Jump to content

Upcoming updates for the Viper


SCPanda

Recommended Posts

Maverick and Harm are being worked on, but as mentioned we also have new team members getting up to speed.

 

As soon as we have news we will share it with you all.

 

thanks

 

 

Yes .. and Santa Claus wears presents through the chimney..


Edited by Mira73

X-Plane 11 Payware :

Aircraft : Boeing 767-300ER, Airbus 319-100, Airbus 350 XWB, Beechcraft King Air 350, Diamond DA-62

Airport : KATL

 



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Does anyone know, with the mav update, if we're getting the 3-way rack? I forgot what it's called.

i9 9900k @5.1GHz NZXT Kraken |Asus ROG Strix Z390 E-Gaming | Samsung NVMe m.2 970 Evo 1TB | LPX 64GB DDR4 3200MHz

EVGA RTX 3090 FTW3 Ultra | Reverb G1  | HOTAS Warthog | Saitek Flight Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

 

Does anyone know, with the mav update, if we're getting the 3-way rack? I forgot what it's called.

 

... since no Frankenviper planned , so it should not be implemented in DCS (US F-16 BLK50/52).

 

 

The USAF viper has never flown an active configuration with triple 65s. The rocket motor close out seal aka buttplug of the inboard shoulder mounted 65 will destroy the ailerons, ensuring a catastrophic failure and likely crashing the aircraft.

 

+

 

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.

 

 

+

 

 

The thing I find hilarious in this whole argument is that some kept throwing around the PACAF SCL with the JSOW in 2003. Clearly they have no military service, otherwise they would know what a SCL is, and why it is developed. Here's the thing, they said the JSOW is on the list and demanded the JSOW. Guess what isn't on the list and no one hasn't said anything.... 6x65s (6A65) with LAU-88. Guess what else isn't on there....4x65s (4A65). pilotfly.gif

 

Second armchair quarterbacks find images of aircraft configured with 6x65s and throw that around. What they don't know is the story of that image. Aircraft all have a story, those of us who have been around the jets long enough know a test bird when we see it. Every single image that shows 6x65s or 4x65s is a test jet. TEST where flight testing is performed and determined whether or not something should be operationally tested. Edwards is the home to that flight testing, and their tail flashers are ED or blank. Every image has a ED or blank tailcode.Operational testing is done by Eglin test and they have tailcodes ET, OT.

 

 

Discussion there : https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3914343&postcount=1

 

AFAIK, LAU-88 has been "approved" for operational use on IAF only. Risk of destroying the optics of other missiles present on pylons during launch is very high. So the interest if somehow limited and risky.

 

Regards.


Edited by Dee-Jay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

 

 

 

... since no Frankenviper planned , so it should not be implemented in DCS (US F-16 BLK50/52).

 

 

 

 

+

 

 

 

 

+

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion there : https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3914343&postcount=1

 

AFAIK, LAU-88 has been "approved" for operational use on IAF only. Risk of destroying the optics of other missiles present on pylons during launch is very high. So the interest if somehow limited and risky.

 

Regards.

 

 

 

It seems ED will being making some concession such of allowing LAu88's and multiple mavericks due to the incessant whining of the community.

 

wags said it was put back on the "planned" list of features.

 

 

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

 

 

Also IRRC the JSOW was put back in the planned list as well.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because the jet is capable of doing it and that should be reflected in a simulator for that jet. I appreciate that ED is mostly going for a particular time/place with their Viper (aim small, miss small) but few people buy this to simulate only USAF configurations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to open up this can of worm again. This topic has been debated plenty of times already. I was just wondering if anyone knew if the LAU-88 will be included in the update with the Mavs.

i9 9900k @5.1GHz NZXT Kraken |Asus ROG Strix Z390 E-Gaming | Samsung NVMe m.2 970 Evo 1TB | LPX 64GB DDR4 3200MHz

EVGA RTX 3090 FTW3 Ultra | Reverb G1  | HOTAS Warthog | Saitek Flight Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been loading weapons on F-16s since 1993 to present time (now retired and a contractor on them), and have NEVER loaded a LAU-88 on one. When I've loaded the Maverick, it was on STAs 3 and 7 with LAU-117s. One Maverick ONLY.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

MSI MPG X570 Gaming Plus MOBO||Ryzen 9 3900X 12 Core, 24 Thread Processor || MSI GTX 1070Ti 8GB GPU OverClocked || 32GB GSKILL DDR4 RAM @3600 || Samsung 1TB SSD || Samsung 250GB SSD || WD Caviar Black 2TB HDD || WD Caviar Black 1TB HDD || Thermaltake ToughPower GF1 850W PS || Thermaltake Tower || Windows 10 Pro 64bit || Thrustmaster Warthog and Cougar sticks, throttles and MFDs || Saitek Rudder Pedals || Trackir 5 ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make it as an available option to choose is win-win IMO. Let mission designers decide.

 

You have crew chiefs in this thread telling you that they never loaded it and never trained to load it and you still want it? It’s a slippery slope to make concessions like that because when the next plane comes along people are going to look at the precedent you set and ask for an unrealistic configuration.


Edited by Krippz

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have crew chiefs in this thread telling you that they never loaded it and never trained to load it and you still want it? It’s a slippery slope to make concessions like that because when the next plane comes along people are going to look at the precedent you set and ask for an unrealistic configuration.

 

So don't load them on your jet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have crew chiefs in this thread telling you that they never loaded it and never trained to load it and you still want it? It’s a slippery slope to make concessions like that because when the next plane comes along people are going to look at the precedent you set and ask for an unrealistic configuration.
I didnt say I want it. If ED decide not to model it then I'm ok with it but I'm also ok if they decide otherwise for gameplay maybe ?

As an option, hardcore can opt not use it and casual players who couldn't care less with realism and only want having fun and blows something up can use it.

The real winner is ED because they could stop hearing nagging and whining from both hardcores and casual players. Its on them to choose.


Edited by Oceandar

Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone know when the next Update is planned?

Regardless of Viper Stuff in it or not.

 

To me, Flight Dynamics and Ground Handling is still the most important thing on the list.

But i dont want to be the Guy which decides what comes next to this plane (or any other) because you cant do anything right.

If Feature A arrives earlier than B, Community cries. If you decide to stay strictly on operational configurations for Timeframe x, Community cries. If you decide to add this or that even if its not in the Timeframe, Community cries.

And dont forget that there are always Guys which knows everything better and tell you that this or that should be possible or impossible because of this Academic Data available for free.

You know Theory and RL only comes close if RL reacts like the Theory but that happens only in Theory.

There are times where it seems like we have more RL F-16 Pilots and Technicians in this Forum than ever where on active Duty since this Bird is in Service....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be possible to move CATM-9 (and CATM-120, if planned in the future) in the loadout from "Missiles" to "Pods"? It will make them usable on MP servers with no weapons allowed...

This is true for other aircraft as well... Training rounds make this sim even more awesome.

Phantom Forever

F-4EJ / F-4EJ Kai 1971-2021

Sorry, I don't speak English, so I use DeepL Translate. Well, I can speak Japanese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems ED will being making some concession such of allowing LAu88's and multiple mavericks due to the incessant whining of the community.

 

ED agreed to add it, because it is technically completely possible to have the three Mavericks loaded.

 

But IMHO ED should then very carefully model the Falcon damages as well when it gets it, so IF you load those unused combinations, you would have proper risks and probabilities to expected damages.

 

So it would then be correctly done, and it is up to pilot itself to make the decision to use them or not....

 

This this is Win-Win situation for everyone.

 

1) ED did model realistic setup properly.

2) ED did model proper damage modeling.

3) People who wanted the unused weapons configuration can be happy that they got what they wanted.

 

I don't see any problems in that at all.

I know that people would then come to whine that mavericks destroy their aircrafts, drops from the skies etc etc. But that is what they wanted! Right?

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Feature A arrives earlier than B, Community cries.

 

IMHO that is just result of the bad fanboyism. "The other got it before me", without any understanding about ED workflow and requirements.

 

If you decide to stay strictly on operational configurations for Timeframe x, Community cries. If you decide to add this or that even if its not in the Timeframe, Community cries.

 

If you have community of 100 members, 30 cries for A and 30 cries for B, and 30 cries for C, it is just the normal situation, you have very big challenge to get something that will please all 100.

 

In this case I take what is technically possible, as we are simulating technical stuff, not a politics, religion or anything else. It is all up to mission designer to decide what is in their opinion the proper configurations and uses.

 

So if technically Falcon can carry LAU-88 and launch three Mavericks from single rack, then regardless of anything it should be allowed to load such a configuration and to go trying to launch them. But it as well requires modeling the proper risks there. So that if someone really, really wants to have a such a configuration and get malfunctions etc because that then it is their own fault. It is not ED job to baby the users, it is enough that ED doesn't add a official default loadout with such dangerous configuration but doesn't either deny someone building a own custom one.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO that is just result of the bad fanboyism. "The other got it before me", without any understanding about ED workflow and requirements.

 

 

 

If you have community of 100 members, 30 cries for A and 30 cries for B, and 30 cries for C, it is just the normal situation, you have very big challenge to get something that will please all 100.

 

In this case I take what is technically possible, as we are simulating technical stuff, not a politics, religion or anything else. It is all up to mission designer to decide what is in their opinion the proper configurations and uses.

 

So if technically Falcon can carry LAU-88 and launch three Mavericks from single rack, then regardless of anything it should be allowed to load such a configuration and to go trying to launch them. But it as well requires modeling the proper risks there. So that if someone really, really wants to have a such a configuration and get malfunctions etc because that then it is their own fault. It is not ED job to baby the users, it is enough that ED doesn't add a official default loadout with such dangerous configuration but doesn't either deny someone building a own custom one.

 

Let's model it in the same detail and fashion as we model the G-override-button in the FA-18, shall we?

Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Do not expect a reply to any questions, 30.06.2021 - Silenced by Nineline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's model it in the same detail and fashion as we model the G-override-button in the FA-18, shall we?

 

Absolutely. Great idea. :thumbup:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

i7 10700K OC 5.1GHZ / 500GB SSD & 1TB M:2 & 4TB HDD / MSI Gaming MB / GTX 1080 / 32GB RAM / Win 10 / TrackIR 4 Pro / CH Pedals / TM Warthog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have crew chiefs in this thread telling you that they never loaded it and never trained to load it and you still want it? It’s a slippery slope to make concessions like that because when the next plane comes along people are going to look at the precedent you set and ask for an unrealistic configuration.

This is mostly were I land. At that point if we are doing unicorn loadouts that damage the jet and ordnance, why not go for the GAU-13?

 

I'm also surprised they people that call for balance want the Viper to have that much power. Again, I know it's disappointing to find out that it isn't a real loadout, that was my exact reaction reading Vipers in the Storm and being "only two Mavericks?!?"

 

So if technically Falcon can carry LAU-88 and launch three Mavericks from single rack, then regardless of anything it should be allowed to load such a configuration and to go trying to launch them. But it as well requires modeling the proper risks there. So that if someone really, really wants to have a such a configuration and get malfunctions etc because that then it is their own fault. It is not ED job to baby the users, it is enough that ED doesn't add a official default loadout with such dangerous configuration but doesn't either deny someone building a own custom one.
Yep, that would be ideal but doubt they would do it.

 

Let's model it in the same detail and fashion as we model the G-override-button in the FA-18, shall we?
Or, while apparently not as big of difference as that (but not really sure since I don't fly the Hornet much), the no reason to turn the Viper to CatIII ever in DCS.

 

As I understand people debate that in a similar fashion to the G override, but would love to hear from a RL combat Viper pilot if they honestly put the jet in CatIII at a time when there was a true air or SAM threat (Allied Force, 1991/early 2003 Iraq, etc). I get it's help to prevent over G/departures the aircraft in some other lower threat combat situations would mean a CATIII loadout would result in the switch being placed there. But if the RL pilots say the risk was too great to "cheat" and actually kept it in CatIII when appropriate even when selecting CatI could have been used for extra maneuvering against aircraft and SAMs, then there should be some punishment in DCS to not have CatIII selected when the loadout is at that level and limits are exceeded.

I7-9700KF@5ghz, 32GB DDR4 3200, RTX 3090, Pimax 5k+, Virpil T-50CM2 base with Warthog, F/A-18, T-50cm, and VFX grips, Saitek X65F, Saitek Switch Panel, TM Cougar MFDs, TM TPR pedals, JetSeat and bass pucks, H640P for VRK, PointCtrl

 

3rd Space Vest project for basic G Seat/G Suit simulation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear to god, people get so angry over muh “historical accuracy” :music_whistling: . If you dont want to use it then just dont equip it or play on servers that dont have it. Why take away the fun others might enjoy from having a more capable aircraft. Like from the looks of how popular multiplayer servers are, the casual ones are the most popular by a large margin. Call me a filthy casual as well but I really dont carry about timeframes of an aircraft if it can feasible use something with no additional software or modifications to the airframe. For example APKWS on the f16 would be cool, since all you need is a tpod and hydra pods capable airframe. This would expand the missions the aircraft can perform and thus increases the amount of fun i can with the aircraft. If it hurts you seeing a plane carrying it then its as simple as not equipping it. At the end of the day DCS is a game that strives to simulate various vehicles as realistic as possible in terms of performance and capabilities of the aircraft within the confines of the core game. Leaving us with a very nice sandbox for our hearts to enjoy to their content. Continuing with the sandbox metaphor, if one isnt happy with how someone is enjoying a part of the sandbox and it isnt resulting with its destruction. Then the simplest solution would be to ignore said person and go to another play area within. Hopefully people will understand where I am coming from, because at the end of the day its just my personal opinion and the final word sits with ED. I just made this post in support of the triple mavericks because i would be quite sad if they were removed, and as a general statement on how I view this game we all partake in. Have a nice day :thumbup: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear to god, people get so angry over muh “historical accuracy” :music_whistling: . If you dont want to use it then just dont equip it or play on servers that dont have it. Why take away the fun others might enjoy from having a more capable aircraft. Like from the looks of how popular multiplayer servers are, the casual ones are the most popular by a large margin. Call me a filthy casual as well but I really dont carry about timeframes of an aircraft if it can feasible use something with no additional software or modifications to the airframe. For example APKWS on the f16 would be cool, since all you need is a tpod and hydra pods capable airframe. This would expand the missions the aircraft can perform and thus increases the amount of fun i can with the aircraft. If it hurts you seeing a plane carrying it then its as simple as not equipping it. At the end of the day DCS is a game that strives to simulate various vehicles as realistic as possible in terms of performance and capabilities of the aircraft within the confines of the core game. Leaving us with a very nice sandbox for our hearts to enjoy to their content. Continuing with the sandbox metaphor, if one isnt happy with how someone is enjoying a part of the sandbox and it isnt resulting with its destruction. Then the simplest solution would be to ignore said person and go to another play area within. Hopefully people will understand where I am coming from, because at the end of the day its just my personal opinion and the final word sits with ED. I just made this post in support of the triple mavericks because i would be quite sad if they were removed, and as a general statement on how I view this game we all partake in. Have a nice day :thumbup: .

 

 

I'm inclined to agree. We make plenty of concessions in the realism department.

 

 

  • We can start a mission in mid air and end it without landing. AFAIK this has never happened IRL. :D
  • Our sim jets always spawn in perfect maintenance condition and you don't get yelled at by your supervisor and suspended if you don't go through the full entire startup checklist including tests, or fail to follow the traffic pattern.
  • We have an F10 map that shows you exactly where you, friendlies, and hostiles are (depending on settings).
  • We have an entire settings page that lets you turn on labels, and turn off GLOC, wake turbulence, bird strikes, and random system failures.
  • We can pull max G on the airframe and stay in afterburner as much as we want, and generally treat our planes like they're disposable and don't cost money to maintain.
  • We can take off with more ordnance and fuel than is technically allowed, and land overweight too,
  • or dump fuel at low altitude over a city without consequences.
  • We can assign any country to red force or blue force, even countries who have not historically been allies or enemies, and have dogfights between a WWII plane and an F/A-18C

I have no problem with the LAU-88 if the F-16 was designed to use it, even if it wasn't used in practice. I want a high degree of realism in DCS too but I don't draw the line too strictly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...