Please include the B-61

[GGTharos]

I know that nukes are mostly a no-go in this game, but this is a huge part of the F-15E.  Enable the PAL panel to be used, only arming the weapon when the correct code is used (it doesn't matter how the code gets in there etc).

 

Simulate the main modes (laydown, airburst etc).

 

This is an important mission set that the F-15E took over from the F-111.

I would recommend the mod-4 version which is tactical in nature and features the lowest yields.

 

Basic info on the weapon:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

Edited January 14, 2021 by GGTharos

[МаксиM]

we got Rn-24 and Rn-28 on MiG-21, then how it is implemented is not needed now, if it is done at the DCS core level, then yes, it would be interesting

[GGTharos]

The idea is to enable those mission profiles with that weapon; I mean you could simulate it with a dumb bomb as well but not quite the same.

[notproplayer3]

This is something I very much wish for too. 

ED has said nukes weren't something they wanted to add to DCS and I suspect it has to do with political or publicity reasons. 

In any case, the b61 seems to be pretty much a standard weapon for the f15e.

On the same topic I heard f/a-18's and f16's could carry nukes (the f16c has a nuclear consent panel even). Can anyone specify if those planes we have in DCS could or even did carry atomic bombs ? I would love to see realistic nuclear scenarios in DCS.

[TLTeo]

ED have taken over weapon development and have said nukes are not happening, so there's no way this is happening.

 

Is there an inert/training round version? Some sort of training scenario on NTTR is probably the best chance at simulating nuclear missions in DCS

[Lace]

On 1/15/2021 at 5:40 PM, TLTeo said:

 

Is there an inert/training round version?

 

I think that would be a great compromise.  We still get to simulate nuclear attack profiles, and ED don't have to work out how to implement unit/building damage on such a massive scale.

[Buzzles]

No for actual explody nukes in game. Not needed imo.
Yes for an inert version though, for the puposes Lace said.

[Expert]

It's so easy and cool to implement that I can't disagree with you

[Mars Exulte]

On 1/15/2021 at 11:32 AM, notproplayer3 said:

ED has said nukes weren't something they wanted to add to DCS and I suspect it has to do with political or publicity reasons. 

 

  It has to do with it being stupid and serving little practical purpose.

 

  When you drop a nuke it's basically a ''destroy radius'' triggering hundreds, or thousands, of object interactions instantly, lagging the ever loving **** out the game. On an online server it's pretty much an instant ''crash the server''. And that's if it's simulated in a half-assed fashion, ie not at all (this is what we have now, and what's used in the handful of games that bothered, like Arma *white flash LAAAAAAAAAAAAAG*). If you would actually try to SIMULATE a nuclear explosion, it would be the above x10 due to the added complexity.

 

  So, it's a lot of work, has numerous OBVIOUS technical drawbacks and impracticalities, for what? So some doofus can pretend he's launching a nuclear strike? You can simulate that already plenty fine as is. Load a Mk83, or a bunch of them, lob them at the target, when they hit, quickly push ALT + F4 to crash your game.

 

  Not everything people ask for is worth serious consideration. This is one of those things.

[notproplayer3]

1 hour ago, zhukov032186 said:

 

  It has to do with it being stupid and serving little practical purpose.

 

  When you drop a nuke it's basically a ''destroy radius'' triggering hundreds, or thousands, of object interactions instantly, lagging the ever loving **** out the game. On an online server it's pretty much an instant ''crash the server''. And that's if it's simulated in a half-assed fashion, ie not at all (this is what we have now, and what's used in the handful of games that bothered, like Arma *white flash LAAAAAAAAAAAAAG*). If you would actually try to SIMULATE a nuclear explosion, it would be the above x10 due to the added complexity.

 

  So, it's a lot of work, has numerous OBVIOUS technical drawbacks and impracticalities, for what? So some doofus can pretend he's launching a nuclear strike? You can simulate that already plenty fine as is. Load a Mk83, or a bunch of them, lob them at the target, when they hit, quickly push ALT + F4 to crash your game.

 

  Not everything people ask for is worth serious consideration. This is one of those things.

I'd still prefer to hear ED's version of why they aren't considering to add nukes. It's a lot of work so what ? All of the weapons in DCS are a lot of work. Take for example air to air missiles, ED seems to have invested a lot of time and effort into their FM. Then you have jdams for example, with custom trajectories and such. I could go on about the work they put in the weapons so I'm sure that if ED really wanted to, they could add nukes (frankly I don't know anything about the game's engine and how it could handle the sheer calculations of a nuclear blast radius' damage so it perhaps could be technical like you said).

Your opinion is that nukes aren't worth the work (which I can understand), but my opinion is that they are. 

 

The fact remains that the f15e (and perhaps the fa18 and f16) could carry nukes so if some aspects of the simulation of those planes aren't present, all I ask is to know the real reason why those weapons won't be added, what you said may very well be the case, I just want to hear it from ED themselves if possible.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by notproplayer3

[Mars Exulte]

I didn't say they're not not doing it just because it's a lot of work. I said they're not doing it because it's a lot of work FOR NO REAL PURPOSE, see technical issues I already highlighted. That's unavoidable for a ''blow everything up in 50 miles'' button. It's a lot of work for something stupid that isn't feasible to use.

 

It's a lot of work for something that BREAKS THE GAME when used. It's a novelty toy that would get used once or twice by each person, and when it BREAKS THE GAME they will not play with it again. Just like nukes in Arma. They're there. Nobody uses them. They're strictly forbidden on servers because they crash the game. Etc etc.

 

It's also not something that is feasible to simulate avionics wise, they'd literally just be making it all up, because that information is strictly locked down.

 

It's not like this is some unfathomably complex topic that we can't puzzle out the reasons why, because those reasons are EXTREMELY OBVIOUS.

 

As I already said, if you want to see what it's like to drop a nuke in a game, drop a bomb, then hit ALT + F4. That's what it's like to drop a nuke in a game. All other reasons and considerations aside. That's why they're not going to do it. Because it's stupid.

[notproplayer3]

8 minutes ago, zhukov032186 said:

I didn't say they're not not doing it just because it's a lot of work. I said they're not doing it because it's a lot of work FOR NO REAL PURPOSE, see technical issues I already highlighted. That's unavoidable for a ''blow everything up in 50 miles'' button. It's a lot of work for something stupid that isn't feasible to use.

 

It's a lot of work for something that BREAKS THE GAME when used. It's a novelty toy that would get used once or twice by each person, and when it BREAKS THE GAME they will not play with it again. Just like nukes in Arma. They're there. Nobody uses them. They're strictly forbidden on servers because they crash the game. Etc etc.

 

It's also not something that is feasible to simulate avionics wise, they'd literally just be making it all up, because that information is strictly locked down.

 

It's not like this is some unfathomably complex topic that we can't puzzle out the reasons why, because those reasons are EXTREMELY OBVIOUS.

 

As I already said, if you want to see what it's like to drop a nuke in a game, drop a bomb, then hit ALT + F4. That's what it's like to drop a nuke in a game. All other reasons and considerations aside. That's why they're not going to do it. Because it's stupid.

Nukes in arma were a mod. Thank you but I do not want to hit alt f4 after I drop bombs: I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY "NUKE" = "GAME BROKEN" TO YOU.

It's stupid to you but not to me since I believe lots of missions and scenarios could be made using the nuke (please don't call me stupid for thinking that). 

Avionics relative to nukes being classified is a very good point, again I would like to hear the official answer and not speculation.

[Mars Exulte]

27 minutes ago, notproplayer3 said:

Nukes in arma were a mod.

  Yes, one that lagged the game out for all the reasons I already mentioned. The developers themselves didn't waste their time or money making a lagswitch. Only the general public is willing to waste time on something that dumb.

 

27 minutes ago, notproplayer3 said:

Thank you but I do not want to hit alt f4 after I drop bombs: I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY "NUKE" = "GAME BROKEN" TO YOU.

  What part of ''they crash the game'' is not being understood? It means ''game breaking'' in the literal sense as ''the game not functioning properly when you do this''.

 

27 minutes ago, notproplayer3 said:

It's stupid to you but not to me

  It's stupid from the standpoint they lag and/or crash the game. That's not really debtable.

 

 

  There is a small nuke already on the MiG-21, provided basically as a gag, which tells you everything you need to know right there. It's regarded as a dumb gimmick, because....

 

  It lags the game out when used.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Given what the DCS core desperately needs, adding nukes is just a waste of dev time. The engine is practically held together by ducttape and happy thoughts. Any nukes added would be better off added by third party developers.

 

The RN-24 and RN-28 are basically worthless and only come into play when you feel like having a laugh or actually griefing a server. As zhukov has put it, it's just going to be a CPU tax that makes everyone frustrated except for the single person who drops it.

 

Blame 'politics' all you want, there's a very practical reason why to not include them.

Edited February 6, 2021 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[notproplayer3]

12 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

  Yes, one that lagged the game out for all the reasons I already mentioned. The developers themselves didn't waste their time or money making a lagswitch. Only the general public is willing to waste time on something that dumb.

 

  What part of ''they crash the game'' is not being understood? It means ''game breaking'' in the literal sense as ''the game not functioning properly when you do this''.

 

  It's stupid from the standpoint they lag and/or crash the game. That's not really debtable.

 

 

  There is a small nuke already on the MiG-21, provided basically as a gag, which tells you everything you need to know right there. It's regarded as a dumb gimmick, because....

 

  It lags the game out when used.

 

What ? I hope you are not using the current rn28/24 as examples of "breaking the game" because while the effects may be lacking, in no way do they lag my single player game.

So I indeed still do not understand ''they crash the game'' as I'm not experiencing ''the game not functioning properly when you do this''. In any case, I do not believe that the simple idea of simulating a nuke explosion is something that is impossible to achieve with today's hardware or even software like you make it seem to be. I've coded multiple 2d and just recently started doing 3d games as a hobby on unity and I've had to be as creative as I could in regards to making some aspect of those games have much better performance. I've got no basis nor knowledge of the DCS engine but I still think that making a huge nuke explode with some cool effects is something that could totally be very playable if the right tricks are used when coding. Performance aside as I'm sure coding a playable and well made nuke explosion while it is possible, remains something that could be quite hard to do.

 

Why do I want nukes in DCS: they truly add a new aspect of DCS warfare, myself I've played lots of missions using nukes on the mig21 as they are very challenging to use but still very fun, this is my opinion. But in the future, I really do think that nukes could add a lot more when dynamic campaigns are added. There could be endless scenarios where nukes really turn the tide of war for you, suppose you've got the info that your foe has received one nuke at a certain airbase, you are very probably going to launch a quick strike mission at the expense of losing many planes. What if you've got one nuke ? Perhaps you could strike your enemy with a well planned attack and then play against a weakened army.

The mission possibilities with user made dynamic campaigns would be endless, and the nuke could then really act like a deterrent unlike what it is right now.

 

11 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Given what the DCS core desperately needs, adding nukes is just a waste of dev time. The engine is practically held together by ducttape and happy thoughts. Any nukes added would be better off added by third party developers.

Yes, well ED's choice to not add them right now I guess, but you are right, there are more pressing issues. I just think that in the future, with dynamic campaigns, nukes would really be a lot better than what they are currently used for so I hope ED could reconsider.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

The MiG's nukes are also fairly basic. By LNS' own admission, they're just up-rated conventional bombs and don't actually behave like real nukes.

[notproplayer3]

10 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

The MiG's nukes are also fairly basic. By LNS' own admission, they're just up-rated conventional bombs and don't actually behave like real nukes.

Absolutely right ! I still hope they get a rework some day.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 minute ago, notproplayer3 said:

Absolutely right ! I still hope they get a rework some day.

I wouldn't hold out too much hope. They've been largely forgotten by most MiG riders. Especially when, frankly, conventional load-outs can be more surgical, more precise, more intuitive in application, and WAY more survivable.

[notproplayer3]

1 minute ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

I wouldn't hold out too much hope. They've been largely forgotten by most MiG riders. Especially when, frankly, conventional load-outs can be more surgical, more precise, more intuitive in application, and WAY more survivable.

Everyone's preferences I guess, though when dynamic campaigns are added, if you've got one nuke, you could use it to destroy a whole airbase at once. Only time will tell if nukes will become more viable in the future DCS battlefield, I can only only speculate atm...

[Fri13]

Nuclear weapons are.....

 

.... It is difficulty to say what to really think about them.

 

As there is no such political pressure and threat to use our not to use them. Why they are in DCS obsolete as there ain't even ground units that would operate properly in such a scenario vs common scenario.

 

Simply put, in the campaign it would be
 the "end game" moment for last mission.... Tasked to drop a nuke. And 1 min from that the campaign ends.... Symbolizing a end of humanity....

 

We are talking here now about weapons that are for mass destruction. It is different in DCS than many other games or movies.

 

 

[razo+r]

If you guys want to have the B61, you could make a mod. It shouldn't be the hardest thing to do. 

[GGTharos]

B61 is about the weapon's operating specifics, not about making a some mod to drop it like an iron bomb.

 

As for scenarios with nuclear weapons, WW3 would have opened with a whole bunch of tac-nuking.   It's not hard to imagine building a scenario where you have to deliver or defend from an aircraft trying to deliver a tacnuke while escorted by a bunch of aircraft of the same type.

 

The F-15E has specific scenarios for this delivery, flying into enemy territory to deliver a B-61 to a selected target in the stead of the F-111. 

Edited February 7, 2021 by GGTharos

[razo+r]

There is 0 difference wheter ED is doing the B61, RAZBAM doing the B61 or if someone else is making one, unless they locked out other weapons to be utilized by the avionics like they usually do.

 

So what exactly prevents you to do the same with a weapon mod compared to an official weapon?

[felixx75]

Why do we need a nuke? There is no added value in gameplay with a nuke...

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, razo+r said:

There is 0 difference wheter ED is doing the B61, RAZBAM doing the B61 or if someone else is making one, unless they locked out other weapons to be utilized by the avionics like they usually do.

 

So what exactly prevents you to do the same with a weapon mod compared to an official weapon?

 

Of course there is.   The B-61 isn't an iron bomb, it has a bunch of deployment modes that are controlled from the cockpit.

56 minutes ago, felixx75 said:

Why do we need a nuke? There is no added value in gameplay with a nuke...

 

Sure there are.  One of the main missions of the F-15E is nuclear delivery.  I suppose if your experience exends only as far as the public multiplayer arena hen there's not 'gameplay' or scenario that fits inthere, but that's not the only arena out there.

Edited February 7, 2021 by GGTharos