closed 4 HARMs for the Viper

[Northstar98]

11 hours ago, Wu70 said:

Why this thread is alive again and some people are repeating the same story over and over again?

 

Yes, it was advertised as BLK50 from a specific era but this specific loadout option was changed due to PLAYERS REQUEST.

Some players can fly with 4 HARMS while others can still use BLK50 from a specific era with 2 HARMS.

 

And if you find a bug, don't do whatever you did that caused the bug, problem solved right?

 

FDM not allowing you to pull as many gs as you should? Well, choose not to try and pull that many gs! Problem solved.

 

This ignorance is bliss argument, is in my opinion, nothing more than a cop out... 

 

And ultimately, if you want to take 4 HARMs, fine, pick an aircraft that can actually do that.

 

I love how people come to DCS, which right in its product description says that it's trying to provide building blocks that are as realistic as feasibly possible (paraphrasing, but it is what's being said), then buy aircraft which are explicitly stated as being an authentic depiction of a very specific aircraft variant, as operated by a specific operator, at a specific point in time, even going as far as saying that they have no intention for it to be anything else, and then have a problem with it being so... What gives? Can I ask what you were expecting? Did you want ED to falsely advertise their own product?

 

Quote

Why is it so painful for some people? Just dont use that option and enjoy your game rather than trying to ruin game for others.

 

Oh please, cut the melodrama. How is depicting aircraft the way it's supposed to be depicted, as explicitly stated by ED, ruining your game?

 

And if not being able to employ 4 HARMs is a massive problem for you, then might I suggest flying as 2-ship? Or if that's not possible for whatever reason, fly an aircraft that can actually employ 4 HARMs?

 

If you don't like your aircraft being realistic depictions of their real counterparts, fine, but then isn't DCS a poor choice for you? It is kinda, y'know the point of it... It's certainly what it's advertised as at least trying to achieve.

 

Quote

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible.

 

On the front page of DCS' main website, and in the more detailed product description. 

 

And before anyone says, "but you can take nuclear aircraft carriers into the Black Sea, and have F-16s in missions set in WWII, and take off on taxiways" and yada yada yada.

 

To those people, notice how it says that they're going for realistic assets? Or realistic building blocks if you will. It says nothing about what you do with the building blocks, or what missions you create with them. Just that the building blocks themselves are authentic as feasibly possible to their real life counterparts - that's it. What you do with them, how you fly them or how you use them, and what missions you make with them are completely up to you, as they should be.

 

And yes, we can go on for days about where it falls over on, believe me I do it, but it's clear that realism is the clear goal.

 

As for the F-16, and I sometimes say this in my freaking sleep, but let's have it again, for what could very well be, the thousandth time.

 

Quote

We will be taking great care though to develop a very accurate simulation of the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007.

 

For this project, we are striving to create a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time. We have no desire to create a Frankenstein's Monster that combines multiple F-16C versions from different time periods.

 

Based on this, why should it be anything other than an F-16CM Block 50, depicted as it was circa 2007, as operated by the USAF/ANG?

 

And if you have a problem with this, fine, but then wasn't it a poor choice for you?

Edited March 13, 2021 by Northstar98

[BIGNEWY]

Thank you for all of your feedback, 

 

When we have news to share on the subject we will let you all know. 

 

 

[ebabil]

If I understand correctly, we will be able to carry 4 harms but we can fire only two.

If so being able to carry dumb harms will cause confusion so please don't do that, we don't need the weapons that can't be fired. 

[Torri]

We don't need travel pods either, but they are in-game. Just clarify that the HARMs are inoperational and it'll be fine IMO

[Silver_Dragon]

14 minutes ago, ebabil said:

If I understand correctly, we will be able to carry 4 harms but we can fire only two.

If so being able to carry dumb harms will cause confusion so please don't do that, we don't need the weapons that can't be fired. 

 

Can carry from a base to another, to replenish warehouse.

[Smoked]

Glad That ED fixed this issue.  

Edited June 29, 2021 by Smoked

[Vakarian]

I think MAVs are not currently available on 4&6, only on 3&7 so it's all good

[Smoked]

I Stand corrected... Why I thought that.. who knows... 

[Vakarian]

1 hour ago, ebabil said:

If I understand correctly, we will be able to carry 4 harms but we can fire only two.

If so being able to carry dumb harms will cause confusion so please don't do that, we don't need the weapons that can't be fired. 

How would it create confusion? Isn't it exactly what most of people wanted? To make it realistic? Well, you got it. Nothing prevents you from mounting HARM on those pylons, but lack of certain things prevent you from firing. It's as real as it gets

[Exorcet]

It's realistic so I don't see the problem. Maybe it's confusing but DCS requires some studying in the first place.

[Northstar98]

39 minutes ago, Vakarian said:

How would it create confusion? Isn't it exactly what most of people wanted? To make it realistic? Well, you got it. Nothing prevents you from mounting HARM on those pylons, but lack of certain things prevent you from firing. It's as real as it gets

 

Yep, but people will be loading HARMs on 4 and 6, and they'll find that they won't be working, and we'll get bug reports for them.

 

Then they're going to get told it's correct as is, but to them it won't make any sense, which will probably start an argument between:

1. Those who think we should have 4 HARMs and have them be working on all 4 stations (most unrealistic option).
2. Those who think we should have 4 HARMs, but have them be functional on just stations 3 and 7 (most realistic option).
3. Those who think we should only have 2 HARMs on stations 3 and 7 only (basically, the same as 2, but avoids the likely confusion).

Edited June 29, 2021 by Northstar98

[veenee]

true, but what is more impotant at the end of the day - realism or some people's potenitial confusion?

[Agrrregat]

Hi all,

 

Have you seen first coment on hoggit about HARMs?

 

 

From attached article:

(From Lockheed-Martin "Code 1" magazine, August 2015)
F-16 BLOCK 50/52 "WILD WEASEL Plus"
The first Block 50/52 was delivered to the US Air Force in 1991, and reached initial operational status in 1994. The Block 50/52 F-16 is recognized for its ability to carry the AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile in the suppression of enemy air defenses, or SEAD, missions. The F-16 can carry as many as four HARMs.

 

There is still lot of confiuson if this is realistic to use or not, especially that in first comment there is public info about HARMs

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Agrrregat

[Xavven]

I see a simple solution here along the lines of what Torri said. Just label them in the dropdown menu differently, so instead of just "HARM" label it "HARM (Disconnected and Cannot Fire)" or something similar.

 

We literally have training bombs, captive mavericks, captive sidewinders, etc. already and yes it confuses new players. Why didn't my maverick fire? Why did my target smoke instead of blow up?

[SFJackBauer]

3 hours ago, Torri said:

We don't need travel pods either, but they are in-game. Just clarify that the HARMs are inoperational and it'll be fine IMO

 

Nobody tries to fire a travel pod. Its not a weapon.

 

52 minutes ago, veenee said:

true, but what is more impotant at the end of the day - realism or some people's potenitial confusion?

 

Realism that adds nothing to gameplay? I agree with the OP. DCS has start-up tutorials that highlight the in-cockpit element. Does that should be removed because its not realistic to have a switch glowing out of nowhere?

 

36 minutes ago, Xavven said:

We literally have training bombs, captive mavericks, captive sidewinders, etc. already and yes it confuses new players. Why didn't my maverick fire? Why did my target smoke instead of blow up?

 

They are named differently than their live counterparts and they ARE training rounds. The HARMs on st4/6 are not. So it looks like a hack. Either remove them or keep them.

[Northstar98]

33 minutes ago, Xavven said:

We literally have training bombs, captive mavericks, captive sidewinders, etc. already and yes it confuses new players. Why didn't my maverick fire? Why did my target smoke instead of blow up?

 

That's not so much the case here - in that case the player simply selected the wrong store and didn't realise until they tried to fire it.

 

In this case, we're loading a weapon that is the right weapon, but being mounted on a pylon that cannot fire it.

 

As for the discussion, the hoggit thread is interesting as we've got 1 alleged SME saying that you can employ HARM from 4 and 6, but here we have another alleged SME saying you can't.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, veenee said:

true, but what is more impotant at the end of the day - realism or some people's potenitial confusion?

 

I'll go with realism every time. In this case though, I'm just trying to avoid the potential bug reports and subsequent arguments that are probably going to arise should people fail to find out about it first.

[veenee]

6 minutes ago, SFJackBauer said:

 

Realism that adds nothing to gameplay? I agree with the OP. DCS has start-up tutorials that highlight the in-cockpit element. Does that should be removed because its not realistic to have a switch glowing out of nowhere?

 

 

It's still a game, so.... no, it shouldn't be removed. If someone wishes to use these tutorials, it's their choice.

Movable vents in Hornet also bring nothing to gameplay, but are a nice touch, so...realism doesn't always have to be useful.

[Smoked]

11 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

 

As for the discussion, the hoggit thread is interesting as we've got 1 alleged SME saying that you can employ HARM from 4 and 6, but here we have another alleged SME saying you can't.

One SME is a crew chief..   The other SME is a weapons troop who DID work on the CM (and the CJ and the 30... etc..) who has looked into that station and will tell you that the communication wiring that is needed to make it happen is not there... 

[SFJackBauer]

6 minutes ago, veenee said:

 

It's still a game, so.... no, it shouldn't be removed. If someone wishes to use these tutorials, it's their choice.

Movable vents in Hornet also bring nothing to gameplay, but are a nice touch, so...realism doesn't always have to be useful.

 

The thread got merged so the OP I was referring to its now a different OP.

 

I don't think the tutorials should be removed. I used it as a counter-argument for "realism over people's confusion". In the case of tutorials, realism was sacrificed to help reduce people's confusion. So why should the topic at hand (have HARMS at stations 4/6) go the opposite way? Either have them fireable (if they can be) or remove them from these stations.

 

Because then, you would have to check ALL OTHER AIRCRAFT that have potential carriable ordnance that cannot be fired, and add them to the game.

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, Smoked said:

One SME is a crew chief..   The other SME is a weapons troop who DID work on the CM (and the CJ and the 30... etc..) who has looked into that station and will tell you that the communication wiring that is needed to make it happen is not there... 

 

I'm not saying who's right and who's not - just something I'd point out.

 

Personally, I'm in the AGM-88 only on 3 and 7 camp, based on what Scrape has said. ED's current plans are the most realistic and I support that - I'm just prepping for the bug reports and the subsequent arguing about it. 

[ViFF]

The obvious benefit of removing the umbilicle connectors from the pylons earmarked for carrying gas bags provided cost saving and ease of maintenance. But from a purist point of view what I believe should be implemented is how the airframe and components come from the OEM.

 

Not local cost saving initiatives that didn't affect operational capability anyways because the common loadout is 2x gas bags on stations 4 and 6.

 

I believe that it would be best to solve this by allowing mission designers and/or server admins to allow or restrict the loadouts as they see fit.

[Xavven]

Obviously the dilution effect (http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/social-cognition/dilution-effect/ ) has occurred here so I will repeat it again, this time without additional arguments.

 

Just label them in the dropdown menu differently, so instead of just "HARM" label it "HARM (Disconnected and Cannot Fire)" or something similar.

[=Panther=]

22 minutes ago, ViFF said:

The obvious benefit of removing the umbilicle connectors from the pylons earmarked for carrying gas bags provided cost saving and ease of maintenance. But from a purist point of view what I believe should be implemented is how the airframe and components come from the OEM.

 

Not local cost saving initiatives that didn't affect operational capability anyways because the common loadout is 2x gas bags on stations 4 and 6.

 

I believe that it would be best to solve this by allowing mission designers and/or server admins to allow or restrict the loadouts as they see fit.

The 370 gallon external fuel tank pylon is an assembly and only used for fuel tanks on the USAF Vipers. There is no swapping out an umbilicals “so it can carry weapons”. It is not capable of housing a mau-12 to hold weapons. The fuel tank pylon assembly goes up as a pair, comes down as a pair, jettisoned as a pair. 

[CBenson89]

Why don’t you guys find a freaking pilot from a SEAD unit and ask them. My brother is an eagle driver I’ll see if the two guys from his UPT class that got vipers went to SEAD units. And see what they say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk