HARM Loading Discussion

[Linx]

9 minutes ago, twistking said:

Have you configured it to work in the newly added ordnance restriction settings?

 

Yes, I have.

[Furiz]

2 hours ago, Linx said:

Seems that 4x HARMs have not made it into this patch. 4 & 6 still can not be launched.

 

Has anyone else had any success with launching them?

 

I guess they haven't gone through, with their decision, I tried just now, it wont recognize 4 harm loaded.

[Linx]

52 minutes ago, Furiz said:

 

I guess they haven't gone through, with their decision, I tried just now, it wont recognize 4 harm loaded.

 

Just a bug probably. Maybe we ought to report it.

 

 

EDIT:

Seems it is coming next patch?

 

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Linx

[SCPanda]

7 hours ago, Linx said:

 

Just a bug probably. Maybe we ought to report it.

 

 

EDIT:

Seems it is coming next patch?

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the update Linx! I was worried that ED changed their mind again lol. 

 

Could you please share an link to that post by BIGNEWY? Or let us know where you saw it? Thanks! 

Edited September 18, 2021 by SCPanda

[Linx]

7 hours ago, SCPanda said:

Thank you for the update Linx! I was worried that ED changed their mind again lol. 

 

Could you please share an link to that post by BIGNEWY? Or let us know where you saw it? Thanks! 

 

 

It was on ED official Discord.
Link to the post: https://discord.com/channels/542985647502393346/543014378643914752/888507126241198122

 

[Viciam1]

Can we carry HARMS on pylon 4/6 now if the server allows to do so? Or not yet?

[Furiz]

Not yet, it didn't make it into this patch, will have to wait for the next patch, as Bignewy said.

[Viciam1]

BORING - but thats okay I've sent my hotas for replacement so can't fly anyway.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Viciam1

[Dragon1-1]

I wonder, if a ship is wired for 4x HARMs, shouldn't it be able to carry and launch 4x Mavs, too? Now, unlike with HARMs, I have no idea if such a loadout was ever tested, and there might be separation/clearance issues, so maybe not, but I don't know.

[MAXsenna]

I wonder, if a ship is wired for 4x HARMs, shouldn't it be able to carry and launch 4x Mavs, too? Now, unlike with HARMs, I have no idea if such a loadout was ever tested, and there might be separation/clearance issues, so maybe not, but I don't know.

That question has been asked in another thread. Can't remember if there was a conclusion.
I'm on my cell and don't have the link. Sorry!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Hextopia]

Tested a 4 HARM loadout and wasn't able to get the inner pylons to fire.  I thought the loadout restriction patch was going to re-enable the inboard HARM pylons?

[Deadlift]

Tested this also after an internal dispute on discord.

It seems all the payload restriction setting does atm is not allow you to put the harms on station 4 & 6 (if switched off).

But if you do, they still dont register.

[Tholozor]

Reenabling HARMs on 4 and 6 didn't make this patch, should be in the next one.

https://discord.com/channels/542985647502393346/543014378643914752/888507126241198122

[Deadlift]

Thanks yeah I also just found that in the other thread!

[b0bl00i]

Same.. Instead of a wosh I had to dive to safety.. I don't get how things are announced but not included in the patch. 

[Hextopia]

Probably shouldn't have merged these threads until after the problem was fixed, since the title on this thread doesn't make it clear that 4 HARMs is out until the next patch.

[Eld0r]

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/
As I understand from DCS 2.7.6.13133 Open Beta - 2021·09·22

- Pylon 4 and 6 now got usable/launchable HARMS (no MAVs?) again for the F-16?

(So I guess there was a special workaround preventing equipt HARMs to launch from pylong 4&6 and MAVs were just restricted for loadout. Now this HARMs workaround got removed.)
and already since DCS 2.7.6.12852 Open Beta - 2021·09·17
- the mission editor tool for payload restrictions on individual pylons per plane was introduced.

 

So I guess the discussions about HARMs on stations 4 and 6 is finally over since the solution is already out for 7 days now and the mission designers take care of that. Added to my todo list. Wait.. What about just carrying for transport? 

[Hodo]

After doing a fair bit of research, I cannot find one real life example of a F-16C Block 50 ever firing a AGM-88 from pylons 4 or 6.  I can't even find one manual that shows it was even possible.   I understand this is a game but if we are going to do fantasy why not let the MiG-29S use vikrs or laser guided bombs.  Or let the F-14 use jdams?

[Furiz]

1 hour ago, Hodo said:

After doing a fair bit of research, I cannot find one real life example of a F-16C Block 50 ever firing a AGM-88 from pylons 4 or 6.  I can't even find one manual that shows it was even possible.   I understand this is a game but if we are going to do fantasy why not let the MiG-29S use vikrs or laser guided bombs.  Or let the F-14 use jdams?

Love these reverse psychology attempts

ED did their research and found out that some were able and some were not able to fire harm from 4 and 6 (this exact model, block and tape), not all of them were wired for HARM on 4 and 6, naming this fantasy module is really disrespectful to ED and their work.

 

Your post looks like a 12y/o not getting his candy.

You did a bit of research? where is that research? who did you speak to? where do they work, what rank/position in the US airforce do they have? which documents did you see, and how did you obtain those?

You don't have to tell us, tell that to ED, send them PMs, they are always open for new evidence.

Come to think of it, if you had some strong evidence you wouldn't come to the forum and insult someones work.

[DD_fruitbat]

2 hours ago, Hodo said:

After doing a fair bit of research, I cannot find one real life example of a F-16C Block 50 ever firing a AGM-88 from pylons 4 or 6.  I can't even find one manual that shows it was even possible.   I understand this is a game but if we are going to do fantasy why not let the MiG-29S use vikrs or laser guided bombs.  Or let the F-14 use jdams?

I don't really have a dog in this fight, certainly not going to loose sleep either way.... 

But reading your post just made me think of this ....

 

[Enduro14]

Well if we are going down this route,  then our viper should have APKWS and GBU 54/39 as they are and have used those in Afghanistan, Syria, Among other operational areas.  

 

https://theaviationist.com/2020/10/05/lets-have-a-look-at-the-gbu-39-sdb-and-apkws-markings-sported-by-the-f-16s-of-the-510th-fs-buzzards/

 

Something that is actually Operational.....

[Frederf]

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

Love these reverse psychology attempts ED did their research Your post looks like a 12y/o not getting his candy.

Ew.

[Hodo]

3 hours ago, Furiz said:

Love these reverse psychology attempts

ED did their research and found out that some were able and some were not able to fire harm from 4 and 6 (this exact model, block and tape), not all of them were wired for HARM on 4 and 6, naming this fantasy module is really disrespectful to ED and their work.

 

Your post looks like a 12y/o not getting his candy.

You did a bit of research? where is that research? who did you speak to? where do they work, what rank/position in the US airforce do they have? which documents did you see, and how did you obtain those?

You don't have to tell us, tell that to ED, send them PMs, they are always open for new evidence.

Come to think of it, if you had some strong evidence you wouldn't come to the forum and insult someones work.

Sorry you feel that way.  But did they post their resources?   

 

It is quite simple if the AGM-88 was able to be fired from stations 4 and 6 then they would use the same stations to utilize Amraams.  

 

[Furiz]

7 minutes ago, Hodo said:

But did they post their resources? 

Why would they do that?

[QuiGon]

11 hours ago, Furiz said:

Why would they do that?

To be transparent to their customers. Saying "we have proof" and not showing it, while there is no indication anywhere else that what they say is actually true, gives a shady impression.

Personally, I will give ED the benefit of the doubt and I'm willing to believe them to be correct, if they say they actually have proof, but it's not the best way to gain the trust of your customers to hold it back.

Edited October 28, 2021 by QuiGon