Own Subforum for Intruder?

[Stearmandriver]

I'm wondering at this point which gets released first: the Intruder or the Corsair.  Two of my favorite aircraft of all time. C'mon guys!  (Said not in a demanding, but supportive and rallying, fist-pumping tone .)

[Mig Fulcrum]

Il 3/8/2022 at 04:20, Stearmandriver ha scritto:

I'm wondering at this point which gets released first: the Intruder or the Corsair.  Two of my favorite aircraft of all time. C'mon guys!  (Said not in a demanding, but supportive and rallying, fist-pumping tone .)

If you are talking about the F4U it'll definitely come first.

If you mean A-7E my bet is on the Corsair.

[bies]

On 8/3/2022 at 4:20 AM, Stearmandriver said:

I'm wondering at this point which gets released first: the Intruder or the Corsair.  Two of my favorite aircraft of all time. C'mon guys!  (Said not in a demanding, but supportive and rallying, fist-pumping tone .)

A-7 Corsair, it's well into the developement with many milestones reached when A-6 is waiting in line for its time when HB is focused on finishing F-14, Viggen, releasing F-4 and helping TrueGrit with Eurofighter.

[LanceCriminal86]

There's going to be a lot of hurdles for the Intruder, just like there are systems and docs on the Tomcat that just aren't available or had to be worked around due to ITAR and release issues. While NATOPS should be available, the concerns will always be around things like the TACMANs and additional system breakout manuals. A lot of that is going to decide what Heatblur is able to legally use, and how far around it they can work. There are different segments of the Navy that have different manuals, and apparently there's not 100% agreement on what can be released, downgraded, scanned, etc. between them. The Intruder Archive dudes are working pretty hard on as much docs as they can get but there still will be the issue of, what can be properly shared with Heatblur's devs as non-US Persons according to things like ITAR. The last thing anybody wants is devs in jail, or good meaning A-6 enthusiasts having a tangle with the State Department or Department of the Navy.

Ultimately what is releasable not just to US Citizens but also what can be seen and used by Heatblur is what will decide if we get an E, E with TRAM, WCS, or SWIP, or whatever combinations can be documented between those upgrades and the NATOPS, TACMANS, and what pilots and BNs can comfortably share.

[Fromthedeep]

On 10/6/2022 at 8:24 PM, LanceCriminal86 said:

There's going to be a lot of hurdles for the Intruder, just like there are systems and docs on the Tomcat that just aren't available or had to be worked around due to ITAR and release issues. While NATOPS should be available, the concerns will always be around things like the TACMANs and additional system breakout manuals. A lot of that is going to decide what Heatblur is able to legally use, and how far around it they can work. There are different segments of the Navy that have different manuals, and apparently there's not 100% agreement on what can be released, downgraded, scanned, etc. between them. The Intruder Archive dudes are working pretty hard on as much docs as they can get but there still will be the issue of, what can be properly shared with Heatblur's devs as non-US Persons according to things like ITAR. The last thing anybody wants is devs in jail, or good meaning A-6 enthusiasts having a tangle with the State Department or Department of the Navy.

Ultimately what is releasable not just to US Citizens but also what can be seen and used by Heatblur is what will decide if we get an E, E with TRAM, WCS, or SWIP, or whatever combinations can be documented between those upgrades and the NATOPS, TACMANS, and what pilots and BNs can comfortably share.

Based on this it seems like choosing an Intruder as a module may not have been a good idea in the first place.

[LanceCriminal86]

1 hour ago, Fromthedeep said:

Based on this it seems like choosing an Intruder as a module may not have been a good idea in the first place.

No, it just means that certain late upgrade versions may not be available to model, or that it just might take some more legwork to get the documents that are available released.

[Fromthedeep]

On 10/26/2022 at 2:44 PM, LanceCriminal86 said:

No, it just means that certain late upgrade versions may not be available to model, or that it just might take some more legwork to get the documents that are available released.

I've looked into the group you have mentioned and according to the administrator of the A-6 Intruder Archive, even the post 1978 NATOPS is flat out impossible for non US persons to acquire, and the TACMANs, performance charts, MTX manuals, FCF manuals, weapons checklists and all the data that would basically be required for a proper product is impossible to be exported. The same administrator also said that even non export controlled manuals should not be released because the data in them is close to the ones that are controlled.

 

Based on this, I have very little faith that even an early A-6E is possible to be developed at a high enough standard while also complying with the regulations without acquiring an actual license by the appropriate regulatory agency. And according to Cobra, so far that hasn't happened. The F-14 is completely irrelevant, the time frame when the docs for that were acquired was essentially the period of a free for all, wild west scenario where anyone could easily buy what they wanted on EBay. On top of that, when initially asked, the HB devs said that all data needed for the Tomcat was available including plenty about the most sensitive areas. 

 

Considering that Cobra said the A-6 cannot even be started at this stage (due to the core DCS engine not supporting what they want to simulate) it's certainly possible that regulations regarding this data becomes more lax because even the most optimistic estimates shouldn't expect the A-6 in the next 5 years.

[Pasquale1986]

On 5/19/2022 at 4:31 AM, IronMike said:

This time I took my time to reply to you just in time about whether or not it is time:



 

 

How about now?

[IronMike]

25 minutes ago, Pasquale1986 said:

How about now?

Let me check with the boys:

 

Yeah, sorry, they said no.

[LanceCriminal86]

[=DROOPY=]

I have to admit, this is the only aircraft that I'm *seriously* excited about... If this module gets released, I will commit large sums of money to upgrading everything to get the best game play possible. Rolling in on a target with 24 Mk82's is definitely something I look forward to doing.....

 

 

Photo credit:

VA-176 Intruder on the cat, submitted by LCDR Hank Teommey, USN(ret.)

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by =DROOPY=

[Spurts]

11 hours ago, =DROOPY= said:

 Rolling in on a target with 24 Mk82's is definitely something I look forward to doing.....

 

I hear ya.  The F-4 could do that too though.  Three pylons carrying six bombs each and two with three bombs each and still having the 8 AAM stations open.  It'll just be out of gas by the time it leaves the traffic pattern.

[WinterH]

F-4E and A-6E are two of the most exciting things for me to happen in DCS, but at least the latter is some wayyyys off yet, considering there's the Phantom, Eurofigther, and potentially boaty-Phantoms to happen before it.

Hopefully Flying Iron's A-7E will happen in the meantime to tide us over as the oldie attack plane, but F-E is mostly a striker too anyway.

As for the variant, it was discussed a lot during the original A-6 reveal in ED video but, personally I'd be super happy with TRAM if that proves possible, but while a pure early pre-TRAM A-6E would be bitter sweet, I'd still be happy with that. If WCSI or SWIP are too much to get proper info on, than so be it. It'd be cool to have them too perhaps, but I'm more into pre-SWIP period for DCS myself to be fair.

[Slick_441]

Maybe we could get a new screenshot or two for Christmas? 

[Fromthedeep]

On 12/12/2022 at 2:13 PM, WinterH said:

TRAM if that proves possible, but while a pure early pre-TRAM A-6E would be bitter sweet, I'd still be happy with that. If WCSI or SWIP are too much to get proper info on, than so be it.

Probably the TRAM and later variants will be the new F-14B(U)/D when the Intruder releases.

[Spurts]

4 hours ago, Fromthedeep said:

Probably the TRAM and later variants will be the new F-14B(U)/D when the Intruder releases.

The "We can't get documentation on a retired system because of ITAR"?

[Fromthedeep]

5 hours ago, Spurts said:

The "We can't get documentation on a retired system because of ITAR"?

Exactly.

[F1GHTS-ON]

Replying as a non US citizen (but have worked with A-6 pilots on exchange, more than a quarter of a century ago!)

Why the absolute need for access to NATOPs and other documentation? As is regularly posted on these forums, the absolute "purists" will insist on 100% accuracy, yet I doubt have flown an A-6 as a pilot or B/N themselves. Whilst I genuinely take nothing from their laudable ambitions, lets look at what the A-6 weapon systems actually did, and how DCS can meet 99% of that whilst remaining at Open Source. Remember DCS models AIM-120s, without knowing the true range or Probability of Kill (PK), detection capabilities against various target sizes and aspects etc, etc - yet doesn't detract from the enjoyability of game?

In very simple terms, the A-6 required 2 crew to operate a complex pre-GPS targeting system to achieve all weather hits using dumb bombs. 

To generate an accurate INS position to release those bombs, the B/N was constantly using the radar to update the aircraft nav system. (I would suggest that that feature has already been implemented in DCS (F-14). That most games we chose to set either zero wind or zero nav drift is our dealers choice. The latest A-2-G mapping in some aircraft looks pretty good to me and with the F-15E, I suspect that 21st century A-2-G mapping & targeting is pretty well playable without compromising military knowledge.  Sorry to say, but before GPS, this was the high workload on a B/N and therefore for a computer game, that "accuracy" by a Jester type AI, should be fairly straight forward. (sorry to genuine B/Ns reading this, but GPS, assuming that the opposition doesn't take it down, was your replacement).

Flight Model - I would assume that Open Source should be able to provide the various speed, drag, turn performances for a 1960's plane allowing for various weight and configuration variants good enough for the majority of DCS players. 

Use of 1990's precision weapons - modelling for these already in game, and even if the exact switchology for spooling up HARM/Harpoon/Maverick/LGBs isn't known, I would speculate that the MFD(s?) that were introduced on the very late SWIP A-6s were probably identical to mid block F/A-18Cs. The Nose mounted Targeting POD was probably less clever than LANTRIN, but why does Heatblur not just use their LANTRIN model (with Jester integration already developed, on their A-6. Take a wild guess where many of the original F-14 RIOs came from when the F-14 assumed the role of Bombcat - and I would argue that their previous A-6 Targeting Pod/designator knowledge was huge in the development of LANTRIN. Would the US Defence Department really have developed something totally new for the A-6 when MFDs were already in use on legacy Hornets? And more importantly, would 99% of DCS players know?

 

anyway, my two pennies (or should that be cents?) worth

[draconus]

23 hours ago, F1GHTS-ON said:

As is regularly posted on these forums, the absolute "purists" will insist on 100% accuracy, yet I doubt have flown an A-6 as a pilot or B/N themselves.

That's not a good reason to dumb down the simulation. Good thing neither HB nor ED goes this way.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 11/15/2022 at 5:52 AM, IronMike said:

Let me check with the boys:

 

Yeah, sorry, they said no.

Asking fighter jockeys about something us strike chads want? SMH, clear bias!

 

 

Also @F1GHTS-ONI hear you and definitely see you POV. I think it's a reasonable one since it's one that accepts that this is a video game. We're not actually about to go downtown to Hanoi or skim over the Iraqi coast on a winter night in 1991, we're just playing with toys. I don't think it's a perspective that's lost, but it's one that doesn't take precedent in many minds with some frequency.

However, the insistence on access to these documentations when needed is more out of professional pride by ED, HB, and other teams. It's their mission statement and goal to deliver the most accurate simulation possible and getting the input of operators and manufacturers is essential. RAZBAM's experience with the Mirage 2000 is a good example for this.

The purists will whine that slats activate .3 of a knot too soon, they'll point out that this particular individual A-6 never flew for the ATKRON depicted in promos, and all that, but that's the case with every module. At the end of the day, we should demand this accuracy, we should demand this realism, but we should also accept that flight simulation is imperfect.

Edited December 28, 2022 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Dragon1-1]

On 12/26/2022 at 5:57 PM, F1GHTS-ON said:

Sorry to say, but before GPS, this was the high workload on a B/N and therefore for a computer game, that "accuracy" by a Jester type AI, should be fairly straight forward. (sorry to genuine B/Ns reading this, but GPS, assuming that the opposition doesn't take it down, was your replacement).

Jester, yes, that'd be "simple", but consider this: DCS supports multicrew. The Intruder will be flown with humans in both seats. That means the INS system, with its quirks and operating procedures, needs to be modeled in full. 

The "computer game" mindset isn't helping anyone. One thing DCS does is virtually preserving historic aircraft. Flying an F-14B today is impossible, even if you happen to be Iranian, because Iranian 'cats were a downgraded A model. The Intruders no longer fly. You can fly warbirds today (mostly because they were rather simpler than jets), but not in combat, and it takes serious money. Stocks of several weapons we have in DCS have been depleted IRL. Highly accurate simulations is the only way anyone is ever going to experience how those aircraft and particularly weapons were used in combat. So, HB had better get it right.

That said, the underlying principles don't have to be accurately simulated, just the stuff that pilot sees. INS isn't magic, and the way Intruder does it is clever, but for today, fairly primitive. I'm pretty sure all the relevant data for all the interesting variants is already available. Even if there are some advanced variants that have classified systems, we don't really need another JDAM truck. 

[F1GHTS-ON]

great debate and valid points raised. For clarification, I am NOT suggesting dumbing down, but rather working within the constraints that DCS modelling already provides. In "my opinion" (and that's why I love these informed discussions on these forums), if the A-6 is going to see the light of day AND be delivered within a reasonable timescale/business model by Heatblur, then there will need to be some compromise. 

I acknowledge the negativity of the "computer games" mindset, but DCS is not a military grade, Taxpayer funded ($ millions!!) simulator. But it is the most immersive PC game that the majority of us will get to use (I nearly said "play").  That many former military Aircrew give DCS a thumbs up, speaks volumes for how good the game is. But already in DCS many of the components that are so important to real life flight ops are dumbed down (e.g. jamming - just a simple noise jammer modelled, yet I'd argue this doesn't detract from the enjoyment?).  

Bottom line: I think that a 90+% realistic A-6 (and yes, even 2 human players) is achievable without having to compromise NATOPs or more sensitive info. More importantly, my estimate would be that this 90% A-6 would receive a 90% positive response from the wider DCS community. 

[Spurts]

20 hours ago, F1GHTS-ON said:

my estimate would be that this 90% A-6 would receive a 90% positive response from the wider DCS community. 

That 10% who are not giving a positive response would make 90% of the noise though.  Can't wait to get this mega-bomb truck.

[Fromthedeep]

On 12/28/2022 at 8:35 PM, F1GHTS-ON said:

I think that a 90+% realistic A-6 (and yes, even 2 human players) is achievable without having to compromise NATOPs or more sensitive info

How is what you outlined a 90% realistic solution? You argued for making a completely made up aircraft that has virtually nothing to do with the real jet aside from maybe the flight model. Without using the NATOPS, there's no way to get even the most basic systems into the game in an accurate manner, such as engine, fuel, lighting, flight control, hydraulics and electrical systems. Using a Tomcat LANTIRN or a Legacy Hornet DDI page is also fully made up. How would you make a navigation system with realistic limitations, symbology, capability and procedures if you just either make it up or copy it from a completely different aircraft?

What you describe is a 9% realistic solution, not a 90%.

 

22 hours ago, Spurts said:

That 10% who are not giving a positive response would make 90% of the noise though.  Can't wait to get this mega-bomb truck.

DCS is supposed to be a realistic recreation of aircraft with their systems. If something is already unrealistic and/or simplified why would you argue that they should make other things unrealistic as well? This is not an F-22. Just because Heatblur may not be able to use certain documents legally that doesn't mean people wouldn't read it regardless, nor does it mean that users from the US can't read them legally. There are NATOPS manuals online. There are videos about the "MFD" that they use to control the missiles. There are videos about the TRAM system. It would take a few hours at most for people to find out and Heatblur's reputation would be entirely ruined if they ever did something like this.

 

Whether you like it or not, the developers and the customers all expect to get as close to the real aircraft as possible within the legal boundaries.  If a certain module cannot be recreated faithfully even in the most basic manner (and this is what's being suggested), I'd much rather not have it at all. Heatblur also agrees with this, that's why we don't have a fictional, made up F-14D in the game. 

If someone wants to have the A-6 because they like the idea of dropping bombs from a module that looks like an A-6, they can find other products that cater to that fantasy. If an A-6 is not possible to be recreated realistically, developers should choose a different aircraft to model. There's no point in a completely made up aircraft. The current modules do have aspects and certain systems that are classified or cannot be recreated, but the fundamental systems, system logic and MFD pages are close. Not perfect, but definitely close, aside from a few actually classified systems or systems that are too difficult to implement.

 

If the A-6 truly is as sensitive of a platform because of export controls as it seems, the correct solution is to make an AI version and find a module that can actually be recreated at the proper level. If you guys truly believe that 90% of DCS users don't care about realism at all and they are find with using F-14 and F-18 systems in an A-6, then you'd be proven horribly wrong if something like this ever happened.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Fromthedeep

[Spurts]

I think you misunderstood everything I was trying to say.