[NO BUG]GBU-31(V)1 and GBU-31(V)3 should no longer be available.

[BarTzi]

The addition of GBU-31(V)2 and GBU-31(V)4, which should be the equivalent versions used by the USN and USMC, creates unnecessary redundancy.

 

I understand the logic of keeping the old USAF ones if the thermal coating was added, but at the moment they are exactly the same bombs.

Edited November 19, 2020 by [ED]Obi

[Northstar98]

The logic is probably for the sake of compatibility with missions that have these bombs - it's presumably a similar story with old LOMAC (or even earlier) F-14A now that we have the Heatblur one, as well as the old Kuznetsov being present even if you own SC.

[BarTzi]

The logic is probably for the sake of compatibility with missions that have these bombs - it's presumably a similar story with old LOMAC (or even earlier) F-14A now that we have the Heatblur one, as well as the old Kuznetsov, being present even if you own SC.

 

I respectfully disagree. The plane is in early access still. RAZBAM just removed the X2 gbu-16 (on one pylon) options from their harrier, which will have an impact on every mission that used that loadout. The loadout shouldn't be unrealistic just because of previous missions.

I'd like to also mention that I'm only bringing this up because the (v)1 and (v)2 are the same bomb, and (v)3 and (v)4 are the same bomb. It's just confusing.

 

Also, keep in mind we should be getting more options for the fuzes (the ones that are on the JDAM right now are not very common nowadays), which will create even more subversions of the bombs, and more clutter if it's not cleared.

[Northstar98]

 

I respectfully disagree. The plane is in early access still. RAZBAM just removed the X2 gbu-16 (on one pylon) options from their harrier, which will have an impact on every mission that used that loadout. The loadout shouldn't be unrealistic just because of previous missions.

I'd like to also mention that I'm only bringing this up because the (v)1 and (v)2 are the same bomb, and (v)3 and (v)4 are the same bomb. It's just confusing.

 

Also, keep in mind we should be getting more options for the fuzes (the ones that are on the JDAM right now are not very common nowadays), which will create even more subversions of the bombs, and more clutter if it's not cleared.

 

Y'know what? Fair enough. I was just going off of what made the most sense to me for keeping them in. But if they're the same bomb (and most likely reusing the current GBU-31 models), then yeah, I see your point.

[QuiGon]

The addition of GBU-31(V)2 and GBU-31(V)4, which should be the equivalent versions used by the USN and USMC, creates unnecessary redundancy.

 

I understand the logic of keeping the old USAF ones if the thermal coating was added, but at the moment they are exactly the same bombs.

 

+1

[Shimmergloom667]

But V1 / V3 and V2 / V4 are different weapons IRL (V1 / V2 being regular without and with thermal coating, V3 / V4 being penetrator without and with thermal coating). So why should they be removed ingame? Even if they as of this point have the same effect on targets, that might well change in the future with updated damage models so we might actually have to use one over the others.

 

Or is it you only want to have the ones without coating removed? But why? Because not being used by USN / USMC? Fair enough, but between our spanish LITENING interface and other items, I don't see that as an issue. Hey, someone may be flying an Australian Hornet with regular old green bombs.

[QuiGon]

Because not being used by USN / USMC?

This.

[Swift.]

Yeah fair enough, I mean we have both lau68 and lau131, both mk20 and cbu99, so why not have both v1/v3 and v2/v4. It sure will get cluttered however when we have grey versions of everything else.

 

GBU38

GBU38 Grey

2*GBU38

2*GBU38 Grey

GBU32

GBU32 Grey

2*GBU32

2*GBU32 Grey

GBU31v1

GBU31v2

GBU31v3

GBU31v4

GBU12

GBU12 Grey

2*GBU12

2*GBU12 Grey

GBU16

GBU16 Grey

2*GBU16

​2*GBU16 Grey

GBU10

GBU10 Grey

GBU24

GBU24 Grey

Mk82

Mk82 Grey

2*Mk82

2*Mk82 Grey

Mk83

Mk83 Grey

2*Mk83

2*Mk83 Grey

Mk84

Mk84 Grey

[falcon_120]

I have a question, what is exactly the thermal coating? What is it use for? Never heard of that before.

[NoJoy]

It's a heat-resitant coating for ordnance used on carriers. In case of fire you want a bit more time till it goes off...

[Rainer_B.]

But it's the same Boom when they hit the ground? If so, it make no sense in the game. Only if the damage model for the carrier includes the ordnance.

[Shimmergloom667]

This.

 

But we have other stuff that is not used by USN / USMC. Why remove this, specifically? Like I said, my Fin or Aussie Hornet may want green bombs and you can pry them from my cold, dead hands. :P

[Shimmergloom667]

Yeah fair enough, I mean we have both lau68 and lau131, both mk20 and cbu99, so why not have both v1/v3 and v2/v4. It sure will get cluttered however when we have grey versions of everything else.

 

***lots of bombs***

 

Nice, you are suggesting for them to code a better re-arm, menu - I like that ;)

 

 

[Northstar98]

Yeah fair enough, I mean we have both lau68 and lau131, both mk20 and cbu99, so why not have both v1/v3 and v2/v4. It sure will get cluttered however when we have grey versions of everything else.

 

*death by bombs*

 

Pretty sure that in the modelviewer standard Mk82s and JDAMs have arguments for the grey coating, as well as different nose caps/fuses(?) I don't really see why ED should add in extra grey variants, when the bombs we have currently can be made grey (and are already fitted as such).

 

That's providing of course that the new GBU-31s are not simply copy and pastes of the existing model and renamed.

[BarTzi]

 

Pretty sure that in the modelviewer standard Mk82s and JDAMs have arguments for the grey coating, as well as different nose caps/fuses(?) I don't really see why ED should add in extra grey variants, when the bombs we have currently can be made grey (and are already fitted as such).

 

That's providing of course that the new GBU-31s are not simply copy and pastes of the existing model and renamed.

 

You are correct. Nearly all bombs have arguments that control the type of texture and type of fuze. That's how we got a screenshot of a grey gbu-54 when it was added for the a-10.

 

The coating is already in the game, and this thread was opened mainly because:

 

1. If you don't plan on enabling the coating for those bombs now - adding the bombs (v2, v4) does nothing more than confuse people.

 

2. If you do add the coating now - add it to all of the bombs, and find a way to make the bomb list less cluttered.

 

Yeah fair enough, I mean we have both lau68 and lau131, both mk20 and cbu99, so why not have both v1/v3 and v2/v4. It sure will get cluttered however when we have grey versions of everything else.

 

GBU38

GBU38 Grey

2*GBU38

2*GBU38 Grey

GBU32

GBU32 Grey

2*GBU32

2*GBU32 Grey

GBU31v1

GBU31v2

GBU31v3

GBU31v4

GBU12

GBU12 Grey

2*GBU12

2*GBU12 Grey

GBU16

GBU16 Grey

2*GBU16

​2*GBU16 Grey

GBU10

GBU10 Grey

GBU24

GBU24 Grey

Mk82

Mk82 Grey

2*Mk82

2*Mk82 Grey

Mk83

Mk83 Grey

2*Mk83

2*Mk83 Grey

Mk84

Mk84 Grey

 

We only have the textures, and the bomb itself is not selectable. Also, when you add the different type of fuzes to that list it gets a bit... too much to handle at its current implementation.

[Swift.]

Precisely, however despite the models all having grey arguments. ED still added the V2/v4 as if they intend to use a separate CLSID for each variant

[mahuja]

The elephant in the room is the autists who want everything to be correct. You know, the ones who get (proverbial or otherwise) aneurysms when they see a screenshot of a plane with a bomb it never carried, or a TPOD it never carried in that spot, or with a screen interface it shouldn't have, or...

 

And frankly, I'd rather have those people make my sims than the opposite type.

 

I think these statements are correct.

- You'd never see a v1/v3 on a carrier

- You'd never see a v2/v4 with a canadian or australian skin (probably)

- USMC hornets, should they operate off of a USAF-supplied airfield, may use v1/v3, but would not bring them to a carrier.

- USN hornets would only operate from carriers in a combat zone.

 

There is a strong case to have irons, LGBs and JDAMs in separate submenus in the loadout screens.

That's a separate thread though. As is the performance issues in the reload screen, which annoy me far more than a couple mostly-cosmetic entries in the bomb list.

[Northstar98]

What about something like a sub-menu for different weapon variants in the loadout menu? You keep the categories (AA missile, bombs, rockets, whatever), but instead of listing every weapon variant, it lists the general weapon type e.g GBU-31, then when you hover over 'GBU-31' a small sub-menu opens adjacent, with the variants listed.

 

For things like rockets you could have it split up by launcher e.g. LAU-68 Hydra 70 *7, hover over that and it gives you all the warheads.

 

I don't know, just something that popped into my head, it just saves having every single weapon and variant in a particular category as one big list, even if for me personally, I'm okay with it.

[Rainer_B.]

+1