product on a realistic schedule and I am willing to help with bug reports, etc.

But my trust in what ED can deliver nowadays is severaly diminished, and that's a point ED has to own and noddingly accept.

 

I'll have a look at that document, sounds like a good read! Thank you!

 

BR,

Deadpool

 

Quite right and almost fully agree. However, while I would normally be the first to jump up and down and complain about the state of the F16 and the lack of love it is getting ATM, in my mind I have rationalised it thus (maybe it is helpful for you)?:

 

I am the first person in the queue when it comes to 'give me my module now I dont care what state it is in', I therefore cant and wont complain when what they give is a little (or a lot) rough around the edges. I am 100% behind EDs EA business model and fully accept the fact that we will have a 'busted/not ready' aircraft for a year or two while we all (hopefully) help ED with open beta testing, in my mind this helps ED and speeds the process up and I get a fun aircarft to fly a couple of years early :thumbup: Do I wish ED would give more love to F16? Yes. But then the Hornet was where the F16 is now some years ago and they are committing to getting it out of EA, hopefully we will see this same level of love some time next year. But also, remember that the skills the Devs are learning getting Hornet out of EA are if not directly relevant to F16 then very closely linked - so I see that as helpful too.

^Hope that's helpful to you? Although as they say 'rationalisation is the first refuge of an unsound mind' ;)

 

Regarding the payment model - well now, there's an interesting and probably horrifying discussion for another day and another post.

 

Back to your OP:

Naturally (and with equal validity) not eveyone thinks this way. Some people will just apply a black and white picture saying 'it's not on the exact F16 model we fly therefore it's not realistic therefore no' - but forget that actually when you look around at how we all fly (even those of us that do fly in more realistic VFWS) and how the sim works, they forget we are breaking realism rules left right and centre by design, by choice and by accident. I think this therefore undermines any 'realism only' argument.

 

As you said it's a matter of choice. I dont think the option for choice should be removed for weapons integration just because 'the weapon in question is not 'realistic' because it is not on our exact model of the F16'. Its is available on some F16s, give people the choice, let them decide to use it or not.

 

-S

Edited May 25, 2020 by Sharpe_95

[mvsgas]

I really have a hard time not choking on tears when this "reality" argument is still held up.

 

I love the info from SpaceMonkey037 and I think given source material or cross checking that the DEVs would appreciate getting this as realistic as possible.

 

Which one is it? As realistic as possible or realism does not matter?

 

I guess ED can decide to add what ever they want, but not a realistic option, could be like the whole LAU-88 thing.

 

That has happened and will happen with any aircraft release. When the Mirage was release people complaint the couldn't carry this weapons or do that. People are already "voicing concern" regarding the version of the F-4. The same has happen with the A-10C, P-51D, Bf-109, AJS-37, etc.etc. So, it does not matter, people will complain regardless. If they would make every F-16 versions out there, people will complain that there are to many options.

 

I wish you get you want. The problem is, that will open the floodgates. I have been here since 2005, even on the old website, I have seen it so many times. No matter what module they release, someone will want a different version with different capabilities. Go through the forums and see. From the P-51 to the Yak-52, from the Black Shark to the Gazelle, it has been repeated over and over.

They add the chute, some one else will want the PW-200 engine of a early A model. They add that and someone will want the radar/EO display. Another will want the WAR HUD, then someone will want the WAC HUD, one of the may different radars, on and on.

 

Aircraft like the F-16, Mig-21, F-4, etc. They have to stick to a specific version if not it will never end.

 

I am hopeful that they will stick to a specific version, a specific year, a specific country and a specific level of modeling. If not, we will have to many variable and no matter what people will still complain. If they modeled every version of the F-16, with every possible configuration, someone will make a thread of how confusing it is and how they wish it was a simplified version like a FC3 or MAC aircraft.

 

So whether they model a 1995 USAF block 50 with 30% accuracy or a 2010 USAF block 50 with 96% accuracy, I will be happy as long as they stick to it and don't start changing it.

Edited May 25, 2020 by mvsgas

[deadpool]

Which one is it? As realistic as possible or realism does not matter?

 

You were comparing apples and oranges there.

One is my own opinion to get the individual systems where we have the information as realistically modelled as possible.

 

The other was me being a bit water-eyed about the fact that ED promised such a specific realistic F-16 version and then left us out to dry so hard. It's like getting hopes up extra extra extra and then smashing them into the ground. This was no normal EA, this was a belly landing at takeoff :-(

 

But you're right in another regard. In terms of what to put on the pylon if theoretically possible, but just not flown by that specific squadron / that specific F-16 model from that day at that zodiac costellation etc. is where I get weak for the sake of flexibility.

 

But if all else fails, I am very close to you on that one, @mvsgas. I'd rather have it realistic. I am just frustrated how that is upheld for the F-16 in a PR way (or was) and then got chopped and kicked so hard .. (way harder than usual for an EA title).

 

Deadpool

[=Panther=]

Deadpool

 

You're not alone.