Please include the B-61

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

18 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

 

No, I'm arguing against nukes from a technical standpoint. The sudden destruction of thousands of objects at once causes servers to crash, which ends up ticking people off, especially those who have to maintain the server who now have to go through the process of booting everything back up.

 

@BIGNEWYor @NineLine can we nuke the topic now? We all know that nukes aren't coming to DCS, and yet people keep insisting on it.

So? Im ok with that and so are the people who play single player (the majority). Once again you have the option to interdict playees to use that on your server

Edited May 3, 2021 by IkarusC42B Pilot

[Rainmaker]

8 hours ago, Lace said:

Ok, everyone is focussing on what DCS is now and how it is played currently.  There is also a massive misunderstanding regarding the effect of a smaller nuclear weapon.  Nobody is asking for MT class weapons.  Here is an American 300kt B61 on somewhere all DCS players know - Batumi.  We are not talking about wiping clean entire maps in an instant.  That is Hollywood nuclear warfare.

 

Link here: NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein (nuclearsecrecy.com)

 

Imagine the new dynamic campaign.  Each side has a couple of tactical nukes.  You don't know which facility they are stored in, but you are tasked to find and destroy them before they can be used against you.  Suddenly, intercepting an incoming strike has significantly more importance attached to it.  You are no longer going to lose a hanger or two, but perhaps a huge part of your weapons and POL storage capacity.  Do you throw everything you have at stopping them?  Or is the attack a feint, or just probing your defences?  Or how about another scenario, when your forces have been pushed back and are facing an enemy with numerical superiority (think Fulda type situation).  Your only choice now is perhaps a tactical nuclear strike to buy you some time.  But of course this brings it's own risks and now the enemy will be looking to match your escalation.  

 

Like any weapon it's use will be controlled by mission designers.  If it is not in a warehouse, it can't be used.  You don't want them, fine, but we aren't vaporising cities here, we're talking about a legitimate and realistic use of a weapon which was designed to be used at a tactical level, rather than strategic.

 

You are obviously not speaking from a standpoint of not really understanding nuclear weapons effects, yes, even the smaller ones. So are many others in this thread, hence my comment above. There is no such thing as a small nuclear weapon. Secondary and tertiary effects are basically exponential. 
 

People scream ‘realism’ over and over again, but at the same time want to ignore certain parts of it because either they don’t fully understand it or because it spoils the entire argument. 

[Lace]

Just now, Rainmaker said:

 

You are obviously not speaking from a standpoint of not really understanding nuclear weapons effects, yes, even the smaller ones. So are many others in this thread, hence my comment above. There is no such thing as a small nuclear weapon. Secondary and tertiary effects are basically exponential. 
 

People scream ‘realism’ over and over again, but at the same time want to ignore certain parts of it because either they don’t fully understand it or because it spoils the entire argument. 

 

There are a few things I do understand well, from years of study.  One of those things is the effects of nuclear weapons. I have a library full of reference material and have visited the sites of both live and test detonations.  You may know better than I do, but it is doubtful. 

 

Tactical nuclear weapons may pose a programming problem for DCS, fair enough, but that is not the same as saying they cannot be modelled.

[Rainmaker]

14 minutes ago, Lace said:

 

There are a few things I do understand well, from years of study.  One of those things is the effects of nuclear weapons. I have a library full of reference material and have visited the sites of both live and test detonations.  You may know better than I do, but it is doubtful. 

 

Tactical nuclear weapons may pose a programming problem for DCS, fair enough, but that is not the same as saying they cannot be modelled.

You basically model a large boom and a bunch of things on the ground either destroyed/damaged. That’s what you get, and what most want...but that’s very very far from a nuc weapons det. There is no realism in that...that’s asking for a pizza, and eating 1/20th of it. 

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

Tactical nuclear weapons have two absolutes

1. use in real life will lead to Global contamination and full scale exchanges resulting in the end of the world as we know it.

2. Tactical nuclear weapons used in a multiplayer setting of DCS will lead to the proliferation of a new breed of trolls which will result in the end of the online experience as we know it. 
Why such a hard on for people to agree with you?  Nobody is arguing it could be modeled someday. We don’t need pictures and graphics to understand what you are saying. Most are simply saying it’s a bad idea because it brings nothing except negatives to the game and to feed your desire to be acknowledged for some reason.  
Every day, people who don’t know how to fly jump into a hi tech aircraft and fly all over the map without formal know how.  You know why? Because as realistic as it is, there are unlimited lives and zero fear.  ergo there will be no deterrent to use a nuke. It will just bring out the trolls and ruin it for everyone else as such losers generally do.....

Some things are just better off left to single player and your imagination!

[Silver_Dragon]

No nukes planned by ED

[Schmidtfire]

14 minutes ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

2. Tactical nuclear weapons used in a multiplayer setting of DCS will lead to the proliferation of a new breed of trolls which will result in the end of the online experience as we know it. 

Have you ever seen the average loadout that people fly with on big multiplayer servers? Looks more like flying hedgehogs with very litte care for realism. Little to no communication with active missiles regulary going right into the furball, IFF optional - "let god sort em' out" . Airfields looks like a circus with wrecked planes everywhere. Carriers Ops even worse. Everyone doing their own thing, with close to zero regards for flying as a team.

My point is, tactical nukes won't change much. Many servers would restict usage and it will still be as many clowns and trolls as usual. DCS draws many different type of players and I think the more hardcore/realistic servers can handle the B61 fine.        

Edited May 3, 2021 by Schmidtfire

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

Completely irrelevant argument. 

That said, see post above your last....

[GGTharos]

Tacnukes change plenty, public MP servers are irrelevant as they are just a slice of the MP world.   ED won't model nukes (which would fix any performance issues) but the delivery modes and missions are still interesting and challenging, and again, a major part of the strike eagle's mission role.

[Rainmaker]

45 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

...a major part of the strike eagle's mission role.

define ‘major’...

[GGTharos]

It's part of the nuclear armed forces and they train for delivery.   Unlike other aircraft, that... don't.

[Rainmaker]

4 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

It's part of the nuclear armed forces and they train for delivery.   Unlike other aircraft, that... don't.

So the same as pretty much every other fighter in the US inventory, and others in foreign countries...

[Schmidtfire]

Now, this probably won't matter since ED has no tactical nukes planned...

But I don't get how you could not want the B61? A real (not hypothetical) loadout for the F-15E. An awesome weapon by itself. Why would you be against having more content?
Makes no sense not wanting all the bells and whistles. Ability to make very special strike missions in both SP and MP.  

- Hey kid, do you want the AIM-120D Amraam?
- Ehh... no. Cause players will do mean things with it online 
 

 

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, Rainmaker said:

So the same as pretty much every other fighter in the US inventory, and others in foreign countries...

 

That is incorrect.  Last I checked (and this may be very out-dated info but it's the only info I have), the nuclear consent switches required two people to initiate them, so no single-seat viper will be delivering these, at least AFAIK.

[Rainmaker]

Just now, GGTharos said:

 

That is incorrect.  Last I checked (and this may be very out-dated info but it's the only info I have), the nuclear consent switches required two people to initiate them, so no single-seat viper will be delivering these, at least AFAIK.

You are incorrect. Single seat jets have been nuclear capable for a very long time. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

If you're aiming to break the game, just install a boatload of different mods and see what you get instead of wasting dev time with a weapon that will get nixed by most mission makers.

 

It's been made pretty clear: we're not getting nukes. Move on.

Edited May 3, 2021 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Frederf]

Could practice version(s) of the nuclear weapons be added? That would provide all of the procedural training and hypothetical scenarios without the big boom. Or is the choice to not model nuclear weapons less about humanitarian sensibilities and more about not modeling sensitive electronics that would be nearly identical with practice and real weapons?

[Deano87]

4 hours ago, Frederf said:

Could practice version(s) of the nuclear weapons be added? That would provide all of the procedural training and hypothetical scenarios without the big boom. Or is the choice to not model nuclear weapons less about humanitarian sensibilities and more about not modeling sensitive electronics that would be nearly identical with practice and real weapons?

Probably the latter.

[GGTharos]

7 hours ago, Frederf said:

Could practice version(s) of the nuclear weapons be added? That would provide all of the procedural training and hypothetical scenarios without the big boom. Or is the choice to not model nuclear weapons less about humanitarian sensibilities and more about not modeling sensitive electronics that would be nearly identical with practice and real weapons?

 

There is enough description of how the PAL works to fudge it, if it is about the PAL.  Same thing with the weapon's employment modes - so you're looking at 'known RWR-level detail' for example.  The practice version is good enough, you can handle the rest with triggers if desired.

[Tank50us]

On 5/4/2021 at 4:52 AM, Deano87 said:

Probably the latter.

 

There's also the fact that if you were to accurately model how nukes are deployed by aircraft, you might get a knock on your door by some nice men in uniform telling you to either stop that immediately, or to come with them. How the Mig21 devs got away with it, I'm not sure, but I don't think Razbam would get away with it in the F15E.

[GGTharos]

They got away with it because what you just wrote is ridiculous.   The deployment methods are a matter of public knowledge.   The technical details may not be, but that's not so important ... much like the encryption details for the IFF aren't, or how the classified RWR symbols aren't available.

[Silver_Dragon]

10 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

 

There's also the fact that if you were to accurately model how nukes are deployed by aircraft, you might get a knock on your door by some nice men in uniform telling you to either stop that immediately, or to come with them. How the Mig21 devs got away with it, I'm not sure, but I don't think Razbam would get away with it in the F15E.

 

Heatblur / M3 only put a very big explosion value on the weapon declaration to make a funny explosion, nothing more.

[TLTeo]

15 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

There's also the fact that if you were to accurately model how nukes are deployed by aircraft, you might get a knock on your door by some nice men in uniform telling you to either stop that immediately, or to come with them. How the Mig21 devs got away with it, I'm not sure, but I don't think Razbam would get away with it in the F15E.

You mean like the Sabre models the exact avionics (LABS) used to deliver nukes for most of the Cold War? I would argue that's much closer to restricted information (or lack thereof) than the glorified, overpowered conventional bomb the Mig carries...

[Tank50us]

My point, is that if a representative from Boeing or the USAF tells Razbam they cannot model it, they don't have a choice, they *can not* model it. And if they do, they'll be a barge load of legal trouble. They stated this in the podcast interview that came out earlier this week.

[GGTharos]

That's just meaningless negative blah blah.  If that happens, it happens.  They could have done the same about missiles, radars, RWRs, and a host of other things.  There's no reason to do it for the PAL, especially given that about all you'd model is the bomb's delivery modes (direct, laydown, ground/air-burst) and the fact that you have to put a digits into the PAL (a number of digits related to the terminal grade/version) which also dial the yield and select the delivery mode.

 

You're all sitting here harping on all this stuff because what ... you don't like nukes?  Great, but don't go around pretending like there's some insurmountable legal or technical problem here.  Those obstacles simply do not exist.