not accurate for usa [NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, NOT ACCURATE FOR YEAR] APKWS on viper

[Fri13]

5 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

 F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007.

 

All planned systems and payloads can be found here 

 

Thanks

 

Sorry that doesn't answer to the question.

And it says "Subject to change" so it is subject that can change.

 

Here are few questions. 

Did the ED have access to the F-16C Blk 50 that is modeled in 2007 and not after that (so it took from them to 12 years to release the module)?

Did the Viper as modeled, operate anywhere / be in service anywhere past 2007?

Can we fly the Viper in DCS on missions dated on any other year than 2007, and if so - why/when it is wrong?

 

Our Viper is compatible with the weapon. without modifications, used in service since 2016.  As is. 

It would literally just require ED to add the APKWS to weapons loadout and set its time filter value to 2016. It would be realistic, as aircraft in conditions as was in service in 2007, is capable use that weapon today since 2016 when weapon was taken in service.

 

If there would be a technical reason to make it not possible, like there are no wiring or Viper was never capable fire any Hydra 70 rockets then it would be very clearly NO! But it is asking "Can our Viper launch Hydra 70 rockets?". 

[Deano87]

I think you've got the answer that you've been looking for, Its not going to happen.

I get your logic as to why you think it should be added regarding backwards compatability. But a 2016 Viper would be different from the aircraft we have modelled anyway, so yes we have to fly a "2007 F-16" frozen in time regardless of the date of the mission.. oh well.

[Fri13]

30 minutes ago, Deano87 said:

I think you've got the answer that you've been looking for, Its not going to happen.

 

Every answer is required to be explained with logic, technical facts and reasoning. 

Someone just saying "NO!" is not an valid argument when it is required from others to request features or functions with logic, technical facts and reasoning.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Deano87 said:

But a 2016 Viper would be different from the aircraft we have modelled anyway,

 

That is the point, it isn't, that because it is operating today as is?

 

30 minutes ago, Deano87 said:

so yes we have to fly a "2007 F-16" frozen in time regardless of the date of the mission.. oh well.

 

We are flying a F-16C Blk 50 that covers multiple years, from 2007-2020 and soon 2007-2021.

In DCS we could even go to the future and make it to fly in 2025 assuming that they would still exist, and it would be still far more realistic than take it to 1944 to fly against Bf 109's.

 

But regardless even by the time argument (that is illogical and weak) the technical facts should matter about compatibility. And it should just be mission designer decision to allow such a compatible weapon to be used earlier than the weapon was taken in service.

 

Like AIM-120C-5 is available for the Viper. Why? Because technically it is compatible and capable to use it.

Can we take that AIM-120C-5 to year 1985 against Su-27S? YES!

Can we take that Su-27S with R-27R to year 2007 against F-16C? YES!

 

If the APKWS would require new pylons, new wiring, new firing computer system, new laser designator system etc. It would be not logical to request it to be added for Viper as it would be technically impossible. This same argument is used with the conformal fuel tanks, with the braking chute, with the JSOW or what ever weapons when it is technical reasoning.

But when it becomes technically 100% possible, it is invalid argument and "Year 2007" card is pulled out.

 

Like what would happen if someone would go and dig out that in 2007 in the base by any F-16C Blk 50 that is modeled, never carried or launched a single AGM-154C? On that specific year it was not in the inventory, not in the allowed weapons loadouts? Oh boy, oh boy, you would hear a lot of "But it is technically possible" arguments, regardless that "on that year there was no such weapon in service on that squadron". 

You understand the dilemma that "Not on year _____" is a invalid argument.

 

We live now in 2020, in few weeks it is 2021. That is the reality. About decade ago a weapon system program was restarted with a new design that made it fully backward compatible to any system that could fire Hydra 70 rockets. That covers everything from 1948 to present really. Did APKWS exist in then? No. Does it exist in 2016-2020? Yes!

Can we make missions that are in 2016-202_? Yes!

We even have the weapon system implemented in the DCS, it is not like someone would need to get specifications and start programming it from scratch!

 

But if someone wants to use the argument "the year is _____?" then we can start using it to deny a lot of things and request removing them from the DCS. And that is a can of worms as it is totally valid argument and reasoning then to do so. 

DCS should be realistic flight simulator, a sandbox where players can generate "what if" kind missions etc based to technical realism. 

[Deano87]

Ah... Fri... Never one to use 3 or 4 words when a couple of thousand will easily do

I don't have time to read all of that. But let me simplify things for you.

 

Decisions made by a company don't need to be explained at all, they can decide to do something and offer no explanation for it. Its their product, its their perogative to develop it exactly as they see fit. ED don't owe you an explanation, especially when its above and beyond the already promised feature set.

 

Regarding the aircraft itself.

 

The aircraft modelled is from 2007.

APKWS Didn't exist in 2007
If you were flying a Block 50 F-16 in 2016 it would be quite different from the jet modelled in the sim, Tape upgrades, A-GCAS, Aim-120D, Aim-9X BkII etc etc.
So if you flew our 2007 jet, with a weapon from a decade later, it would not be a realistic scenario, regardless of the mechanical capability of the aircraft to employ that weapon.

It would be just as unrealistic as our 2007 era F-16 using the Aim-120D or Aim-9XBkII because it wouldn't have been something that would ever happen with that aircraft in the configuration that its modelled in.
Lastly, ED has given you a decision on the subject so further pleading is literally just wasting your time.

Edited December 15, 2020 by Deano87

[Northstar98]

18 hours ago, Deano87 said:

Decisions made by a company don't need to be explained at all, they can decide to do something and offer no explanation for it. Its their product, its their perogative to develop it exactly as they see fit. ED don't owe you an explanation, especially when its above and beyond the already promised feature set.

 

Exactly, they're modelling an F-16C Block 50 circa 2007 as used by the USAF/ANG, so logically it should represent the capabilities of one, as it was, for the operator and timeframe.

 

That capability doesn't include APKWS, nor did it even exist at the time.

 

I mean, the whole mission editor timeframe is a complete irrelevancy, it's up to the mission editor. You are perfectly capable of setting the date to before the first powered, manned aircraft successfully flew and have F-16Cs, S-300s and whatever. I've no idea why you would (nor do I have any idea why you'd set the date further into the future), but the choice is there to do so it bares no relevancy, it changes nothing but a filter.

 

F-16s with APKWS are fitted with significant differences compared to our one, and APKWS wasn't the only thing that changed in nearly an entire decade, we're not getting those after.

 

I've mentioned it before, I'll mention it again - eras at the moment are all over the place and it's pretty inconsistent when it comes to modules + assets + maps, and now people are demanding we make the aircraft inconsistent too?

 

Quote

Regarding the aircraft itself.

 

The aircraft modelled is from 2007.

APKWS Didn't exist in 2007
If you were flying a Block 50 F-16 in 2016 it would be quite different from the jet modelled in the sim, Tape upgrades, A-GCAS, Aim-120D, Aim-9X BkII etc etc.
So if you flew our 2007 jet, with a weapon from a decade later, it would not be a realistic scenario, regardless of the mechanical capability of the aircraft to employ that weapon.

It would be just as unrealistic as our 2007 era F-16 using the Aim-120D or Aim-9XBkII because it wouldn't have been something that would ever happen with that aircraft in the configuration that its modelled in.

 

This!

Edited December 15, 2020 by Northstar98

[Fri13]

21 hours ago, Deano87 said:

Ah... Fri... Never one to use 3 or 4 words when a couple of thousand will easily do

I don't have time to read all of that. But let me simplify things for you.

 

Decisions made by a company don't need to be explained at all, they can decide to do something and offer no explanation for it. Its their product, its their perogative to develop it exactly as they see fit. ED don't owe you an explanation, especially when its above and beyond the already promised feature set.

 

If you do not read, you do not understand.

 

The developers need to explain their argument and their logic what they are going to apply for ANY argument in the future, or in the past.

Now what the developers has given as argument, is that technical capabilities or historical facts are irrelevant and only thing that matters is "We want to consider it to exist only in year XXXX and no other".

 

Now if they will pull any time in the future argument that goes against their argument here, they don't have value in their arguments in either place!

 

Example, ED has few times used as argument "The weapon/system X was never used or trained in that year/location, so it doesn't get implemented" when asked for some more special one. Okay, if the logic is that weapon needs to be used and trained for to it to be implemented in the module, then it opens can of worms if there comes up such information like:

 

"For example, I spoke with an F-4E pilot, and he said they never trained with rocket pods, not only because they didn't have any, but also because there was a number of previous accidents or near-accidents, so the enthusiasm just wasn't there to use them."

 

"I can't speak for PACAF in 1983 but in Europe, F-16s would have been using only free-fall bombs and older cluster munitions. I never heard of anyone discussing using Napalm and I never trained for it. In the southern region around the Med we trained for medium altitude as well as low altitude employment. That was mostly due to reduced threat and better weather. In central Europe they would have flown more low altitude because of threat and weather. I never heard of a USAFE F-4 doing AGM-65 but they may have."

 

As if a specific module would be in a such scenario that technically a common weapon is compatible and usable, but it was never trained or mounted and it is so common weapon as Hydra 70 rockets or even AGM-65 Maverick, then what would it mean if ED would regardless their previous argument go and do it otherwise?

 The similar thing is example here: https://youtu.be/A-hrrMlksNA?t=2629

 

Think about it, a F-111 flight instructor that has never launched a flare from the aircraft, ever. He is not a some airshow pilot, but he is a flight instructor and combat aviator, not knowing anything about what a launching a flare feels, looks and sounds like. 

So if a such argument would be taken as "feature X not implemented as it Is not trained/used" then flares should never exist in the F-111 module etc. Period.

How does it make you feel if you would be denied to have flares in such module? And regardless you to even using just common sense about availability of the flares, get turned down by such argument "Not trained for, not getting implemented"?

How does it make you feel if then on another thread that is in same situation, such argument is put a side and told "It is a common feature, we will implement it regardless it is never trained for"?

As that is classical "moving the goalposts" argument then as in one thread X is one implemented, and on another thread Y is implemented by simply putting the same argument aside as used in other.  

 

21 hours ago, Deano87 said:

Regarding the aircraft itself.

 

The aircraft modelled is from 2007.

APKWS Didn't exist in 2007

 

Actually APKWS did exist in 2007, but APKWS II did not exist in 2007. Yes, nitpicking

 

21 hours ago, Deano87 said:

If you were flying a Block 50 F-16 in 2016 it would be quite different from the jet modelled in the sim

 

So I ask again, can you tell that when did the ED have access to the F-16C Blk 50 they are modeling? When did they get hands-on access to the very specific model to perform 3D scanning, to take the measurements, to take photos, record audio etc?

Was it in 2007? Or after that?

Can you tell the tail number of the Viper ED has modeled?

 

As your argument is now that our specific F-16 doesn't anymore exist today. Or it didn't exist in 2016 at least.

 

21 hours ago, Deano87 said:

, Tape upgrades, A-GCAS, Aim-120D, Aim-9X BkII etc etc.

 

All are irrelevant as APKWS II doesn't have anything to do with such upgrades. 

 

21 hours ago, Deano87 said:

So if you flew our 2007 jet, with a weapon from a decade later, it would not be a realistic scenario, regardless of the mechanical capability of the aircraft to employ that weapon.

 

It would be 100% realistic. Anyone can pull any aircraft/platform from the warehouse or even museum that is capable use Hydra 70 rockets and launch APKWS II rockets.

The only technical limitations are Hydra 70 rocket launch capability.

The F/A-18C Lot 20 we have in DCS, in DCS timeline it is from 2005, but even today it is used exactly as is in that condition in various countries, in 2020. No magical new upgrades, now changes and nothing. Outdated aircraft, on the way to go out of service on some countries like in many other previously. It did not end as is in 2007!

So saying that such scenario is unrealistic while it is the reality, is just illogical argument. 

 

21 hours ago, Deano87 said:

It would be just as unrealistic as our 2007 era F-16 using the Aim-120D or Aim-9XBkII because it wouldn't have been something that would ever happen with that aircraft in the configuration that its modelled in.

 

No it wouldn't, as it is not technically limited.

Can you provide evidence that the specific F-16 we have, has not existed anymore up to 2016?

 

21 hours ago, Deano87 said:

Lastly, ED has given you a decision on the subject so further pleading is literally just wasting your time.

 

Yes, ED has given illogical argument and they need to hold up to that logic now on in the future that nothing gets added to any module that doesn't specifically used by the very specific airbase, squadron, year, official loadout and other political reasonings. 

No jumping between "On that country it was possible as they used, so we implement it" etc.

 

Because this is not "The weapon can not be added as the required changed to airframe and software didn't belong to that year". So it goes just purely "We just want our aircraft to fly as is in 2007 and not on any other year, never, ever, by any means NO!"

ED has put their foot down with their argument that any feature, procedure etc that is outside of very strict place and time and politics, is out of the question. And they should never be making any excused to bend that argument to allow anything else. Be it a triple loadout for Mavericks or some loadout or weapon etc. 

 

 Example lets take their argument:

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.

 

So what would you say if it would appear that in whole 2007 year, there was no AGM-65 Mavericks or AIM-9X launches done as it was not in their official use, until 2008?

Would you be screaming to have a "Frankenstein's Monster" that combines multiple F-16C versions from 2007 AND 2008?

And it is not enough that there is ONE Viper somewhere in USAF or ANG in 2007, but it would need to be "this particular aircraft" "at a specific point in time".

And remember, any argument about technical compatibility etc is already claimed to be a moot, as it is only for very unique tail number version, in 2007, in very specific place.

 

As fact is, that very specific airframe could have been put in the warehouse and pulled out in 2016 and it would be able be used in operation with APKWS II without any modifications. Not in 2007, but in 2016. Period.

 

The APKWS II is very unique, special weapon upgrade program that is nothing like a AIM-120A vs AIM-120D or AIM-9L vs AIM-9X etc. 

Using the argument of the very specific year and not technical capabilities even on this particular aircraft as was in 2007 is just illogical.

 

ED has the final word because they are the maintainers and developers, but it is their argument and their logic that is in question as they can't anymore change such logic away from any other module ever. As it doesn't matter what technical specifications or documentations etc says, just a specific point in time and space and even unique airframe.

 

 

[Northstar98]

15 hours ago, Fri13 said:

The developers need to explain their argument and their logic what they are going to apply for ANY argument in the future, or in the past.

 

The logic is very simple, and it's in the planned features list. They're modelling a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 c. 2007 so they're going to model a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 c. 2007.

 

Quote

Now what the developers has given as argument, is that technical capabilities or historical facts are irrelevant and only thing that matters is "We want to consider it to exist only in year XXXX and no other".

 

Not existing for a nearly decade sounds like a fairly big hurdle in the technical capability department.

 

And as for historical facts, the historical facts are 2016 F-16C Block 50s are significantly different from ours in their avionics and software. 

 

Quote

So if a such argument would be taken as "feature X not implemented as it Is not trained/used" then flares should never exist in the F-111 module etc. Period.

 

Except the argument isn't that it isn't used, the argument is they're doing an F-16C of a specific variant and around a specific year, and that they have no desire to do otherwise.

 

Quote

How does it make you feel if you would be denied to have flares in such module? And regardless you to even using just common sense about availability of the flares, get turned down by such argument "Not trained for, not getting implemented"?

 

Why are you straw-manning the argument? Read the planned features again: "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."

 

It has nothing to do with what weapons were trained for, this is a point you're making up.

 

Quote

How does it make you feel if then on another thread that is in same situation, such argument is put a side and told "It is a common feature, we will implement it regardless it is never trained for"?

 

The question is simple, is the payload A.) Compatible, B.) Fit the era of the aircraft?

 

APKWS II satisfies the first one (~) and doesn't fit the second, so it's a no.

 

Quote

As that is classical "moving the goalposts" argument then as in one thread X is one implemented, and on another thread Y is implemented by simply putting the same argument aside as used in other.

 

Let's have an example...

 

Quote

So I ask again, can you tell that when did the ED have access to the F-16C Blk 50 they are modeling? When did they get hands-on access to the very specific model to perform 3D scanning, to take the measurements, to take photos, record audio etc?

Was it in 2007? Or after that?

Can you tell the tail number of the Viper ED has modeled?

 

They're modelling an F-16C of the USAF/ANG c. 2007. Even in 2008 the F-16C got significant software and avionics updates (such as ARC-210, GBU-39 and AGM-158 capability among others).

 

How many times do you need to be told this?

 

Quote

 

As your argument is now that our specific F-16 doesn't anymore exist today. Or it didn't exist in 2016 at least.

 

Yes, a lot of changes have happened to the F-16C Block 50 since 2007 and we're not getting any of those changes...

 

Fact of the matter is, by all intents and purposes ED are modelling a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 c. 2007, why then, should it be anything other than a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 c. 2007?

 

Quote

All are irrelevant as APKWS II doesn't have anything to do with such upgrades.

 

Doesn't matter, you want a 2016 F-16C, that's absolutely fine - it would be fantastic if we could get as many variants as possible, preferably spanning multiple decades, if we had that, this wouldn't be a problem whatsoever.

 

Quote

It would be 100% realistic. Anyone can pull any aircraft/platform from the warehouse or even museum that is capable use Hydra 70 rockets and launch APKWS II rockets.

 

Well then, I guess if ED give us the F-4E Phantom II it should get APKWS too right? Never mind that the F-4E was completely out of service long before APKWS was anything like existing, because having a module of a specific aircraft actually represent said specific variant is illogical or something. 

 

Quote

The F/A-18C Lot 20 we have in DCS, in DCS timeline it is from 2005, but even today it is used exactly as is in that condition in various countries, in 2020. No magical new upgrades, now changes and nothing.

 

My God Fri...

 

The upgrades done to the F-16C Block 50 from 2007 onwards are far from 'magical' they're just inconvenient for you...

 

Quote

Outdated aircraft, on the way to go out of service on some countries like in many other previously. It did not end as is in 2007!

 

And I wonder if any of them operate APKWS II?

 

Quote

So saying that such scenario is unrealistic while it is the reality, is just illogical argument.

 

It's also reality that APKWS isn't realistic for our F-16C.

 

Quote

No it wouldn't, as it is not technically limited.

Can you provide evidence that the specific F-16 we have, has not existed anymore up to 2016?

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2012/AirForce/stamped/0207133F_7_PB_2012.pdf

 

"Blk 40-52 OFP (M-tapes) are updated continually to integrate new precision weapons, advanced targeting pods, improved avionics and other HW Group B subsystems. Major tapes (e.g., M5/5+) are released every three years and a minor tape (e.g., M5.2+) is released 1 year after each major tape."

 

Quote

Yes, ED has given illogical argument and they need to hold up to that logic now on in the future that nothing gets added to any module that doesn't specifically used by the very specific airbase, squadron, year, official loadout and other political reasonings. 

 

Yeah it's so illogical and nonsensical that a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 C. 2007 represent a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 c. 2007.

 

And since when were we talking about airbases or squadrons? Ahh, you're making things up again.

 

What's so hard about our F-16C being the F-16C it's supposed to be? (for all intents and purposes).  

 

Quote

No jumping between "On that country it was possible as they used, so we implement it" etc.

 

Well, we're not talking about that are we? So it's a complete irrelevancy isn't it?

 

Quote

Because this is not "The weapon can not be added as the required changed to airframe and software didn't belong to that year". So it goes just purely "We just want our aircraft to fly as is in 2007 and not on any other year, never, ever, by any means NO!"

 

No it's purely we want to simulate x aircraft from y user centred as it was circa z. That's it, I'm very sorry this is so difficult.

 

Scenarios are up to you, but the aircraft is what it's supposed to be, I suggest you deal with it.

 

Quote

So what would you say if it would appear that in whole 2007 year, there was no AGM-65 Mavericks or AIM-9X launches done as it was not in their official use, until 2008?

 

Except, we're not basing it on what was launched or not, are we? And the AGM-65 and AIM-9X compatibility are representative of the aircraft's RL capability at the time;  that's why we have those and not APKWS.

 

Why is this so difficult?

 

Quote

Would you be screaming to have a "Frankenstein's Monster" that combines multiple F-16C versions from 2007 AND 2008?

 

No, because this is fictional. A 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 having AGM-65 and AIM-9X capability is perfectly realistic. 

 

And if you want 2007 and 2008 (2008 AFAIK is when the F-16C got upgraded with ARC-210 radio, AGM-158 JASSM and GBU-39), then either do one or the other or preferably both, if feasible.

 

I have no problem with a modern F-16C with APKWS capability and everything else. I'm not particularly partial to modern aircraft given the era consistency and the fact that other assets (particularly REDFOR) stop at the 90s. That's why I'm fine with the A-10C (late) having APKWS, HMD and GBU-54, they are payloads that are compatible with the aircraft that fit the timeframe.

 

However, back in reality we don't have a 2016 F-16C do we?

 

Quote

And it is not enough that there is ONE Viper somewhere in USAF or ANG in 2007, but it would need to be "this particular aircraft" "at a specific point in time".

And remember, any argument about technical compatibility etc is already claimed to be a moot, as it is only for very unique tail number version, in 2007, in very specific place.

 

Yes, I'm very sorry you find a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50, representing a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 so offensive.

 

Quote

As fact is, that very specific airframe could have been put in the warehouse and pulled out in 2016 and it would be able be used in operation with APKWS II without any modifications. Not in 2007, but in 2016. Period.

 

Did this happen though? Or is it a matter of fact that F-16Cs within this timeframe got updated, several times in fact (that unclassified document says every 3 years for a major update, going by that, there have been 3 major updates to the F-16C in this timeframe. 

 

Fact is 2016 F-16C Block 50s have all manner of upgrades, they are significantly different than what we have today and we're not getting any of those. But hey screw consistency am I right? Consistency and delivering what you set out to deliver for all intents and purposes is illogical!

 

Quote

The APKWS II is very unique, special weapon upgrade program that is nothing like a AIM-120A vs AIM-120D or AIM-9L vs AIM-9X etc. 

Using the argument of the very specific year and not technical capabilities even on this particular aircraft as was in 2007 is just illogical.

 

No it isn't.

 

I'm worried I'll start saying this in my sleep, but the aircraft is supposed to be a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 c. 2007, ED intends it to be so and has been very clear on the subject.

 

We're getting a module that's supposed to represent a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 c. 2007, so wouldn't it be logical that this module represent a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 c. 2007?

 

When you freely buy a car that you know is advertised as being a xxxx year whatever, do you shout "illogical!" when it actually turns out to be a xxxx year whatever, exactly as advertised? And do you demand that it should be fitted with equipment of the yyyy year model, because there are xxxx year models in the year yyyy?  

 

Quote

ED has the final word because they are the maintainers and developers, but it is their argument and their logic that is in question as they can't anymore change such logic away from any other module ever. As it doesn't matter what technical specifications or documentations etc says, just a specific point in time and space and even unique airframe.

 

Well, if they're going for a specific variant at a particular point in time, I'd want to actually get that variant as advertised, I know that's illogical to you but hey, apparently we have different ideas of logic.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Northstar98

[Deano87]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

If you do not read, you do not understand.

 

LoL. I've read the whole rest of this thread, I understand your position.

 

45 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

The developers need to explain their argument and their logic what they are going to apply for ANY argument in the future, or in the past.

 

Nope, they don't lol. It's their show, they can do what they want, and they don't NEED to justify it to you or anybody else. Its of course nice when we get to know the reasons behind decisions, but it's not required.

 

You seem incapable of understanding that the same 2007 aircraft in 2016 would have undergone all of the upgrades with the rest of the USAF/ANG Block 50 fleet and the aircraft we have in the sim would not be representative of a 2016 aircraft. Yes the same airframe exists, but the software and some hardware inside would not be the same.

 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

ED has the final word because they are the maintainers and developers, but it is their argument and their logic that is in question as they can't anymore change such logic away from any other module ever. As it doesn't matter what technical specifications or documentations etc says, just a specific point in time and space and even unique airframe.

No.. again, its their product and they can make whatever decisions they see fit, even if it doesn't fit with your idea of logic.

 

[Tholozor]

Here's another point towards not putting APKWS on the Viper: Say a pilot has APKWS loaded alongside standard Hydra rockets (could be any type of warhead), how are they selected through the SMS? The aircraft needs to know what's loaded so the pilot can select the appropriate ordnance, otherwise if they have the same weapon code it's going to fire from both sides of mixed ordnance. Doesn't matter that the APKWS kit is bolt-on, the weapon needs to have a different reference code for the SMS to be selected on the appropriate station apart from other rockets. This would require a tape upgrade post-2007.

[Northstar98]

4 hours ago, Tholozor said:

Here's another point towards not putting APKWS on the Viper: Say a pilot has APKWS loaded alongside standard Hydra rockets (could be any type of warhead), how are they selected through the SMS? The aircraft needs to know what's loaded so the pilot can select the appropriate ordnance, otherwise if they have the same weapon code it's going to fire from both sides of mixed ordnance. Doesn't matter that the APKWS kit is bolt-on, the weapon needs to have a different reference code for the SMS to be selected on the appropriate station apart from other rockets. This would require a tape upgrade post-2007.

 

Wouldn't the increased weight of APKWS need to be something that the FLCS needs to know about in order to schedule properly? Either that, or for putting the pipper in the right place.

 

Now sure, no modifications needed to launch sure, but modifications to properly integrate it? Sure, it's why the A-10C II has a dedicated profile in the DSMS for APKWS II rockets.

[drPhibes]

There are some reasons why you'd want to have the AKPWS integrated with the launching aircraft, even though it isn't strictly necessary. If the AKPWS doesn't pick up the laser spot, you may still want it to hit approximately where your CCIP pipper tells you it'll hit. If you use a SMS profile for a standard 70mm Hydra, you can be pretty sure that it won't. A heavyer, draggier fin-stabilized rocket will have a different ballistic trajectory than a regular spin-stabilized hydra.

[Jester2138]

On 12/15/2020 at 4:59 PM, Northstar98 said:

 

The logic is very simple, and it's in the planned features list. They're modelling a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 c. 2007 so they're going to model a USAF/ANG F-16C Block 50 c. 2007

 

I fully agree. And given that a 2007 Viper could carry APKWS II if we stuck it on there, it makes sense that the DCS Viper would also be able to carry APKWS II.

(I don't understand your argument, unless you're saying that the environment the DCS Viper flies in should always be 2007 - hilariously impossible in the current state of the game)

Edited December 21, 2020 by Jester2138

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

I fully agree. And given that a 2007 Viper could carry APKWS II if we stuck it on there, it makes sense that the DCS Viper would also be able to carry APKWS II.

 

And given that our F-16C is supposed to be representative of one as it was in 2007, it shouldn't be able to carry APKWS II, because not only did APKWS II not exist at the time, it isn't representative of a 2007 F-16C.

 

The argument is very simple:

 

DCS is supposed to be realistic right? That's the mission goal if you will, of course we can talk about all the things it doesn't get right, and we'll probably never get something 100% true to life. But that's clearly general goal right?

 

ED are providing a specific aircraft variant, as it was at a particular point in time. As clearly stated in the planned features list.

 

Therefore, if we are sticking to the general goals, and are keeping to what is planned, the aircraft should represent that variant, as it was for that particular time period. You should note that I don't really care what specific variant or timeframe it is*, but I think developers should pick something and deliver something consistent. That way it's very clear what to expect and what is being set out to be achieved.

 

That, and the fact that when APKWS II came to an F-16CM Block 50, it did so after at least 2 rounds of successive avionics and software updates, that expanded its capabilities and made it compatible with other weapons - we won't be getting any of those, so if get APKWS II and not those we'll have a Frankenstein'd aircraft that combines multiple variants across multiple different time periods, something ED has no plans to do.

 

As for the environment and the missions? I don't care, I'm all too happy for you to craft them as you see fit; not only is that how it should be with anything with a mission editor calling itself a sandbox; but like you said, it's not feasible to pick a year and have the assets and maps that perfectly represent that (at least not yet).

 

And as I've said before, at the moment it really doesn't matter what the date is set to in the mission editor, apart from being something on the briefing. It doesn't really have significant practical effects, unless you're going for historical consistency (which is problematic, as you pointed out) using historical mode (if you turn it on), which filters the unit list based on introduction date (i.e if date > introduction date, then the unit is present; and not present if date < introduction date), it doesn't account for stuff being out of service and at present doesn't filter weapons, change the configuration of the maps, what 'countries' are present (i.e like the Third Reich, GDR, USSR and Italian Social Republic).

Edited December 21, 2020 by Northstar98

[Smoked]

 

Basically..

I want laser rockets. 

 

Our Viper is Circa 2007.... we will not have those rockets because they DID NOT EXIST... 

 

WHY?!!!!  you are "required" to answer... 

 

We did answer...   Because it is a 2007 VIPER and they did not exist then... 

 

BUT!!!!   I wants it!!!!  Answer why I cants have it... They can be used NOW... 

 

once again... round and round we go.. 

 

lol.. you cant make this stuff up..  

 

all kidding aside.. 

 

On 12/17/2020 at 12:49 AM, Tholozor said:

Here's another point towards not putting APKWS on the Viper: Say a pilot has APKWS loaded alongside standard Hydra rockets (could be any type of warhead), how are they selected through the SMS? The aircraft needs to know what's loaded so the pilot can select the appropriate ordnance, otherwise if they have the same weapon code it's going to fire from both sides of mixed ordnance. Doesn't matter that the APKWS kit is bolt-on, the weapon needs to have a different reference code for the SMS to be selected on the appropriate station apart from other rockets. This would require a tape upgrade post-2007.

 

 

Spot on... 

 

[Fri13]

On 12/17/2020 at 8:49 AM, Tholozor said:

Here's another point towards not putting APKWS on the Viper: Say a pilot has APKWS loaded alongside standard Hydra rockets (could be any type of warhead), how are they selected through the SMS?

 

You do not load different warheads on different sides.

The helicopters has different pods that has a capability to select the three different rockets from one pod, there you have software that tells is the rocket with flethette, HE or HEAT etc and it can be selected.

But fixed wings doesn't have that. You have only two modes that is set by a switch in the pod itself, a ripple fire or a single fire. And the weapon system will fire from both sides same time regardless what warheads you have there. So you can only select one type of weapon (68S or 68R example) and it will inform you that was the pods set as Ripple or Single by the ground crews.

 

On 12/17/2020 at 8:49 AM, Tholozor said:

The aircraft needs to know what's loaded so the pilot can select the appropriate ordnance, otherwise if they have the same weapon code it's going to fire from both sides of mixed ordnance.

 

It doesn't need to know, as you are not going to carry different warheads. There is no communication from the rocket to the pod and to the weapons systems in fixed wing variant like in the helicopter variant where you can have a warheads with own small cable coming from front of them, allowing to program the rocket before launch for proximity fuze data or range data. This is why APKWS II has different variant for fixed wings and for rotary wings.

 

On 12/17/2020 at 8:49 AM, Tholozor said:

Doesn't matter that the APKWS kit is bolt-on, the weapon needs to have a different reference code for the SMS to be selected on the appropriate station apart from other rockets. This would require a tape upgrade post-2007.

 

There is no software modifications done for any pod or FCS. Nothing changes technically with the APKWS II launching. Even our Hornet from 2005 got it operational use, without any software modifications or additions. The only change is that the pilot is briefed that his airplane is loaded with APKWS II rockets instead unguided ones. The pilot task is to remember to designate target with laser to have a rockets flying at it. The ground crew sets a specific laser code in each rocket and that laser code is then informed for the pilot. Same way as is the laser codes for GBU-10/12/16 bombs that can't be changed in the cockpit (but in DCS you can, unrealistic manner).

 

 

 

[Fri13]

On 12/16/2020 at 3:11 AM, Deano87 said:

 

Nope, they don't lol. It's their show, they can do what they want, and they don't NEED to justify it to you or anybody else. Its of course nice when we get to know the reasons behind decisions, but it's not required.

 

 

Actually they do.

You can let arguments go as you please without logic, but not everyone accepts double standards.

 

Their argument for APKWS II being off from Hornet, Viper etc is that "it is not available for a given year". Regardless that technically it is 100% compatible and usable in the future as airframe is in the past.

Yet, they did go and implement a AGM-62 Walleye to the Hornet, even when that weapon has not been in US inventory since mid-90's. That weapon should not exist in our 2005 Hornet as it does now, because it doesn't anymore exist!

So they have taken the aircraft from the future (2005) and put it to the past in to mid-90's when Walleye existed and they put it working. And now they say it is wrong, yet they made it because it is technically possible regardless time.

Then they removed the AGM-65G from the Hornet loadouts, regardless it was 100% compatible with it as is. Again didn't care about technical compatibilities, but just for political reason for USN.

 

You do not understand, they can do what ever they want without ever explaining anything. No one can do anything for it as they don't have the source code, so only thing they can try to do is to mod it with the limited possibilities there are.

But it eats their goals to provide a realistic and accurately made combat sandbox simulator, because they are mixing all the time all kind things with different reasons on different days.

 One time it is acceptable because it is technically possible, regardless politics or time.

 On other time it is acceptable because it is correct by the time, but not technically or politically.

 On third time it is not acceptable because politics says so, but technically it is possible.

 

The #1 rule should always be, is it technically possible or not. If it is then it should be included - regardless politics or the time etc.

Then other rules can be applied. Like official weapon loadout from the developers does only include weapons that were politically or historically used, regardless technical possibilities. But player can make own weapon loadouts if they so wish using weapons that are technically possible, with their own consideration is it proper by the mission date / location.

The political rules as well applies for other topics like Liveries. Studio should offer official liveries as were historically proper for the country and date, possibly as well include some fictional liveries or some non-military liveries like what some airshow teams uses. But players are allowed to make and install custom liveries and use them if they so like for their missions.

Historical and political correctness can be as well be thrown away in missions where creator decides to put a aircraft to opposite force that it should, be it like a Argentina flying Harrier or Russia flying Hornet or Sweden flying F-16's like Norway or Germany flying Su-27's etc. If someone wants to make historically as accurate missions as possible, they are allowed to do so, as much as to do fictional ones or alternative history ones etc.

 

When reasoning from developers are in conflict with their actions, it is not good thing.

 

[Fri13]

On 12/25/2020 at 3:01 PM, Smoked said:

Basically..

I want laser rockets.

Our Viper is Circa 2007.... we will not have those rockets because they DID NOT EXIST...

WHY?!!!!  you are "required" to answer...

We did answer...   Because it is a 2007 VIPER and they did not exist then...

BUT!!!!   I wants it!!!!  Answer why I cants have it... They can be used NOW...

once again... round and round we go..

lol.. you cant make this stuff up.. 

 

Yes, you try to make a mockery of everyone who wants technically possible features without politics.

 

As to make their logic true, that aircraft should not be possible be used in missions dated on any other year than 2007. And same rules to apply for every other aircraft, only to exist in missions dated to the year it has been modeled.

 

Our hornet is from 2005, so you believe their argument that it can not fly in 2018 as is (even when it is historically accurate that it DOES fly as is in 2018) and operate APKWS II rockets.

But do you accept this:

 

A weapon out of service in USN in mid-90's, about 10 years before our Hornet was modeled.

 

 

If you accept that, but you disagree with the technically and historically accurate APKWS II rockets you are in conflict.

If you don't accept that, but you disagree with APKWS II, you are again in conflict.

 

Want a historically accurate situation?

APKWS II is available for any Hydra-70 launching platform when mission date is 2016-2018 or newer, and AGM-62 is removed from the Hornet, maybe available for the Vought A-7 Corsair II in the future (if someone is developing it), or if ED makes an older F/A-18 hornet that is modeling year 90-95....

 

 

 

 

[Fri13]

On 12/21/2020 at 8:56 PM, Northstar98 said:

Therefore, if we are sticking to the general goals, and are keeping to what is planned, the aircraft should represent that variant, as it was for that particular time period. You should note that I don't really care what specific variant or timeframe it is*, but I think developers should pick something and deliver something consistent. That way it's very clear what to expect and what is being set out to be achieved.

 

Please explain the AGM-62 Walleye for the Hornet with that logic?

 

Quote

That, and the fact that when APKWS II came to an F-16CM Block 50, it did so after at least 2 rounds of successive avionics and software updates, that expanded its capabilities and made it compatible with other weapons - we won't be getting any of those, so if get APKWS II and not those we'll have a Frankenstein'd aircraft that combines multiple variants across multiple different time periods, something ED has no plans to do

APKWS II doesn't require any updates, nor was anything updated for it.

And can you provide evidence that there is no F-16C Blk 50 flying with the M5/M5+ as now, and all are updated to latest M7/M7+ or M8/M8+ software?

 

The APKWS II since the start has been able to be launched by any platform that can launch standard Hydra-70 rockets. That is the technical fact. No software updates, no hardware updates, no politics, nothing denying that capability/possibility.

As well remember that F-16C Blk 50 is a such aircraft that as one ground crew member said, you might not find a identical aircraft in the same airbase as every unit is unique/different by capabilities etc.

 

The whole "it has received software updates" is a moot point because APKWS II weapon upgrade doesn't use (require) any of such updates. You can add all kind updates you want to airframes and APKWS II is compatible as long you can launch standard Hydra 70 rockets.

 

 

 

https://defense-update.com/20191224_apkws_vs_cruisemissile.html

 

 

Quote

As for the environment and the missions? I don't care, I'm all too happy for you to craft them as you see fit; not only is that how it should be with anything with a mission editor calling itself a sandbox; but like you said, it's not feasible to pick a year and have the assets and maps that perfectly represent that (at least not yet).

 

So you don't care, but then you agree with us that it is should be possible equip APKWS II for plenty of the aircraft in DCS already by sake of "sandbox" (technical possibility only being limitation, not history, not politics etc).

 

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2020 by Fri13

[Deano87]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

Actually they do.

You can let arguments go as you please without logic, but not everyone accepts double standards.

No, they don’t.

 

It doesn’t matter what you “accept”, you have no power in this situation, therefore ED do not NEED to justify their decision to you.

 

They have already answered you, APKWS will not be coming to the Viper. For the reasons already discussed at length.

 

My suggestion to you would be to accept that fact and move on with your life.

[Jackjack171]

Is this an argument for the sake of the argument? I mean, are these rockets really that big of a deal? I like them on the A-10 but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing to get worked up over. Especially if ED already said it's a no-go, I'm cool with that decision! Personally, I'm waiting on the HTS and the other items on the current menu to finish out what we already have.

[Fri13]

5 hours ago, Deano87 said:

No, they don’t.

 

Yes they do.

 

You do not understand how this game is developed.

 

Someone (studio) comes up with an idea to develop something for consumers (us).

They set the project plans and so on (aircraft, variant etc).

In the development phase, the product will come available to us.

 

At any given time, it is wanted (preferred) that we do participate the testing of the product at various levels and means.

- Bug testing

- Feature testing

- Research

etc

 

Every studio is responsible for its customers to produce the product that is maintaining the quality/level of the product for the purpose of the DCS World.

If you can not accept that, you can go enjoying VEAO Hawk module how it got dropped like hot potato. You can go enjoying Razbam Harrier as it would have got released in 2018 as feature complete unless it would have got twisted to be hold back.

 

This forum exist not just to deliver praises to developers and visualize happiness regardless what is the product quality or status.

This is a communication hub where people can actually go around and discuss about what is correct and incorrect in the given product.

Be it like a LTD/R switch incorrectness in Hornet, or bad MFCD brightness in Viper, or unrealistic laser code change in cockpit for the GBU-12 or wrong weapon loadout as AGM 154B etc.

 

Remember that the official weapons loadout is "SUBJECT TO CHANGE" -marked. Meaning that it is not finalized but they go forward as they see it. And that means as well that everything is open for discussion to have weapons added or removed from the official weapons loadouts. And they need to explain all their decisions that why something is or isn't there.

 

 

5 hours ago, Deano87 said:

It doesn’t matter what you “accept”, you have no power in this situation, therefore ED do not NEED to justify their decision to you.

They have already answered you, APKWS will not be coming to the Viper. For the reasons already discussed at length.

 

Studios needs to justify their decisions for everyone. Don't try to make this as personal.

Their reasons are not good. They are moving the goalposts about valid reasoning to include or remove something, when it is approatiate to use a timeline, history, technicality, politics etc. It is done. Without having a firm standard that what should be.

 

Only one thing should matter, that is technicality. Everything else should be their own internal politics that how they want to represent their product by default like official weapons loadouts, but not to deny someone to build a loadouts that are not politically but technically correct.

 

Technical facts are, APKWS II is technically capable to be used on F-16C any block, any tape version etc. It doesn't matter as long you can carry and launch a standard Hydra-70 rockets!

Historical facts are, APKWS II was taken in combat operations in this real world, it is not a "special laser weapon that no one has ever heard" but actually in service even in our F-16C blk 50 (regardless any software updates).

 

This thread started as a query for getting the APKWS II, and it gets pushed as "not possible" with circular logic reasoning.

The DCS is a "sandbox simulator".

So let's check what is the ED dream...

Quote

 

Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) 2.5 is a free-to-play digital battlefield game.

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

 

 

It is authentic and realistic that F-16C Blk 50 doesn't have all latest or all software updates even in 2020.

It is authentic and realistic that F-16C Blk 50 is in service even in 2021.

It is authentic and realistic in DCS to make missions that are dated to more newer years than when the module was modeled from.

It is authenbtic and realistic that APKWS II rockets are available as in reality, to all in-service aircrafts from the year forward the weapon was taken in service.

 

If the APKWS II would require hardware modifications it would be reasonable to say NO GO.

If the APKWS II would require software modifications it would be reasonable to say NO GO.

If the APKWS II would not have taken in service it would be reasonable to say NO GO.

If the APKWS II would not exist it would be very reasonable to say NO GO.

 

But all that is false.

It doesn't require hardware or software modifications but is backward compatible with even post WW2 era aircrafts that can carry and launch Hydra-70 rockets since late 40's.

If you would take from the museum a korean or vietnam or what ever era aircraft that has used Hydra-70 rockets, you could use it with it. Not self-designate, but that is another topic about can X aircraft have a compatible laser designator or not, but it doesn't matter for Hydra-70 rockets launch capability does one pose such capability or not.

 

The APKWS II rocket is unique weapon system by its backward compatibility, and only thing denying it is the "Weapon was not in service at the time the module is modeled". And it is double standard when the same studio makes their another product (F/A-18C Lot 20 Hornet) to operate a weapon that has been out of service for decade!

 

Yes, we might not like that, we might not be able to do anything about that, but at least we have possibility to exclude it from the weapons loadouts in the mission editor!

So how about extending that same (valid) reasoning for others too, that APKWS II rocket is available as optional weapon for every unit that is being flown in 2012+ in the technically compatible manner (Hydra-70 rocket pods), and making it the mission designer own decision to either allow it or disallow it based their own story in their own small sandbox mission?

 

Otherwise using your argumentary logic, any bug report, any feature, any function can be just denied "We do not need to explain anything, deal with it" as technical facts doesn't matter, historical facts doesn't matter, politics doesn't matter, nothing matters than just the developers own state of mind in that specific date and it can flip around like a weather vane on corresponding attitude.

 

5 hours ago, Deano87 said:

My suggestion to you would be to accept that fact and move on with your life.

You don't understand, I have it accepted already from the start.... As only thing that one can hope is that logical discussion is allowed.

 

This forum is a communication between users among themselves, as well communication channel to all studios and their representives with their customers.

This is the place where discussion is to take a place if something is wanted to be changed, added, removed etc.

If you do come up with a capability/feature etc that should be in the module or what is wrong in the module, you bring it to this forum.

This thread is a discussion, not a official bug report.

 

Any studio should be targeting the technical correctness and high quality. Not making deicisions or arguments based to politics.

Your status is now clear, that you do not care about technical facts. So just accept it and move on.

But do not ever come up with any arguments for any feature being acceptable or not, as it doesn't matter by your own logic, as anyone can come up with any idea to deny anything you would see that there should be changed, added or removed as technical and historical facts doesn't matter.

 

[Fri13]

consequence

4 hours ago, Jackjack171 said:

Is this an argument for the sake of the argument? I mean, are these rockets really that big of a deal?

 

Is the AGM-65 big deal?

Is the AGM-154 big deal?

Is the AGM-88 big deal?

Is the JHMCS big deal?

 

What is a big deal?

 

That studio tries to produce a product that reflects real history and real technical capabilities, or that decision to include or exclude something is based to just "the community wants triple-launchers for Mavericks"?

Example. The F-16C (or A-10C) carrying LAU-88 triple Maverick launcher is hot topic. The collision is that one side argues that it is proper to exclude it use from DCS because in real history the three mavericks where not allowed loadouts (in peace time etc), regardless technical capabilities to carry and launch three mavericks.

The other side argues that it is irrelevant that what was political reasons (funding) not to launch (and so on carry) third maverick because it did damage aircraft and eventually lead to higher repair costs and only technical facts should matter that if the weapon is possible be loaded and launched then so be it.

 

I go with the lateral group. If something is technically possible, so be. BUT, you must as well then simulate the wear and tear and possible damages from the loadout that can/will cause harms. Like example perform a 2-3 times lauch from inner and you get your tires or stabilizers damaged. It is up to player to make that decision and also suffer from the consequence - just the same way if someone lands on the carrier as too heavy - at too high speed etc.

Personally I want that the flaws, problems, risks etc are simulated as well. Many doesn't agree with that. Example many are happy that targeting systems are perfect, like example DMT in Harrier is perfectly stabilized on flat terrain and gives instantly firing solution, and doesn't require the proper realistic contrast and angle changes and calculation times etc.

This was seen with the Hornet A-G radar function, so many wanted to see a radar that can just be turned On and you see all the vehicles via radar and then you don't need to use targeting pods (straws, as some argues). And what happened when the ED radar became more of a realistic kind "blob on the blob" as real pilots has said that they don't use it than just sea operations as you can't use it as so many dreamed for... The same thing is with the upcoming weather engine. Hoping to see the more realistic challenges for engaging ground and air targets, limited capabilities use various sensors, to be challenged in flying etc. If some people don't like the challenge, they are free to turn off all of it and fly in pretty clear day without wind etc.

 

Point is, realism is two-edged sword, it comes with upsides and downsides. And DCS is a sandbox that should follow the technical realities and support something even if someone doesn't politically or so like it. As they are free to disallow or allow it in their own missions.

Someone doesn't like to use APKWS II? Then don't load it. It doesn't matter is it a F-16C, F/A-18C or A-10C or upcoming OH-58D or even ED own AH-64D or AH-1 etc.

 

That weapon was redesigned from original APKWS project features as backward compatible in APKWS II project for any existing platform. It is historical and technical fact.

The USAF has over 1000 F-16's in service. And most as today in 2020/2021 are not in the latest or even upgraded software versions. All doesn't receive upgrades or changes that others do. It is political decision to just upgrade some of them here and there. Priorities are made and some hangs for decades without changes.

Why it is even historically and politically correct that F-16C Blk 50 with M5/M5+ tape is flying these days, capable to use APKWS II rockets since 2018 when it was accepted for service for Viper and Harrier, and 2018 for our very specific F/A-18C Lot 20 Hornets.

 

This is the dilemma in the DCS, either it tries to be something with same requirements from all studios, or it is just a moving target and anything can be done just by calling it "secret" (like Razbam denies informing what year their Harrier is from, as it is "classified information"...).

So either players (customers for DCS World Franchise) can accept a given level of quality based standards and expectations etc. Or then not.

In the last hand the studio is that always has last word, but they need to remember that how they argue things is that affects their realtionship with their customers.

Like when ED released F-16C, many Viper fans went mad when they saw Hornet to receive more updates than Viper, regardless that Hornet was 2 years older module and further in development. But when customers feels unfairness, it can get ugly (look at the case Razbam) and when there comes sudden surprises or double standards, it is just small rock in a shoe that can eventually lead worse things in the future.

 

And double standard is that it is OK to give a fighter from 2005 version a weapon that was removed from the service 10 years earlier, but it is blashemy to make it possible use weapon from 2016 in 2007 airframe in missions that are 2016/2016+ as it technically is possible.

 

Like who cares? It isn't "a frankenstain" Viper! It isn't unrealistic! If someone doesn't like that, they don't allow APKWS II to be used! If someone likes historically accurate mission, then they need to make mission 2016 or after that. If someone wants to go for crazy like 1985 Su-27S against 2007 F-16C, then so be it!

isn't that the purpose of capability design own missions and play as wanted even by those who want technically correct simulation (so no laser beam weapons or hypersonic cruise missiles that are not yet invented etc)?

 

4 hours ago, Jackjack171 said:

I like them on the A-10 but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing to get worked up over.

 

This is as much about studio own standards and logic than anything else.

If the studio comes with argument that X is not acceptable because weapon doesn't belong to year aircraft is modeling and technical or historical facts are ignored.

Then it is totally wrong to come with argument to develop a weapon for a another aircraft when that weapon doesn't belong to that year either. That is double standard.

And that is illogical argument and puts a different customers at different value.

 

4 hours ago, Jackjack171 said:

Especially if ED already said it's a no-go, I'm cool with that decision! Personally, I'm waiting on the HTS and the other items on the current menu to finish out what we already have.

 

No one can do anything about it than the developers. That is a fact (that so many ignores).

But this is the forum where we are allowed to make wishes, request changes etc, where we need to reason why so. And it is a requirement that both sides (customers and the studios) will accepts the same standards or logic - like technical capabilities.

No matter how much wanted, a weapon X can not be implemented if it requires hardware modifications like extra wiring for the pylon that has not ever been done (meaning example that AGM-88 is not carried by P-47 ever).

The ED came around the NS430 for all modules by offering a 2D version of it for all, and studios are free to implement the 3D model for their modules if they so want. This because it is technically possible to attach that navigation device to cockpit even by taping it there. Some developers like Aviodev implemented the 3D variant to cockpits, but they made it realistic manner that device is not attached to C-101 radios or navigation instruments.

 

The DCS offers a time data for weapons, vehicles and so on. Mission designer is free to enable or disable the filter and disallow weapons and vehicles from the mission based the year. Like F/A-18C Hornet doesn't get AIM-120 but just AIM-7 if set so.

One can decide to allow Hornet to carry AIM-7 even when it is not used in active duty at 2005, but it is officially in service for training etc purposes, this because technically it is capable to carry the AIM-7 variants regardless it isn't historically.

 

But isn't it fun that one is limited only by the tecnical reasons to fly, launch, shoot etc something, and not by the political or historical reasons?

If someone doesn't want to wear AIM-9X in Hornet, they can do so.

If someone wants to have F-16 flying in RedFor colors, they can do so.

If someonew wants to have six Mavericks, they can...

 

 

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

Love how mad he's going each time grabbing every straw possible and making shit up. Quite entertaining after all.

 

Personal attacks are not valid arguments.

 

2 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

I btw still want HMCS in my P-47.

 

Well, that is technically impossible. So trying to make mockery with illogical argument is not wise.

 

2 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

In 2020 you could just put a PC behind the seat and have all the calculus stuff done.

 

Is the P-47 in active service in 2020 like the F-16C Blk 50 is with M5/M5+ software and capable to launch APKWS II rockets?

 

2 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

No need to modify the P-47 or update it's non-existent software, it would be possible in 2020 and it's fun and a sandbox after all! I want! Why would you limit yourself?!

 

Please bring the technical limitations and capabilities first. As ED already allows you to have realism in P-47 at these modern times like the X-Plane offers too:

 

 

You can buy the NS430 from the ED store and use the 2D variant on any module, just like you could have it in reality in P-47:

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

Oh: and GPS and NVG too!

 

In 2020 if you would be willing to modify and add those, you could. But don't expect to see them in missions dated '41-45.

Same thing with APKWS II, you would have them in F-16C Blk 50 since 2016, but not before that... 

 

[Fri13]

16 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Fri13 talking about circular logic reasoning Can't make this up. (guess he believes "repeatedly refering to proven facts" to counter made up things and fantasy stories is a "circular logic reasoning")

 

Seems like you are making it up as you can't get out of it.

 

Quote

I want laser rockit!

- But it wasn't available in the timeframe our model is simulated (fact).

 

Fact: I have been talking that the APKWS II is available for our F-16C only in missions 2016- not earlier, unless someone wants to override the time filter rule and bring that weapon available to missions before 2015 or earlier.

That is technical and historical fact of possibility.

 

Quote

But it would if it was today! I want laser rockit! *posts some pseudo-intellectual images found on the interwebs*

- Okay, but it isnt. It's the 2007 plane. If we had the 2016 one simulated, we would have them. But we got the 2007 one. So we can't have it. (fact)

 

OUR F-16C flies today, in 2020!

Can you not understand that fact?

The F-16C Blk 50 is still in service as is it was in 2007, that is a fact!

 

*And drop the insults.

 

Quote

But if it was the 2007 plane in 2016, it could. I want laser rockit!

- But the 2016 F-16C Blk. 50 is not the 2007 F-16C Blk. 50 due to lots of upgrades made from 2007 to 2016 (fact).

 

Please provide evidence that all F-16C Blk 50 has been upgraded to M8/M8+ tapes in 2016-2020.

The fact is, there are even 20 year old ones in service, without software upgrades to latest ones and all are capable carry and launch APKWS II

The fact is, the APKWS II rockets doesn't require any hardware or software updates, it can be launched from any platform from any year that is just capable launch Hydra-70 rockets.

The fact is, moot point is "but all F-16C Blk 50 has received in 2020 all kind updates" because none of the updates brought APKWS II support/capability!

 

The fact is, if you would go to year 2007, and you would put that time the F-16C Blk 50 to warehouse and seal it, and then you would come back in 2020 and unseal the warehouse and take that fighter out of there, you could load it with APKWS II rockets and go using them without any software updates.

Just like in the DCS, you can make a mission dated 2016 (default) or newer and you would have AGR-20 as loadout option, but not if you would make mission as 2007!

 

Quote

No it isn't. Plane did not change since 2007. I want laser rockit! (...Dude, u serious? :'D)

Mommy! Rockit!!!! *tantrums*

 

Insults are not arguments. Accept that fact.

 

Quote

We got the 2007 USAF/NG F-16C Blk. 50 simulated and the APKWS wasn't available in 2007. Period. It's literally that easy.

 

If you could just step back and perceive yourself...

 

How many times I have to repeat, they were not available in 2007, but they were in active service since 2016. Just like our F-16C is in active service as is in 2020 too, fully capable to fire APKWS II as is even in the 2007 configuration.

 

It is literally so easy, you make a mission as 2016+ and you get AGR-20 as loadout option for F-16C Blk 50.

If you make the mission earlier than 2016, then you don't get it as option if you have time filter active.

It would be historically and technically correct to have it so.

 

If you could stop using insults as arguments, using circular logic and understand what is written to you then it would help you.

Edited December 28, 2020 by Fri13

[Northstar98]

On 12/28/2020 at 1:00 AM, Fri13 said:

Please explain the AGM-62 Walleye for the Hornet with that logic?

 

I can't, it's an inconsistency, though the avionics absolutely natively supports it, so there's that.

 

If ED are going to be consistent with the rules, they should do it across the board, for all modules, 3rd parties should probably follow suite as well. Which means that the Walleye probably shouldn't be present, along with SLAM and maybe even the Litening II.

 

My guess was these weapons were implemented as interims as their integration is simpler and can therefore be used as a stepping stone for the proper stores such as SLAM-ER and ATFLIR, which still aren't ready yet.

 

But just because one thing is unrealistic shouldn't mean everything else must necessarily be made unrealistic too. DCS should be striving to be as realistic as possible, it's never going to get there 100% but that should be the goal and IMO developers shouldn't be going out of their way to oppose that, as it is the whole point of DCS.

 

Quote

APKWS II doesn't require any updates, nor was anything updated for it.

 

Please explain to me why the DSMS for the A-10C has a dedicated profile for it?

 

APKWS II most likely has different ballistics compared to regular Hydra 70s, it weighs more, and presumably has more drag, so it needs a dedicated profile for the weapons computer to calculate an impact point. In exactly the same fashion as selecting between the PGU or M50 rounds on the Hornet, both are fully compatible with any M61 (even those from much earlier), but whatever is calculating the ballistics needs to know which, and when the PGU series came to the Hornet, presumably the ability to select which one, came with a software package (even if very minor) to integrate those rounds.

 

The rounds were always completely compatible with no changes to the gun system, but to integrate them properly - that required a software update (even a teeny tiny one). 

 

Quote

And can you provide evidence that there is no F-16C Blk 50 flying with the M5/M5+ as now, and all are updated to latest M7/M7+ or M8/M8+ software?

 

According to that unclassified document, there's a major software iteration every 3 years, which fundamentally changes the capabilities of the aircraft.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2012/AirForce/stamped/0207133F_7_PB_2012.pdf

 

"Blk 40-52 OFP (M-tapes) are updated continually to integrate new precision weapons, advanced targeting pods, improved avionics and other HW Group B subsystems. Major tapes (e.g., M5/5+) are released every three years and a minor tape (e.g., M5.2+) is released 1 year after each major tape."

 

It's been years since these tapes came out.

 

We have M4.2/4.3 (the difference is insignificant).

M5.1 came in 2008 (which is probably what we should've gone for with a modern F-16C, if possible)

M6.1 came in 2011

 

So, 8 years between M5.1 and 2016, and 12 years for 2020. For M6.1, 5 years to 2016, and 9 years to 2020. Is the logistics and infrastructure of the USAF so bad that they take significant fractions of a decade, to over a decade to get a software update fleet wide?

 

How about you give me evidence of a Block 50 with our software suite, still being around today, that is APKWS II equipped with no other updates, seeing as you're the one making that claim.

 

Quote

The APKWS II since the start has been able to be launched by any platform that can launch standard Hydra-70 rockets. That is the technical fact. No software updates, no hardware updates, no politics, nothing denying that capability/possibility.

 

Again, explain to me why the A-10C DSMS has a dedicated profile for it? Answer, because the weapons computer needs a quick patch to integrate APKWS II rockets, so it can calculate where to put the pipper, as APKWS II rockets have slightly different ballistics, same thing as all the different warhead types of existing Hydra 70 rockets on the A-10C, they have slightly different ballistics.

 

I said before with the Hornet selecting between PGU and M50 gun rounds - both rounds can be fired by the gun no problem (same for any M61 platform) but the weapons computer needs to know which in order to provide a proper solution. 

 

Quote

As well remember that F-16C Blk 50 is a such aircraft that as one ground crew member said, you might not find a identical aircraft in the same airbase as every unit is unique/different by capabilities etc.

 

Brilliant, some unknown person said a thing that means that our F-16CM is now unique for a completely unspecified squadron and unspecified airbase and it's unrealistic to have it operate out of anything but that unspecified airbase and part of that unspecified squadron; we're literally ghost hunting here. 

 

Let's hope it's for the 64th Aggressor Squadron out of Nellis AFB then! Seeing as no other airbase basing our F-16C (at least for the liveries we have) is present in DCS at all, nor does any map we have currently go anywhere near them, so not sure what the relevancy is here - It's simply supposed to represent a specific aircraft of a specific operator with the capabilities of said variant at a particular point in time. Basically a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 with the M4.2/4.3 software tape. Nice and simple. 

 

Quote

The whole "it has received software updates" is a moot point because APKWS II weapon upgrade doesn't use (require) any of such updates. You can add all kind updates you want to airframes and APKWS II is compatible as long you can launch standard Hydra 70 rockets.

 

Again, why does the A-10C have a dedicated DSMS profile for it then?

 

And the F-16Cs employing APKWS II have a lot of avionics changes, changing their capabilities significantly - they are different aircraft. You say that there are APKWS II equipped, M4.3 F-16CM Block 50s around in 2016 with the USAF/ANG, so off you go and find one then.

 

At the end of the day, you want a 2007 F-16CM Block 50 (that is for all intents and purposes, literally, a 2007 F-16CM Block 50), but upgraded to be a 2016+ F-16C; though still fundamentally being a 2007 F-16C, with all of its capabilities, and none of the capabilities of the 2016, M6.1+ spec one (such as AGM-158, GBU-39, GBU-54, AIM-9X Block II etc),apart from a single, cherry picked weapons system. It's a straight up Frankenstein hybrid of aircraft variants, combining capabilities of different variants from different times (very nearly a decade) - something that ED have expressed very clearly they have no intention of doing, and have every intention of doing a particular Block 50 variant, with the specifications of one as it was at a particular point in time - none of those 2 points include APKWS II, not only did it not exist (and didn't on any F-16C for nearly a decade), but the aircraft that are fitted with APKWS II are different aircraft variants from the one we have (M6.1+ as opposed to M4.2/4.3).

 

Quote

So you don't care, but then you agree with us that it is should be possible equip APKWS II for plenty of the aircraft in DCS already by sake of "sandbox" (technical possibility only being limitation, not history, not politics etc).

 

I don't care what mission you make, as in I don't care what task, theatre, date, time, what coalitions and countries are present and what units are present - you do with the aircraft what you want - not sure what you meant by agreeing with you, unless you're trying to put words in my mouth.

 

The sandbox part of DCS doesn't change aircraft based on the date; and historical mode only filters based on introduction date alone, it doesn't care about when an aircraft went out of service, nor does it currently factor what stores were around etc. It also doesn't change the configuration of the map, though ED seems to be interested in implementing something similar (at least in the case of the Marianas map). If DCS did configure everything as it was for the time, this wouldn't be a problem. Set the date to 2016+ and you get a 2016 spec F-16CM Block 50 with M6+ software, with all the weapons commonly wished for, including APKWS II. 

 

You on the other hand want to take an aircraft that's supposed to represent a 2007 version be a 2016+ version, with none of the 2016s capabilities besides a single weapon system. So not only are the eras, maps and assets all over the place, now the individual aircraft are too, being a hybrid combining capabilities of different versions.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Northstar98