Jump to content

F-18 MIDS and Multiplayer Playability


RPY Variable

Recommended Posts

I just wanted to know what you guys think. In my opinion in multiplayer, it is a ripoff, it breaks the playability.  I know it is available on some F-18, but if DCS adds the F-35 with the meteor missile it would also somehow be realistic but it would also break the playability. I don't think the benefit of having that system justifies breaking the playability. I want to be clear, it is my humble opinion but if ED was asking itself if this would break playability, the answer is yes.

 

  • Like 1

Interl i7 6700k - 32Gb RAM DDR4 - RX 590 8GB - Sentey 32"2560x1440 - Saitek X-55 - TrackIr 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a feature of the real aircraft, that's where the argument should start and end, for me. And we don't even have all the features yet. And some features have been broken for some time.

MP balance is not something that ED should really be concerned with, it's up to the mission maker to do so. At most, ED should be concerned with bringing comparable aircraft to Bluefor and Redfor, but that's another, more difficult conversation. Besides, the F-18 is not the only aircraft with datalink capability.


Edited by Harker
  • Like 2

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Harker said, DCS' goal is to accurately represent reality as much as it feasibly can, and that's IMO where the playability should be centred around. Link 16 is a real feature of these aircraft, and as such they should be implemented. 'Balance' should be up to the mission designer; however this presents an issue, given that our modules, assets and maps are all over the place in terms of era; I'd argue that ED and maybe other developers kinda shot themselves in the foot giving us such modern BLUFOR aircraft when basically every other asset in DCS is no newer than the very early 90s (especially REDFOR assets) and getting contemporary REDFOR modules is a pretty hefty no-no, and is almost certainly not going to happen for the foreseeable future. 

 

Personally, I think it would've been better for ED to do an 80s/early 90s version of the F-16 and F/A-18 (F-16A any block - late 80s/early 90s F-16CG Block 40 for example); they fit the current assets way better, and current FC3 REDFOR get to better keep their relevancy, not to mention being a more coherent and consistent situation that would almost certainly lead to better peer-to-peer missions among contemporaries. They'd also probably be a lot closer to feature complete by now. Especially when you consider that the latest Russian/USSR fixed wing aircraft we can realistic aim for is the 80s 9.12 MiG-29 Fulcrum A, which has a 20 year age gap between our F-16C and F/A-18C.

 

Unfortunately the ship has sailed, and the current issues with lack of peer contemporaries is probably here to stay for the foreseeable future.

  • Like 2

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

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

System:

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''Balance'' is utterly irrelevant. The mission maker has nearly total control over what aircraft do and don't have, as well as what aircraft are available in the first place. This isn't Unreal Tournament or Quake : Air Edition

  • Like 4

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Personally, I think it would've been better for ED to do an 80s/early 90s version of the F-16 and F/A-18 (F-16A any block - late 80s/early 90s F-16CG Block 40 for example); they fit the current assets way better, and current FC3 REDFOR get to better keep their relevancy, not to mention being a more coherent and consistent situation that would almost certainly lead to better peer-to-peer missions among contemporaries. They'd also probably be a lot closer to feature complete by now. Especially when you consider that the latest Russian/USSR fixed wing aircraft we can realistic aim for is the 80s 9.12 MiG-29 Fulcrum A, which has a 20 year age gap between our F-16C and F/A-18C.

 

Unfortunately the ship has sailed, and the current issues with lack of peer contemporaries is probably here to stay for the foreseeable future.


I think exactly the same. 
 

10 hours ago, Harker said:

At most, ED should be concerned with bringing comparable aircraft to Bluefor and Redfor, but that's another, more difficult conversation. 


I think this is one of the main points of the conversation we are having now. Like I said before, adding the F-35 ( I know there is no info available, don't take this laterally) would be realistic, but it will also break playability.
 

25 minutes ago, zhukov032186 said:

''Balance'' is utterly irrelevant. The mission maker has nearly total control over what aircraft do and don't have, as well as what aircraft are available in the first place. This isn't Unreal Tournament or Quake : Air Edition


But it also isn't "The Final Countdown" movie, where F-14 where dogfighting against Japanese Zeros. The reality is that on every server that there is an F-16, F-14 there is also going to be an F-18 with this system, so it is kind of unfixable. 

I know that 80% of players, play offline and 80% of the rest play on PVE servers, so they surely love this feature, but in the PVP environment, the F-18 is always in a within visual range situation. The aim-9x was the first big change on multiplayer, but now with aim-9x+MIDS the change has been extreme.

Interl i7 6700k - 32Gb RAM DDR4 - RX 590 8GB - Sentey 32"2560x1440 - Saitek X-55 - TrackIr 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of ''mission designer's responsibility'' is not catching? Taking your Aim-9X example... the mission designer can simply.... not include them. Problem solved.

 

Some servers disable AMRAAMS some Phoenixs, some only allow WWII planes, etc etc... This is nobody's problem but the server operator. Period. If you don't like the way a server is run, take it up with the owner.

  • Like 3

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, mikel.132 said:

But it also isn't "The Final Countdown" movie, where F-14 where dogfighting against Japanese Zeros. The reality is that on every server that there is an F-16, F-14 there is also going to be an F-18 with this system, so it is kind of unfixable.

The F-16 also has Link 16 via MIDS and the F-14 has Link-4. They are both datalink-capable aircraft. The Hornet's MSI integrates Link-16 info better, but that's it.

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Harker said:

The F-16 also has Link 16 via MIDS and the F-14 has Link-4. They are both datalink-capable aircraft. The Hornet's MSI integrates Link-16 info better, but that's it.


Well. That "Hornet's MSI integrates Link-16 info better" it was this threat is addressing. 

 

38 minutes ago, zhukov032186 said:

What part of ''mission designer's responsibility'' is not catching? Taking your Aim-9X example... the mission designer can simply.... not include them. Problem solved.

 

Some servers disable AMRAAMS some Phoenixs, some only allow WWII planes, etc etc... This is nobody's problem but the server operator. Period. If you don't like the way a server is run, take it up with the owner.


Problem solved? Not at all. Just to be clear, the main problem is constantly having an enemy aircraft icon in midair, the aim-9x just makes it worse. The only way to fix that would be to not include the F-18, and that is not a real solution.


Shame ED didn't select an F-18 version that was closer to the technology of the F-16 1991 they made. They could have made a more representative version of the F-18 than a "off-the-line U.S. Navy Lot 20 jet circa 2005" version.

Is the system real, yes.
Is possible to be in the  merge with a 1991 aircraft vs a 2005 aircraft, yes.
Is playability broken in that situation, definitely.

Interl i7 6700k - 32Gb RAM DDR4 - RX 590 8GB - Sentey 32"2560x1440 - Saitek X-55 - TrackIr 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, mikel.132 said:

Problem solved? Not at all. Just to be clear, the main problem is constantly having an enemy aircraft icon in midair, the aim-9x just makes it worse. The only way to fix that would be to not include the F-18, and that is not a real solution.

 

What icon?  Do you mean the helmet mounted sight?  Remove that from inventory.

 

 

43 minutes ago, mikel.132 said:

Shame ED didn't select an F-18 version that was closer to the technology of the F-16 1991 they made. They could have made a more representative version of the F-18 than a "off-the-line U.S. Navy Lot 20 jet circa 2005" version.

 

And it would still have data-link.

 

43 minutes ago, mikel.132 said:

Is the system real, yes.
Is possible to be in the  merge with a 1991 aircraft vs a 2005 aircraft, yes.
Is playability broken in that situation, definitely.

 

Maybe you're playing the wrong game then?  Or, you know, fly an F-18 yourself.

  • Like 3

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

What icon?  Do you mean the helmet mounted sight?  Remove that from inventory.

 


C'mon, you know what icon, the "unknown" aircraft icon, the most relevant piece of information that the HMCS gives you on the F-18, maybe you missed that.. I didn't find the option on the mission editor. Nevertheless 99.99% of servers just loads the aircraft as they come.

 

3 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

And it would still have data-link.

 


Nobody is talkin about datalink. F-14 has datalink, F-16 has datalink. That is dodging the subject.
 

3 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

Maybe you're playing the wrong game then?  Or, you know, fly an F-18 yourself.


Yes, and when DCS bring up the Tactical Airborne Laser Weapon System (TALWS) we all use that, really fun. 

Interl i7 6700k - 32Gb RAM DDR4 - RX 590 8GB - Sentey 32"2560x1440 - Saitek X-55 - TrackIr 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mikel.132 said:

Yes, and when DCS bring up the Tactical Airborne Laser Weapon System (TALWS) we all use that, really fun.

Bring on! At least it'd deal with desynch problems :DDD

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2020 at 5:24 AM, mikel.132 said:

 F-35 with the meteor missile

 

What's that supposed to mean? 🤨

Do you mean the Eurofighter perhaps?


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the logic behind moving this threat down to the "Multiplayer" forum. Because is says "multiplayer" on the title?. I was addressing the decision of the F-18 version DCS made and how affects playability on the DCS environment. This manifest itself in PVP environment which inevitably goes on in multiplayer sessions. But it has nothing to do with multiplayer itself. This is one of the most core DCS discussions we can have.


Edited by mikel.132

Interl i7 6700k - 32Gb RAM DDR4 - RX 590 8GB - Sentey 32"2560x1440 - Saitek X-55 - TrackIr 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you're pretty much just addressing your PvP gripe at best.   It is an MP discussion and not a core DCS discussion.  And as mentioned in the thread, things can be removed if desired.  If you don't like the options PvP server present, run your own.


Edited by GGTharos
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think the F-18 JHMCS is OP (which it really isnt but thats another topic) just remove it from the mission editor, or ask the owner of your favorite server to do so. This is a RL feature of the year F-18 we have, so absolutely no, ED isnt removing it if that's what youre asking. They shouldn't either, else this wouldnt be a sim.

Also, we have a 2007 F-16 NOT a 1991 one else we wouldnt have AMRAAMs on it, or L16.

21 hours ago, mikel.132 said:

Yes, and when DCS bring up the Tactical Airborne Laser Weapon System (TALWS) we all use that, really fun. 

yes, and all of MP will ban it 🙂

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like someone is getting their arse handed to them by F18s in multiplayer and dont like it lol. Next you will be saying that the f14 should be banned because of the phoenix lol. Or perhaps stop the F16s from flying at mach 2 at stupid high altitude and launching aim120s at over 20 miles away lol.


Edited by Tricky11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tricky11 said:

Sounds like someone is getting their arse handed to them by F18s in multiplayer and dont like it lol. Next you will be saying that the f14 should be banned because of the phoenix lol. Or perhaps stop the F16s from flying at mach 2 at stupid high altitude and launching aim120s at over 20 miles away lol.

 

No, no, and also no. lol

 

Interl i7 6700k - 32Gb RAM DDR4 - RX 590 8GB - Sentey 32"2560x1440 - Saitek X-55 - TrackIr 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, GGTharos said:

No, you're pretty much just addressing your PvP gripe at best.   It is an MP discussion and not a core DCS discussion.  And as mentioned in the thread, things can be removed if desired.  If you don't like the options PvP server present, run your own.

 

 

I had some conversations with people on servers and some of them feel the same way, saying that the F-18 version was a bit too modern and some F-18 pilots even stated they don't use that feature because they think it is a steal. The most common thing to hear on the server's discord is that ED should have chosen an earlier version, which would have gotten along much better with other modules.
 

I just wanted to address the subject in the official forum, but it got moved to a "multiplayer issue". If thinking this is my "PvP grip" makes you happy, be my guest.

Interl i7 6700k - 32Gb RAM DDR4 - RX 590 8GB - Sentey 32"2560x1440 - Saitek X-55 - TrackIr 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mikel.132 said:

 

I had some conversations with people on servers and some of them feel the same way, saying that the F-18 version was a bit too modern and some F-18 pilots even stated they don't use that feature because they think it is a steal.

 

BS.  Combat isn't some sort of fair sport.   If they're not using it, there are other reasons, not because it makes things 'too easy'. 

 

18 minutes ago, mikel.132 said:

The most common thing to hear on the server's discord is that ED should have chosen an earlier version, which would have gotten along much better with other modules.
I just wanted to address the subject in the official forum, but it got moved to a "multiplayer issue". If thinking this is my "PvP grip" makes you happy, be my guest.

 

You asked what people thought in your original post, then you started arguing.  Well, now you have a broader idea of what people think.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

BS.  Combat isn't some sort of fair sport.   If they're not using it, there are other reasons, not because it makes things 'too easy'. 
 

You asked what people thought in your original post, then you started arguing.  Well, now you have a broader idea of what people think.

 


That's the reason they gave, but for you there's other reasons. I'm addressing the technology timeframe between modules, that is why I used the F-35 example. But again, for you I'm addressing some other thing.

You've said: "run your own server", "it is your PvP grip at best", "remove if you don't like it", "you are playing the wrong game", "play with the F-18 then", "there are other reasons", etc...

If you have said something along: "I think the F-18 version ED made is great, and I preferer the most modern version possible, disregarding the timeframe of other aircraft and how they interact on DCS", which is exactly the opposite of what I think, I would have not said anything. It is a perfectly valid opinion about the subject, and you are entitled to it. But what you are not entitled to do, is to change other people's opinions to prove your point, and that is exactly what you are doing. It is called straw man fallacy, google it. 

Interl i7 6700k - 32Gb RAM DDR4 - RX 590 8GB - Sentey 32"2560x1440 - Saitek X-55 - TrackIr 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called common sense, man. The weapons, and sometimes equipment, that are available on a server are largely up to that server. All there is to it.

 

''Most servers just run the planes as is''

Yes, it's true most servers suck. And? Don't play on shite servers?

 

-edit

That should have said ''shite AIRQUAKE servers''


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

There is no such thing as a "correct time frame" for DCS aircraft. The range goes from WW2 planes over Korea, Cold War up to relatively modern planes.
There are several types in each category and in my opinion by no means the F18 is more capable than a F16 for example. They both have their strengths in similar but different areas.
And by the way the most modern Plane in DCS is the JF17...
Maybe you can try the cold war server or ddcs cold war. It sounds like you would probably enjoy it there a bit more.

I for my part love all the tools you have at your disposal. The DL Contacts in the JHMCS are nice but the system has its limits. It displays only up to 7 contacts simultaneously and by default prioritizes the friendly contacts over hostile ones. Additionally it is lacking in precision due to the DL update rate...

I love the Hornet as it is and it is by no means an "OP" plane not fitting in the DCS eco system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

To anyone who thinks the DCS Hornet is "Over Powered" - jump on the Growling Sidewinder server any given moment, hit 'tab', and watch the near endless stream of:

 

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

 

😬


Edited by wilbur81

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

To anyone who thinks the DCS Hornet is "Over Powered" - jump on the Growling Sidewinder server any given moment, hit 'tab', and watch the near endless stream of:

 

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

 

😬

 

 

Anyone that thinks GS server or the person is parameter for anything should jump from a cliff at any given moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

To anyone who thinks the DCS Hornet is "Over Powered" - jump on the Growling Sidewinder server any given moment, hit 'tab', and watch the near endless stream of:

 

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

"[so & so] in F-16C block 50 has killed [so & so] in the F/A-18C Lot 20 with AIM120C AMRAAM"

 

😬

 

which pretty much has nothing to do with F-16 vs F-18 capabilities, and more that F-18 pilots somehow think valley sneaking nonsense is how you counter F-16s (spoiler alert: it isnt). If you put competent pilots on both sides, id say its overall quite a level game

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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