Gulf War: LANTIRN & AIM-7 SPARROW

[stormrider]

Ok, so let's face simple facts then: ED has stated that will make their modules as realistic as possible. Given that the specific jet variant they are modeling never mounted sparrows, you're not going to get them.

 

 

That's exactly why there is an open wishlist topic requesting for it. You like it or not.

[GGTharos]

Sure, and you can see how many have been shot down with 'not realistic' :)

I don't hold trying for it against you though.

[ST0RM]

Ok, so let's face simple facts then: ED has stated that will make their modules as realistic as possible. Given that the specific jet variant they are modeling never mounted sparrows, you're not going to get them.

 

They allowed the triple load of AGM-65E/F on a LAU-88, even though its wrong. With 3 missiles, it over loads the hardpoint. It was rated for the lighter AGM-65D and data submitted as proof. But they went with the loudest "I want" crowd instead of realism.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Ok, so let's face simple facts then: ED has stated that will make their modules as realistic as possible. Given that the specific jet variant they are modeling never mounted sparrows, you're not going to get them.

 

This, I'd say stop beating this dead horse, but it's not even tissue anymore. It's fossilized.

[QuiGon]

They allowed the triple load of AGM-65E/F on a LAU-88, even though its wrong. With 3 missiles, it over loads the hardpoint. It was rated for the lighter AGM-65D and data submitted as proof. But they went with the loudest "I want" crowd instead of realism.

Have I missed something? Where do you see triple 65E/F?

[mvsgas]

Everyone is going in circles. Can we all agree you won't change the mind of the other side?

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.

[Bananabrai]

Most certainly we wont.

 

But some people try to convince ED to bring additional features and they would like to express this wish and share it with others.

It is a valid point that they need to specifiy a certain version to be able to develop a module in a specific time, how it works, how stuff is integrated, etc.

 

Yet there are many versions of the planes we all like to fly and I still can't see a reason to not give people some fictional gimmicks to simulate other nations birds.

Many weapons in the US arsenal are intercompatible and handling inside the software is similar, for a reason.

They even have real "Franken-planes" themselves sometimes.

 

With the current mindset these would never come true, as development takes a long time.

But if something is possible, just not on the perfect approach, why not do it?

 

And there would be ways for "realistic pilots" to avoid such featrures, so this is not a valid point.

There could be checkbox in the ME, or an additional server filter (ex.: another check besides integrity check)

 

I can't see anyone "losing" anything, but a few people getting more fun.

Just as a side note, we had a Slot-Maschine in the Hornet, I guess that took longer to "develop" than copy the AIM-7 code from the Hornet over to the Viper.

[QuiGon]

And there would be ways for "realistic pilots" to avoid such featrures, so this is not a valid point.

There could be checkbox in the ME, or an additional server filter (ex.: another check besides integrity check)

Sounds great in theory, but doesn't really work as I explained here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4365841&postcount=46

Edited June 8, 2020 by QuiGon

[Bananabrai]

Sure, let's add laser weapons and railguns as well...

 

On a more serious note: If we would get all this stuff you're talking about on our F-16C Blk50, it would create an absolute Frankenstein Monster. Of course, those features could be added as options and you could just deactivate them if you don't want to, but there are a number of issues with that:

 

1) If we would get all the various different weapon and systems that you mentioned, which are all being used aorund the world and combine them into a single Frankenstein version of the Viper in DCS, then it would be a real nightmare to figure out how to setup the Viper in order to be realistic to a specific version. What weapons can I use? What systems can I use? Etc...

 

2) Multiplayer: While you can choose what you want to use in your own missions, you can't do so on MP servers. Of course, the admin can do so, but as a player it will be a nightmare to search for severs that have realistic aircraft configurations. It's already difficult enough to find servers with realistic game settings...

 

3) Non-self-made missions and campaigns: While you can create your own missions as you like, there are missions and campaigns created by other people, which you might want to fly as well (like DLC campaigns). If there are so many unrealistic options for our Viper (e.g. Sparrows) and if they're getting used in that mission/campaign, you would have to change them first by yourself, which might make the mission unplayable or maybe not even possible in the first place, as it is not possible to edit DLC campaigns.

 

4) Over time it would eventually change the mindset of the DCS community as a whole, becoming more and more arcady and less focused on a REALISTIC SIMULATION. While some of you might want that to happen, I definitely don't want that.

 

 

So, I would like ED to stick to their realistic variants of aircraft with the actual weapons and systems that are being used on that variant IRL. They can do different variant's of a single aircraft, like Heatblur does with the F-14 (A & B). If ED would make an additional ADV variant of the F-16 with Sparrows I'm absolutly fine with that, as it is realistic. A Frankenstein block 50 F-16C with Sparrows would not be!

 

It's a SIMULATOR after all and a SIMULATOR tries to SIMULATE real stuff! Unfortunately I'm not able to experience the real thing IRL, so I have to rely on the sim to get me as close to that as possible! So I will continue to fight for DCS to deliver this!

 

 

 

1. Why would that be more of a nightmare than now? Other nations integrate their weopons in a similar manner to make use of those weapons easy.

The pilot needs to concentrate on the mission, SA, formation,... flying and weapon use should mostly be "easy".

 

2. Well it is already like that so nothing would change. As I said, an additional filter could be used. Call it "reality-check", if you want.

It would be very usefull even now, without such requests, I totaly agree.

And that's how it simply is, the admin, or lets say mission builder, choses. Nothing would change.

 

3. I don't see that as a negative point. Now we have US F-15's etc. flying over the Caucasus and so on.

As I am a Campaign and Mission builder myself, I like to exploit several potential scenarios.

For example, I am currently building a scenario wiithout US envolvment in the Black Sea region. Guess how good I can simulate norwegian F-16's...

I think it would give us only more DLC campaigns, as more DCS pilots around the world would be inspired to build missions.

As this is hypothetical thinking of both of us, we dont know who would be right. I however like to think positive, I see this as a chance.

 

4. It maybe would change the mindset. But that does not necessarily relate to more arcady gameplay than now. Why should it? Nobody said anything about arcady AIM-7's. The employment could be realisitc arcoding to other weapons employment. And With such a less realistic airplane some poeple could build more realisitc scenarios (as I mentioned above).

 

And at least this would be a "democrating" way of knowing if virtuals pilots would like this.

People still love the realisitc flight phyiscs and the realistic employment.

I think the complete playerbase would need to swap out to make such mindset change happening.

[QuiGon]

1. Why would that be more of a nightmare than now? Other nations integrate their weopons in a similar manner to make use of those weapons easy.

The pilot needs to concentrate on the mission, SA, formation,... flying and weapon use should mostly be "easy".

You missunderstood me there. I was not talking about employing those weapons and systems. I was talking about how complicated it will be to figure out what systems are realistic to use and which are not.

 

2. Well it is already like that so nothing would change. As I said, an additional filter could be used. Call it "reality-check", if you want.

It would be very usefull even now, without such requests, I totaly agree.

And that's how it simply is, the admin, or lets say mission builder, choses. Nothing would change.

The problem is, that those aircraft specific realism settings on MP servers aren't transparent for the player. This is already a problem if one doesn't want to play on a server where the Missile Warning System for the Mirage is enabled or INS drift is disabled. You have no way of checking if that is the case on the server or not. With more and more unrealistic aircraft options this would became a real nightmare to sort out which server uses realistic aircraft functions and which one doesn't.

 

3. I don't see that as a negative point. Now we have US F-15's etc. flying over the Caucasus and so on.

As I am a Campaign and Mission builder myself, I like to exploit several potential scenarios.

For example, I am currently building a scenario wiithout US envolvment in the Black Sea region. Guess how good I can simulate norwegian F-16's...

I think it would give us only more DLC campaigns, as more DCS pilots around the world would be inspired to build missions.

As this is hypothetical thinking of both of us, we dont know who would be right. I however like to think positive, I see this as a chance.

You missunderstood me there again. I wasn't talking about scenarios. I was talking about unrealistic aircraft systems.

 

4. It maybe would change the mindset. But that does not necessarily relate to more arcady gameplay than now. Why should it? Nobody said anything about arcady AIM-7's. The employment could be realisitc arcoding to other weapons employment. And With such a less realistic airplane some poeple could build more realisitc scenarios (as I mentioned above).

We already have a bunch of optional unrealistic arcady aircraft systems, like the simplified IR pipper on the MiG-21, which is not realistic at all regardless of the employment. This should not become a trend!

 

And at least this would be a "democrating" way of knowing if virtuals pilots would like this.

People still love the realisitc flight phyiscs and the realistic employment.

I think the complete playerbase would need to swap out to make such mindset change happening.

Democratizing in this context means also dividing the player base. It's like the beta vs stable discussion, where the player base is divided by giving players the democratic option to use one or the other version.

[bies]

The only F-16C able to use Sparrow was 'C block 25'. It required some massive cabling to integrate the weapon. It became operational in 1992, after Gulf War, but in 1992 AMRAAM became available so there was no purpose using Sparrow.

In next block 30 they removed the cabling being dead weight.