GBUs, when?

[paco2002]

The plane carries Mk82/84 bombs series, but we don't have the GBU-12/10 on the C101, even it can carry it, so I just wanted to ask when is going to be that included, I see no reason to not be in the C101.

[Vibora]

We will next work on multicrew and only after that, weapons.

[QuiGon]

Has there ever been a C-101 carrying LGBs IRL? :huh:

[paco2002]

Has there ever been a C-101 carrying LGBs IRL? :huh:

I mean, there is no need to.

It can carry Mk82, then, it can carry GBU-12. Same hardpoint, same bombs, same everything.

[QuiGon]

I mean, there is no need to.

It can carry Mk82, then, it can carry GBU-12. Same hardpoint, same bombs, same everything.

As DCS tries to simualte real world aircraft I think there is very much a need to. If an aircraft wasn't equipped with a weapon IRL then it shouldn't be equipped with the weapon in DCS. That's also why the F-16 in DCS only has Mk-82 and Mk-84 bombs, but not Mk-83 bombs as the USAF doesn't use the 83. The F-16 in DCS doesn't even have weapons that are used by export customers like, the Harpoon or the Sparrow or the Python.

[tugais]

As long as a platform can be equipped with a weapon in real life, I'd love to have a choice to use a different doctrine that the one used by their real counterpart. If DCS was truly a beast of authenticity the game istself would defeat its own purpose : exploring "what if" scenarios/conflicts.

 

I think most of the players, even the most dedicated, are actually flying hypothetical missions/campaigns. Using alternative loadouts is, from my point of view, one of the main DCS selling point. How can I tackle a situation from a different perspective ? Is this more efficient ? If it's not, why's that ? And would that be the reason that led actual air forces to adopt a specific way to operate ? Then, let's try to follow their thinking process.

 

I see DCS as a learning/pedagogical tool rather than a perfect real life reconstruction.

[QuiGon]

Why not put russian bombs on it as well then?

[paco2002]

As long as a platform can be equipped with a weapon in real life, I'd love to have a choice to use a different doctrine that the one used by their real counterpart. If DCS was truly a beast of authenticity the game istself would defeat its own purpose : exploring "what if" scenarios/conflicts.

 

I think most of the players, even the most dedicated, are actually flying hypothetical missions/campaigns. Using alternative loadouts is, from my point of view, one of the main DCS selling point. How can I tackle a situation from a different perspective ? Is this more efficient ? If it's not, why's that ? And would that be the reason that led actual air forces to adopt a specific way to operate ? Then, let's try to follow their thinking process.

 

I see DCS as a learning/pedagogical tool rather than a perfect real life reconstruction.

This is my point of view of the situation, I don't want to get off-topic here, but many of the planes have unreal combos available to the use of people.

[paco2002]

Why not put russian bombs on it as well then?

I honestly would love to see that, but, since DCS doesn't support russian LGB buddy lasing, that would have no sense.

PS: Not even sure if the russian bombs uses the same hardpoints as the FAB-250 series. Will check and tell you if it does or not.

PS2: There is no 250kg or 100kg Laser Guided Russians bombs, so it would be not possible to carry them.

Edited September 2, 2020 by paco2002

[QuiGon]

I honestly would love to see that, but, since DCS doesn't support russian LGB buddy lasing, that would have no sense.

PS: Not even sure if the russian bombs uses the same hardpoints as the FAB-250 series. Will check and tell you if it does or not.

I was actually just thinking about russian dumb bombs. And if the pylon doesn't fit, then just add a russian pylon to the aircraft. Why not also add some multi function displays? Or a TGP? Or some other stuff...

I guess you get what I'm trying to say ;)

 

And btw, russian buddy lasing works. You can do that with the Su-25 and the Ka-50 at least. The laser code is hardcoded and can't be changed though.

[paco2002]

I was actually just thinking about russian dumb bombs. And if the pylon doesn't fit, then just add a russian pylon to the aircraft. Why not also add some multi function displays? Or a TGP? Or some other stuff...

I guess you get what I'm trying to say ;)

 

And btw, russian buddy lasing works. You can do that with the Su-25 and the Ka-50 at least. The laser code is hardcoded and can't be changed though.

Yeah, I was mainly referring to that the laser code doesn't change.

 

You don't need to add russian dumb bombs, as it can carry it already.

And to have MFD you will have to wait for the C101DD (Fingers crossed to that lol)

 

I guess what you are trying to say, but I don't get the reason honestly.

[Silver_Dragon]

Yeah, I was mainly referring to that the laser code doesn't change.

 

You don't need to add russian dumb bombs, as it can carry it already.

And to have MFD you will have to wait for the C101DD (Fingers crossed to that lol)

 

I guess what you are trying to say, but I don't get the reason honestly.

C-100DD never pass from prototype status and I has not data to modeling them.

 

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[ngreenaway]

I mean, there is no need to.

It can carry Mk82, then, it can carry GBU-12. Same hardpoint, same bombs, same everything.

 

 

I certainly hope it doesn't become so equipped. Why load a weapon the aircraft can't use? It lacks a laser to guide the bomb

 

Second, if you were to draw a Venn diagram with the four c-101 operators in one field, nation's with the gbu-12 in the other, you wouldn't have any overlap

[Jester986]

Our mig 21 never carried a few of its weapons. The typhoon is going to be a mix of variants. There's a few other aircraft with some fudging going on. GBU-12s are a very reasonable battlefield modification you could see to the 101 and it will help it pair nicely with the Kiowa when that releases. I hope to see them on it eventually.

[Scrofa]

As long as a platform can be equipped with a weapon in real life, I'd love to have a choice to use a different doctrine that the one used by their real counterpart. If DCS was truly a beast of authenticity the game istself would defeat its own purpose : exploring "what if" scenarios/conflicts.

 

I think most of the players, even the most dedicated, are actually flying hypothetical missions/campaigns. Using alternative loadouts is, from my point of view, one of the main DCS selling point. How can I tackle a situation from a different perspective ? Is this more efficient ? If it's not, why's that ? And would that be the reason that led actual air forces to adopt a specific way to operate ? Then, let's try to follow their thinking process.

 

I see DCS as a learning/pedagogical tool rather than a perfect real life reconstruction.

 

 

I absolutely agree with this vision. A small "credible" variation of the real weapons loadout lets you explore other posibilities and adds interest to the game. As long as the aircraft keeps most of its essence, I don't see why it wouldn't be a good idea, providing the changes are not so big that the developers really lose a lot of time that could be better used improving the module or making other ones. Of course, they could always add an option box to keep the aircraft "stock".

 

 

 

I wonder if all hardliners refrain themselves to use zoom, or labels, or the external map at all times just to keep it realistic.

[Rudel_chw]

I’d rather have the developers working on the Mirage F1, than spending man-hours on implementing fantasy weapons .. we already have enough with the Sea Eagle.

[Flagrum]

Why not put russian bombs on it as well then?

And if the pylon doesn't fit, then just add a russian pylon to the aircraft. Why not also add some multi function displays? Or a TGP? Or some other stuff...

It seems that you missed the real life part here:

As long as a platform can be equipped with a weapon in real life, I'd love to have a choice to use a different doctrine that the one used by their real counterpart.

DCS simulates the aircraft, not a specific airforce or their doctrine of how to use it. So if it is technically possible, what is wrong with letting us do it?

[ngreenaway]

I wonder if all hardliners refrain themselves to use zoom, or labels, or the external map at all times just to keep it realistic.

 

we all have concessions and compromises we have to make to compensate for things that exist IRL that cant otherwise be replicated in DCS. For instance, while zoom is unrealistic, on the other hand we dont have things such as sunlight glinting on a canopy on a target aircraft which would make spotting easier

 

Im not a hardliner, but i dont like an expectation for the dev to put weapons on an aircraft that were never there. If none of the four c-101 operators had gbu-12s, it doesnt matter if it is the same hard point: they were never carried. This is also overlooking any onboard systems needed to use the gbu-12s. its all well and good they had the capability to hang bombs they didnt have under the c-101, but that still wouldnt be useful

 

im generally of the opinion that if someone doesnt like an option, they dont need to use it, but if theres nothing wrong with OP asking for the GBUs, then likewise theres nothing wrong giving a dissenting opinion- i hope the GBUs arent put on the aircraft

 

Why? its an erosion of individuality of airframes. Part of what makes each airframe unique and interesting isnt just its capabilities, but its limitations. figuring out how to make each aircraft be functional and useful on a battlefield in spite of its limitations is part of the joy of learning these aircraft. Whats unique when they all carry the same systems? If you want to fire PGMs, fly a PGM equipped plane. DCS has several, and theyre pretty much interchangeable. In this, they lack a certain sense of character. Wanna try fighting with one hand tied behind your back? Fly an older aircraft with a realistic loadout. if you invent fantasy loadouts, where do you stop? What, then , becomes the argument against amraams or targeting pods? I certainly hope the dev sticks to only weapons that were used operationally on the c-101.Aviodev has shown they can do fantastic work, id like to see what they can do with another airframe rather than figuring out how to shoehorn in weapons this aircraft never carried

[AeriaGloria]

AMRAAMs use sidewinder rails. They can be fired mad dog.... oh and Spain has AMRAAMs:)

 

But when will I be able to change mid course flight settings outside of mission editor.......

[QuiGon]

I wonder if all hardliners refrain themselves to use zoom, or labels, or the external map at all times just to keep it realistic.

I can only speek for myself:

- I do use zoom, as the resolution of my screen is much smaller than the resolution of my eyes IRL.

- I do indeed not use any labels at all.

- I do use the external map (the F10 map) only as a "paper map", meaning no real life aircraft positon, not even my own and advocate such a usage for multiplayer as well.

[QuiGon]

DCS simulates the aircraft, not a specific airforce or their doctrine of how to use it. So if it is technically possible, what is wrong with letting us do it?

Uhm, according to ED it does exactly that, hence all the restrictions on the Viper and Hornet on weapons and systems that are not used by the US (e.g. for the Viper: moving map display, Harpoons, Mk-83, Python, AIM-7 ...).

 

Also I have not seen any C-101 of any country using LGBs...

Edited September 3, 2020 by QuiGon

[paco2002]

Uhm, according to ED it does exactly that, hence all the restrictions on the Viper and Hornet on weapons and systems that are not used by the US (e.g. for the Viper: moving map display, Harpoons, Mk-83, Python, AIM-7 ...).

 

Also I have not seen any C-101 of any country using LGBs...

Correct, because no C101 carried LGBs, at least that I know.

But this is simple, I will do the same example as this, as with the F16.

C101 can carry Mk82 series bombs, wich, can be converted to a GBU-12 trough a kit, people complains about that idea.

F16 NEVER carried JSOW C for example, and for some reason no one complained about it.

 

Anyway, maybe I am going off-topic, but sorry, I don't understandd the reason you don't want to have GBU-12 on a C101... It gives fresh air, and it's capable, so I don't understand this situation. The F16 situation and the C101 situation are nearly the same, but with different reactions. Why?

[QuiGon]

Correct, because no C101 carried LGBs, at least that I know.

But this is simple, I will do the same example as this, as with the F16.

C101 can carry Mk82 series bombs, wich, can be converted to a GBU-12 trough a kit, people complains about that idea.

F16 NEVER carried JSOW C for example, and for some reason no one complained about it.

 

Anyway, maybe I am going off-topic, but sorry, I don't understandd the reason you don't want to have GBU-12 on a C101... It gives fresh air, and it's capable, so I don't understand this situation. The F16 situation and the C101 situation are nearly the same, but with different reactions. Why?

There has been discussions on the JSOW for the F-16: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=241301

 

Personally I'm really confused by when which JSOW variant became operational with which variant of the F-16, which is why I don't participate in discussions about it. If you could provide me any reliable source that clarifies that, I would be very happy. ED itself has changed it's stance on this multiple times, as their own research has yieled different results over the time of development: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3916499&postcount=5

 

In case of the C-101 on the other hand, all the information I have seen indicate pretty clearly, that the GBU-12 (or any other LGB) has never been in use with it.

Edited September 3, 2020 by QuiGon

[Silver_Dragon]

I’d rather have the developers working on the Mirage F1, than spending man-hours on implementing fantasy weapons .. we already have enough with the Sea Eagle.

SEA Eagles was tested by chilen Air force on C101CCs, has not a fantasy weapon.

 

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[paco2002]

 

In case of the C-101 on the other hand, all the information I have seen indicate pretty clearly, that the GBU-12 (or any other LGB) has never been in use with it.

 

As I said, there is no C101 with the use of LGB.

But it can carry it

Edited September 3, 2020 by paco2002