mvsgas Posted August 30, 2020 Share Posted August 30, 2020 (edited) The purpose of the CCIP Program was standardization of the "F-16" fleet 40/42's and 50/52s all went through the program. And in theory...all emerged with basically the same cockpit layouts and capabilities. Not the reality, at least not in my first hand experience while working the F-16. Is your first hand experience on the F-16 different? Or are you basing this on second or third hand knowledge? https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4443604&postcount=20 Why 2007 ffs?! Why lock it to a single year? Just give it everything and we mission designers decide what's best for the mission. :doh: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3601620&postcount=342 This conversation has happened before https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=248011 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=227363 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4051284&postcount=22 Here is one from 2008, that was 12 years ago https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=31107 Edited August 30, 2020 by mvsgas To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuzzU Posted August 30, 2020 Share Posted August 30, 2020 :doh: I wanted to know why he wanted it. Not for any other reason. I under stand the reason why having different blocks is an advantage in a dynamic campaign or making campaigns. I've flown BMS/F4 for 20 years. You sure get excited over a one word post. Buzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawgie79 Posted August 30, 2020 Share Posted August 30, 2020 Only on a DCS forum could the discussion take this turn. You rightly start talking about the historical/geographic/whatever realism where you should use the F-16 and end up talking about technical stuff and that could go on for eternity. Due to the 1.15 rule I prefer not to mention the name but have you ever tried the dynamic campaign of the other.... The only motivation for having another version is to fly it in a dynamic campaign that gives a touch of realism to the whole experience. There is no other sense for which ED should make that F-16 version. I really wonder how you play DCS, the more i read the forum the more it becomes difficult for me to understand what you find satisfaction in. To give you an example, it's as if for you the fun of football consisted in changing shirt and team (block 40 or 50 etc) rather than in the game itself (play the campaign=that is not a bunch of scripted mission but is a real moving world day by day like real life) In practice the 40-50 block are pretty much the same thing, no need unless you have a dynamic campaign and even then it would be marginal. I suggest people to take a look at that other....(rule 1.15 sorry) with the dynamic campaign .. and if you want maybe this thread. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=284141 You just got a warning already. Just stop this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sierra99 Posted August 30, 2020 Share Posted August 30, 2020 (edited) Not the reality, at least not in my first hand experience while working the F-16. Is your first hand experience on the F-16 different? Or are you basing this on second or third hand knowledge? I never said it was "reality"...I said it wa the goal. And I never said or imposed I had "first hand" experience with F-16s. My experience with F-16s involved refueling them as we hauled them back and forth to the desert, long conversations with pilots and maintainers while deployed and publicly available information. The "goal" Was standardization...But I know programs completed over time suffer from feature creep and changes. Remember also that the CCIP upgrade was done in phases based on subsystem availability. So yes at some points plane would go for depot and only receive part of the upgrade or another... But the Desired end result Was standardization. During MY career I saw numerous upgrades and TCTOs that didn't look exactly the same from one jet to the next...but the majority did. Edited August 30, 2020 by Sierra99 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Primary Computer ASUS Z390-P, i7-9700K CPU @ 5.0Ghz, 32GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4 @ 3200Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce 1070 Ti AMP Extreme, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 NVMe drives (1Tb & 500 Gb), Windows 10 Professional, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, Thrustmaster Warthog Stick, Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle, Cougar MFDs x3, Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals and TrackIR 5. -={TAC}=-DCS Server Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3, i7-3770K CPU @ 3.90GHz, 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 @ 1600Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 970. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkchaser2010 Posted September 1, 2020 Share Posted September 1, 2020 These conversations always interest me and as Mvsgas has stated, the details for each aircraft block and user is extremely vast. I would love to have the other variants as much as the next person even if it is constrained to a 2007 specific reference point, but the work needed to do so would take quite a bit of time. From experience the 3D and graphic portion would be the easier points while the coding would be where the most time is needed. I would settle for a P&W option of the current module and AI versions of the rest ;) but I digress... If the module could expand to other blocks it would increase the selling point much like the F-14 module. ASUS TUF GAMING X670E with AMD RYZEN 5 7600X, 64GB DDR4, ASUS TUF GAMING 4080 Pico 4, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS Formally Known As: wpnssgt (google it ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts