Jump to content

[NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR] GBU-54 for Hornet ?


hotrod525

Recommended Posts

This topic land-slided alot more than i expected. My whole point here is that it can be carry by the plane so why not use it ? As many pointed out, it could be lock behind "year restriction" just like GPS is in-game.

 

On the other end, i could easily arge that the "this wont fit on an airframe" argument with the fact that it dosent matter what the "OEM original specs" are if you consider that they will add anything to anything to sold anything. Indian SU30MKI carry LITENING POD, is to me a good example that IRL, this whole logic dont stand the test of lucrative contracts.

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/sukhoi-30-mkis-iafs-bet.jpg?w=624

Or that some weapon require no modification to the airframe, but this have been pointed out already.

 

I understand both point here actually, those who said it shouldnot, and those who said it should. I think that we can all agreed that being the less restrictive possible and allowing people to choose if they use it or not cover the whole community.

 

You're hardcore-year-exclusive-etc-fan, then you can do it. You're more of an hardcore-not-stuck-in-time-etc-fan, then you can do it. So both enjoy the game at their most, it provide additionnal tool in the sandbox, simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I remember reading somewhere that they are going to correct the bombs on the hornet with Ablative coatings and correct fuses, and I've seen some of them in model viewer too. So I think that's a good sign. Someone posted that ED changed their minds on BRU-55s so they can always change their minds on this too.

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don’t see the issue. If the weapon system is rated to work with the C model, was in service while the C was still in active service with the fleet, it’s already in game, and our Hornets are clearly used from an at least 90s to 2011+ timeframe. Regardless if it’s a 2005 Hornet, it’s not used in game in only 2005. I see plenty of missions/servers with era weapon restrictions, so there really is no good argument against adding this weapon for those who want the most modern equivalent of the aircraft available. It’s the same as those who want a weapon restricted version of the Hornet to maybe simulate an A model? To say it’s just a 2005 version of the Hornet is a bit ridiculous in a game where people make missions and scenarios spanning decades in both directions. Both historical and fictional.

 

Heck, the war in Syria didn’t start until 2010-11? Yet we have that map added and 2005 version Hornets flying over it that are apparently stuck in 2005. Doesn’t make sense, what are they doing there in 2005?

 

By the same logic we shouldn’t be able to use the Hornet over Georgia, Syria, Russia or Iran. Sure they could have been deployed there but they weren’t, especially in 2005. Same goes for the carriers...etc.

 

You see, you can take it to the extreme. In the end this is a game, you should be able to utilize things based off of “what-ifs” but held together by real world info. An example: you wouldn’t have an F5 using an AIM-54. It was never designed to use it, doesn’t have the proper equipment to use it...etc. but with a GBU-54 we’re talking about a weapon that was put into service to replace older weapons while the C was still flying. Where the C has the ability to carry and employ it, and what’s more was apparently rated to use it based off of documents I could find. Full scale production of the LJDAM for the Navy started in 2012, well before the C was retired. Logic would dictate that the USN would order 2300 units of something their strike aircraft could actually utilize.

 

We’re a long way away from “just maintaining the code” by the way. While the Hornet has made a lot of gains there are still many things to do. While I get this is a sim, it’s also a video game where people create missions or battles and wars that never happened. So if the 54 is rated to be used with the C and the C was still flying when the weapon was rolled out then it should be implemented. Whether any C model actually got the chance to drop it is irrelevant.

 

This is based off of whether people can get over not thinking it’s always 2005 in game when flying their Hornet. They don’t seem to have an issue thinking the Hornet is pre-2005 when weapon restricting.

 

All that being said, I don’t know for sure. I never worked for the Navy in any capacity. I’m basing this off of the little documentation I could find. I just think “not the correct year” is a bit bogus based off how the game is actually utilized and played. Also there seems to be extreme selection in what is deemed to be accurate enough.

 

if you’re going for this 100% accuracy, especially in year, then by all means pull the maps, weapons and everything else and only add areas where these 2005 hornets operated in 2005. Same goes for all other aircraft needing to be limited to what year they were built and what weapons were available and used in only that year, and where they operated in that year. You’d also need to make it so certain aircraft cannot fly together or cannot fly on certain maps...etc. Also the mission editor can be set well past 2007, so that too should be adjusted.

 

How can we use a 2005 F\A-18C in a mission with the date 2032? It’s not realistic!!! My game should crash automatically when I hit Fly.

 

I think in reality yes this Hornet is modeled after a 2005 variant but the fact is people use the Hornet in many ways. From a weapon restricted earlier model, to whatever can be used give me the latest munitions that were flying on the C up until it was retired. It just so happens those who want to simulate an earlier model are catered to in the sense they can weapon restrict. Meanwhile those who would like the most up to date are told this Hornet stops at 2005 even though the C wasn’t retired until well after. In all honesty people aren’t asking for all the upgrades past 2005, only some weapons, such as the GBU-54 which is already implemented in game on two aircraft and if implemented on the Hornet wouldn’t require anything we don’t already have.

 

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to add a few post-2005 weapons. It would be unreasonable asking for multiple versions of the Hornet with various stages of upgrades to the systems. That’s not what’s being asked for though.

 

I would assume that the F-16 also won’t be getting the 54 seeing as how it’s a 2007 model and the first combat use of a 54 was 2008 iirc. Smh.

 

These decisions just don’t make sense to me. If anything, weapon restrictions shouldn’t be allowed. If those wanting this Uber-realism are serious then this is a 2005 Hornet and we must use what was used in 2005. The rest must be removed. Example: if there were no combat sorties flown with a sparrow, walleye, or aim-9p then pull it from weapon selection. Remember, just because the 2005 C could have used these weapons means nothing when it’s a 2005 model.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to detract from the topic, but God guys, how about we let them polish off the many bugs and incorrect and/or missing functions from the current weapons and systems rather than asking for even more weapons, even if the C model can carry them.


Edited by Jak525
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jak525 said:

I don't mean to detract from the topic, but God guys, how about we let them polish off the many bugs and incorrect and/or missing functions from the current weapons and systems rather than asking for even more weapons, even if the C model can carry them.

 

How about they do both.

  • Like 1

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

 

How about they do both.

In an ideal world for sure, and I'm not against things being added later. I'm just saying the priority right now, since ED has limited resources, ought to be improving what we already have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess in some ways it does open Pandora's box a little bit. If they add the GBU-54 to the Hornet (on the a 2005 Hornet operating now would carry it) then they would face the same argument for the JASSM on the Viper (which is a bigger issue given the Viper lacks any cruise missiles) and so it goes on.

 

Maybe we will get it with a Super Hornet future module, or they do a weapons pack for the Hornet (ASRAAM please 😀).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2020 at 1:50 AM, IRememberJeep said:

Personally I don’t see the issue. If the weapon system is rated to work with the C model, was in service while the C was still in active service with the fleet, it’s already in game, and our Hornets are clearly used from an at least 90s to 2011+ timeframe. Regardless if it’s a 2005 Hornet, it’s not used in game in only 2005. I see plenty of missions/servers with era weapon restrictions, so there really is no good argument against adding this weapon for those who want the most modern equivalent of the aircraft available. It’s the same as those who want a weapon restricted version of the Hornet to maybe simulate an A model? To say it’s just a 2005 version of the Hornet is a bit ridiculous in a game where people make missions and scenarios spanning decades in both directions. Both historical and fictional.

Take it up with ED, they intend to give us a USN mid-2000s F/A-18C.

Just because mission designers take liberties with the realism (they basically don't have much choice to do otherwise seeing as we don't have variants).

Also, restricting weapons on the F/A-18C doesn't stop it from being a 2005 Hornet, it literally changes nothing about it's capabilities whatsoever, zip, nada.

Quote

Heck, the war in Syria didn’t start until 2010-11? Yet we have that map added and 2005 version Hornets flying over it that are apparently stuck in 2005. Doesn’t make sense, what are they doing there in 2005?

This is a problem of era/map/module/asset consistency with DCS, and unfortunately the ship has already sailed...

Quote

By the same logic we shouldn’t be able to use the Hornet over Georgia, Syria, Russia or Iran. Sure they could have been deployed there but they weren’t, especially in 2005. Same goes for the carriers...etc.

Are you advocating deletion of the mission editor, if ED wants to be historically accurate?

I don't mind alternate history missions, otherwise DCS would be pretty boring. But the problem is there's lacklustre consistency between the eras of modules, maps and assets. Unfortunately the ship has sailed and there's not much that can be done about it. That and the lack of variants means that in order to setup a mission with historically consistent assets, modules and map, you have to be unrealistic.

Quote

You see, you can take it to the extreme. In the end this is a game, you should be able to utilize things based off of “what-ifs” but held together by real world info.

Yes it is a game, but it's supposed to be a game that authentically simulates aircraft, ground vehicles, and ships at least to wherever feasible. We can debate all year round about how well it actually succeeds at that, but that is the main purpose behind DCS. ED have stated it's supposed to be a 2005 USN Hornet, so don't you think it should be a 2005 USN Hornet?

It amazes me that people pick up DCS, a game that in it's own description is supposed to offer something as realistic as possible, and then have a problem with it being so.

It's supposed to be a sandbox so mission creation is completely up to you - as it should be.

Quote

An example: you wouldn’t have an F5 using an AIM-54. It was never designed to use it, doesn’t have the proper equipment to use it...etc. but with a GBU-54 we’re talking about a weapon that was put into service to replace older weapons while the C was still flying.

And most likely had upgraded avionics fit to facilitate it, which is something we probably won't get.

So now not only are the maps, assets and modules all over the place, the aircraft now are too...

Quote

So if the 54 is rated to be used with the C and the C was still flying when the weapon was rolled out then it should be implemented. Whether any C model actually got the chance to drop it is irrelevant.

It depends on whether the GBU-54 is actually compatible with the aircraft we have right now, my guess is probably no based on avionics fit.

Quote

 

This is based off of whether people can get over not thinking it’s always 2005 in game when flying their Hornet. They don’t seem to have an issue thinking the Hornet is pre-2005 when weapon restricting.

You realise basically every asset in DCS that isn't a BLUFOR module is early 90s at the latest?

If you want to set up a mission that's historically consistent with these units, while keeping it peer to peer, you have no choice other than to employ some time travel with the modules.

And weapon restricting is a workaround in lieu of not having appropriate variants, I can't change the fact that I'm flying with a more modern RADAR. The difference is that restricting weapons doesn't turn our Hornet into something it's not, nor does it increase workload on aircraft that still is missing a fair number of things already.

Quote

All that being said, I don’t know for sure. I never worked for the Navy in any capacity.

Me neither, but if you look at the F-16CM Block 50, you'll find that to implement certain weapons it required an avionics change, and sometimes these included some pretty significant differences. These are avionics our F-16CM isn't fitted with. I have a hunch it's a similar case for the Hornet.

And ultimately if we're going to add 2012+ weapons to the C, what about everything else? Why make a 2005 Hornet (that's supposed to be, by all intents and purposes (literally) a 2005 USN Hornet) in the first place? Why not instead do a 2012+ one instead?

Quote

 I just think “not the correct year” is a bit bogus based off how the game is actually utilized and played. Also there seems to be extreme selection in what is deemed to be accurate enough.

Again, the ship has already sailed. Personally I would've rather get maps, modules and assets that are all consistent with each other, but unfortunately the ship has sailed and it's an incoherent, uncomprehensive mess.

I mean we have 2000s+ BLUFOR aircraft, but literally everything else in no newer than the very early 90s at best (most of it is 80s or earlier). Plus if we got earlier variants, not only would they fit literally the rest of DCS much better, but they'd also probably be done by now.

Quote

if you’re going for this 100% accuracy, especially in year, then by all means pull the maps, weapons and everything else and only add areas where these 2005 hornets operated in 2005. Same goes for all other aircraft needing to be limited to what year they were built and what weapons were available and used in only that year, and where they operated in that year. You’d also need to make it so certain aircraft cannot fly together or cannot fly on certain maps...etc. Also the mission editor can be set well past 2007, so that too should be adjusted.

This argument again. Look, DCS is a sandbox, and DCS doesn't have maps, modules and assets that fit each other nicely, the only era that it does is WWII.

If it did there wouldn't be problem, but it does, so it is. I have to work with what I've got.

Let's say I want to set up a peer-to-peer mission (i.e US vs Russia/China/USSR) and I want it to be on an appropriate map and I want to keep the assets historically consistent, let's say within a decade of each other (I think this is more than a reasonable margin). The mission can be something alternate history like a Cold War gone hot, something to the tune of Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising.

Of course, the Cold War didn't go hot, but it was arguably a very real threat at the time, and I think it would be very interesting to see how it would play out if it did.

Let's set the mission date to around the mid-ish 80s and see what we have to work with:

REDFOR? Check (mostly) there's a decent-ish number of aircraft (even if they're all simplified), there's enough ground vehicles and other assets to make it work.

Map? Oh dear, we've ran into a snag; the only map of the right era is the Caucasus, but at the time Georgia was a part of the USSR, so keeping it realistic there's only REDFOR bases and nowhere for BLUFOR to operate out of. The map is otherwise surrounded by the Warsaw Pact aside from Turkey.

BLUFOR? Damn, another snag. Next to no appropriate BLUFOR modules (only really the F-14B Tomcat so far, and that's late 80s), for others you can only really approximate with weapon restrictions, but even then it's still the wrong aircraft. Literally nowhere to operate out of, but if you wanted to bend the Montreux convention on the Bosphorous Strait, you could operate from the Black Sea, only there's basically no appropriate BLUFOR naval units of the right era, especially not aircraft carriers. Even the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate is technically mid-to-late 2000s, given how it has a Phalanx Block 1B and no STIR (IRL, when STIR was removed, the Mk13 GMLS went with it, so we've got somewhat of a frankenstein's frigate).

Okay, let's give up on doing an 80s mission, seeing as BLUFOR and maps are definitely lacking, and the assets we do have aren't exactly comprehensive. Let's do a mid-ish 2000s one instead.

BLUFOR? Check, while there are some vehicles here and there that are missing, there's a decent selection, the A-10C (earlier), F-16CM Block 50 and F/A-18C Lot 20 all fit nicely. There are probably the minimum amount of ships to do it (even if we're missing a fair few features, not to mention logistics/amphibious assault vessels). Unfortunately there's no surveillance RADARs but overall I'd argue we've got enough to work with.

Map? Meh, not really set-up for peer-to-peer, but I guess it's decent enough. I'd say we've got something to work with but we're making compromises.

REDFOR? Damn blundered into a snag again, nothing newer than the 90s (at best), basically all of it is late 60s-late 80s, they're stuck in the mid-to-late Cold War and are at best 15-20 years out of date. They're hardly a peer contemporary at this point. Even in an asymmetrical scenario, smaller nations would probably have more contemporary equipment, even if only in limited numbers.

So we can't really do that either. If we want to keep it peer-to-peer among contemporary forces, and keep it historically consistent, our only option is to make unrealistic compromises (such as restricting weapons and pretending), or we abandon making a peer-to-peer missions with historically consistent modules, assets and maps all together.

So okay, if we want to keep it realistic and historically consistent what are we left to work with? Well there's asymmetrical missions, this works for our maps like the SoH and Syria, only the primary REDFOR is missing some kit; there's probably enough to make something work, but there are a fair number of things missing. I would go on, but I want to move on.

Quote

How can we use a 2005 F\A-18C in a mission with the date 2032? It’s not realistic!!! My game should crash automatically when I hit Fly.

The mission editor also goes as far back as 1900, 3 years before the first powered, manned aircraft ever flew... Just because a player can set-up something that's unrealistic doesn't mean that everything else should necessarily be made unrealistic too.

And besides, what's the point in building a 2032 mission? There's absolutely no module, asset, weapon or map that fits...

Unless you're making a mission where you pretend that BLUFOR technology stopped in the 2010s and REDFOR stopped in the early 90s... 

Quote

I think in reality yes this Hornet is modeled after a 2005 variant but the fact is people use the Hornet in many ways. From a weapon restricted earlier model, to whatever can be used give me the latest munitions that were flying on the C up until it was retired. It just so happens those who want to simulate an earlier model are catered to in the sense they can weapon restrict.

Because it changes absolutely nothing to our 2005 Hornet, those restricted weapons are completely and fully compatible without any changes whatsoever, and many still exist in the 2005 timeframe.

The same cannot be said for the GBU-54 and APKWS, the former likely requires an avionics update (which we won't be getting) and neither even existed for a significant amount of time for Hornet.

Quote

Meanwhile those who would like the most up to date are told this Hornet stops at 2005 even though the C wasn’t retired until well after.

And among the C's there are different Lots, and possibly differing avionics fits to support the GBU-54.

Quote

In all honesty people aren’t asking for all the upgrades past 2005, only some weapons, such as the GBU-54 which is already implemented in game on two aircraft and if implemented on the Hornet wouldn’t require anything we don’t already have.

Okay, so not content with the maps, assets and modules being a bit of a mess, we should advocate making the aircraft a mess too, comprising capabilities of different fits.

I personally think this is the exact opposite thing we should be doing, the problem already is that the eras in DCS and the maps and assets that fit are a complete mess and are all over the place. The solution IMO should be to try and clean the mess up by adding more comprehensive assets that fit. What we shouldn't be doing, IMO, is making the disparity even larger than it already is (the difference between latest full-fidelity, fixed-wing BLUFOR and REDFOR is already ~40 years) and making the mess spread to aircraft.

If we are to go down that route, why even bother making specific variants at this point? Especially if DCS (by ED's own words) is supposed to offer the most authentic simulation of aircraft feasible.

How about we ban players from owning any post 1990s BLUFOR aircraft if they don't own an appropriate map?

One other thing I hate is when companies advertise and promise one thing and deliver the other, but here we are basically demanding that they do so.

Quote

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to add a few post-2005 weapons. It would be unreasonable asking for multiple versions of the Hornet with various stages of upgrades to the systems. That’s not what’s being asked for though.

 

I would assume that the F-16 also won’t be getting the 54 seeing as how it’s a 2007 model and the first combat use of a 54 was 2008 iirc. Smh.

In that time (yes it's short) the F-16CM got a very significant avionics package, including completely different radio sets. It also included capability for the GBU-39, AGM-158 (if I'm not mistaken) as well as others (there was a post about this but the forum upgrades have removed it).

If you don't want the aircraft to represent what they are IRL, then you're in the wrong place. Ultimately this is what Wags had to say about the F-16C:

"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."

Quote

 

These decisions just don’t make sense to me. If anything, weapon restrictions shouldn’t be allowed.

What? The 2005 Hornet is perfectly compatible with all the weapons it currently has. It isn't compatible with the GBU-54, it didn't even exist on the Hornet for a significant fraction of a decade at least.

No capability was lost for older weapons, and a fair number of them are even still in service (even if completely superseded).

Quote

If those wanting this Uber-realism are serious then this is a 2005 Hornet and we must use what was used in 2005. The rest must be removed. Example: if there were no combat sorties flown with a sparrow, walleye, or aim-9p then pull it from weapon selection. Remember, just because the 2005 C could have used these weapons means nothing when it’s a 2005 model.

Dude, you're being frankly ridiculous, fact is the 2005 Hornet is absolutely compatible with those weapons, it's avionics fit them, the GBU-54 doesn't.

Once again, DCS' mission goal is to offer the most authentic simulation of military aircraft possible, it leaves what you do with them completely up to you. Shall we ban the M1A2 under USA from ever attacking a single unit under Russia or the USSR too? Seeing as they've never actually fought against each other? Why don't you tell Heatblur to delete the Viggen seeing as it was never used in active combat and there isn't a single map that fits it.

To top it off why do we even need our Hornet to have the GBU-54? It is already arguably the most capable BLUFOR aircraft as it is with a 20 year advantage over peer REDFOR (the MiG-29, Su-27 and -33, the latter being arguably the Hornet's direct contemporary in lieu of the MiG-29K, are all no newer than the mid-80s), is that not enough?


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well IRL GBU-54s are basically the aircrafts bread and butter for strikes these days. I know it’s not realistic for our jet. But how big of stretch is it, really. 

 

And to to be fair our hornet is definitely not compatible with BRU-55s either for sure. Yet here they are. “Gameplay consideration” so is it too much to ask? Because that is probably the one of the most prolific weapons for all modern day hornets and it’s already in the game. 

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2020 at 3:11 AM, Wizard_03 said:

Well IRL GBU-54s are basically the aircrafts bread and butter for strikes these days. I know it’s not realistic for our jet. But how big of stretch is it, really.

You could say the exact same about the AIM-120D and AIM-9X Block II. The reason it's a stretch is that A.) it increases development workload and B.) Realism is the point of DCS World.

Quote

And to to be fair our hornet is definitely not compatible with BRU-55s either for sure. Yet here they are. “Gameplay consideration” so is it too much to ask? Because that is probably the one of the most prolific weapons for all modern day hornets and it’s already in the game. 

If BRU-55 is unrealistic then we shouldn't have it. But we should be striving for something that is as close to reality as feasibly possible, that's the whole mission goal of DCS World; of course we can debate for ages about how well it actually does that, but it's clearly the goal.

Having something unrealistic doesn't mean something else should be too; it's in the same breath as, just because somebody murdered somebody else, doesn't make it okay for some other person to murder somebody else, if that makes sense.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what I'm saying is If they were to just change the label from mid 2000s hornet to 2012 hornet I guarantee no one here would recognize the differences. And poof GBU-54s would be realistic. What we have now is not 100 percent true to reality. Bru-55s are just one example. 

 

They stretch things in the name of gameplay all the time. 

 

 

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2020 at 2:51 PM, Wizard_03 said:

And what I'm saying is If they were to just change the label from mid 2000s hornet to 2012 hornet I guarantee no one here would recognize the differences.

Not really relevant, but okay.

Quote

 

And poof GBU-54s would be realistic. What we have now is not 100 percent true to reality. Bru-55s are just one example.

So everything else should necessarily be made unrealistic also?

Again, look at the murder analogy, just because someone else committed a murder doesn't make murder okay. It's an extreme example but the fundamentals are there...

Quote

They stretch things in the name of gameplay all the time. 

And this isn't a good thing. Look, just because x isn't realistic doesn't mean we should make y unrealistic too. In a game striving for realism tis isn't a good thing, and is orthogonal to their own goals.

And then what about other weapons and avionics?


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's quite relevant because that's the whole reason we're even arguing. They set a time period which defines what the jet can and cannot have. Change that and they can do whatever they want, they did the exact same thing with A-10C

13 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Not really relevant, but okay.

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2020 at 4:33 PM, Wizard_03 said:

I think it's quite relevant because that's the whole reason we're even arguing. They set a time period which defines what the jet can and cannot have. Change that and they can do whatever they want, they did the exact same thing with A-10C

Yes, there it's absolutely relevant.

The point I was more getting at, is people being ignorant on the differences isn't really relevant.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
On 9/23/2020 at 6:46 PM, Andartu said:

 

+1

 

.. btw does anybody know if the USMC Legacy Hornets that are still in service utilize the GBU-54?

 

Did not find anything after a (very) quick google search, but maybe here is someone who knows that.

 

2E8F0BB2-CCF0-4858-8A6E-4355BF3D4344.jpeg
GBU-54’s on a Lot 20 F/A-18C. 


Edited by Sn8ke
  • Like 1

Asus ROG Maximus X Apex//Core I7 8700K @ 5.3Ghz //32GB DDR4 RAM//Asus 3090 RTX//4K monitor w/ TrackIR 5

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sn8ke said:

2E8F0BB2-CCF0-4858-8A6E-4355BF3D4344.jpeg
GBU-54’s on a Lot 20 F/A-18C. 

 

That's not a Lot 20. That aircraft is BuNo 165186, which is a Lot 18 from Block 48, and that photo was taken in 2015. Lots and Blocks don't mean anything this far ahead of when the aircraft was produced; it's all about the software.

  • Like 2

REAPER 51 | Tholozor
VFA-136 (c.2007): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305981/
Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pack (2020): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313752/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The big problem is that ED don't want to make it. They are a business company that need money to survive.
Their project started with a roadmap that they'll not change to satisfy some clients. They need to go forward with other projects to keep paying the bills. I hope be wrong and they, some time in the future, do something like GBU-54s.

Everyone know that it's a simple code thing to do like they did with the A-10C II. But it'll not happen unfortunately.

Lets hope for future 3rd devs bring us some Super Hornet dream!


Best regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2022 at 1:25 PM, borba_eagle said:

Everyone know that it's a simple code thing to do like they did with the A-10C II. But it'll not happen unfortunately.

Everyone? I'm not a software developer and I won't ever assume if a change would be "simple" or not. More often than not, things that may seem simple to a layman are anything but. 

The GBU-54 is already modeled in the game and in use in other DCS modules. But it's not simple as replacing a "0" with a "1" to enable it on the Hornet. At the very least the Stores page and all its associated options would need to be created for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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