Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6

[TobiasA]

vor einer Stunde schrieb LC214:

Uh probably because some people might have bought the F-16 on the fact that it can use 4 HARMs in DCS? And that taking away such capability after the fact would make them regret their purchase? This is a very different issue than a landing gear handle not behaving properly.

I bought the Viper for the exact reason I expected it to develop into a high fidelity module at the level near some other F16 sim. And it is the reason I have DCS. 

I found quite a few people coming the same way, knowing them from "other places" and meeting them here. There is quite a large base of people looking at high fidelity models. They came here for the A-10, then the Hornet and now the Viper. 

Viggen goes the same way. 

I'd be fine with unlocking arcade loadouts, but I want it as close as it gets. That's what I paid for, otherwise I wouldn't be here. 

Reasons differ for different people, and yours is as valid as mine. 

[AlexCaboose]

1 minute ago, LC214 said:

Let me ask you this, what would you say to the SMEs that ED is employing that greenlit 4 HARMs in the first place?

I would imagine that they didn't greenlight it and that ED did what they did on their own. I was not consulted, nor am I an F-16 SME. I would probably ask them if that's the case before I would place any blame at their feet.

[shagrat]

6 minutes ago, TobiasA said:

I bought the Viper for the exact reason I expected it to develop into a high fidelity module at the level near some other F16 sim. And it is the reason I have DCS. 

I found quite a few people coming the same way, knowing them from "other places" and meeting them here. There is quite a large base of people looking at high fidelity models. They came here for the A-10, then the Hornet and now the Viper. 

Viggen goes the same way. 

I'd be fine with unlocking arcade loadouts, but I want it as close as it gets. That's what I paid for, otherwise I wouldn't be here. 

Reasons differ for different people, and yours is as valid as mine. 

That's a perfect compromise. For me the critical part is the avionics, systems and "switcholohy". If a "potential" loadout would require changes to the cockpit, stores page etc. and the compromise is a "mock up MFD", that's a hard no.

As for weapon realism, you don't magically set the laser code on the panel of the guidance kit of a GBU-12/16 etc. you would tell the JTAC to switch HIS Laserdesignator to your LGBs preplanned Laser Code. That's something that has a far greater impact on my perception of accuracy, than loadout options.

And it leads to wrong procedures...

[AlexCaboose]

1 minute ago, LC214 said:

You are free to use it as a coping mechanism, but it is still a video game that you play on your computer at home.

 

This is what ED's own marketing materials on their website have to say:

 

[shagrat]

6 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Brilliant. (Thought this is a study sim striving to be accurate... but apparently it is now a video game)

 

That's why it has the arcade options, where you get the 360° radar, enemy markers etc. and a simplified control. Didn't you read the product description, before buying?

It is explicitly advertised to be adjustable to your personal style of game play from arcade to ultra realism.

[probad]

32 minutes ago, LC214 said:

 a coping mechanism for not actually being a real life fighter pilot

t. coping over only 2 harms

[Furiz]

10 minutes ago, m4ti140 said:

The reasons for not certifying it don't matter, if the production aircraft don't have the wiring. Stop spamming sophisms.

 

Ofc they do matter, it may be cause of potential dmg to horizontal stab for example, that would mean that the Viper can in times or war and great need load them and risk dmg to the plane, but the value of harms on stations 4 and 6 is greater so it is lesser evil, for example

 

On the other hand it may be cause of the gear bay doors not being able to open enough for gear to come down, which would render the plane unusable

 

so ofc the reasons matter.

 

It may load them but it is not certified on stations 4 and 6, what is the reason for that I don't know, but it may load them, they would not state that it may load on 4 and 6 in the documents if the plane cant use HARM from those stations.

 

[shagrat]

1 minute ago, LC214 said:

Honestly for the multiplayer argument, HARMs aren't very good anyway. JDAMs are much more reliable as they cannot be shot down, so I don't see how having 2 more equates to portable nuke launchers in terms of balance.

Especially if realistic missions usually are flown with a closed group/squadron anyway and thus it is pretty much a problem for Public Servers that don't care a lot about realistic loadouts, anyway.

[AlexCaboose]

8 minutes ago, shagrat said:

That's why it has the arcade options, where you get the 360° radar, enemy markers etc. and a simplified control. Didn't you read the product description, before buying?

It is explicitly advertised to be adjustable to your personal style of game play from arcade to ultra realism.

And "Unlimited Weapons" already exists as an option for those people, as does the rest of the Game Mode you're describing. 
 

5 minutes ago, Furiz said:

 

Ofc they do matter, it may be cause of potential dmg to horizontal stab for example, that would mean that the Viper can in times or war and great need load them and risk dmg to the plane, but the value of harms on stations 4 and 6 is greater so it is lesser evil, for example

 

On the other hand it may be cause of the gear bay doors not being able to open enough for gear to come down, which would render the plane unusable

 

so ofc the reasons matter.

 

It may load them but it is not certified on stations 4 and 6, what is the reason for that I don't know, but it may load them, they would not state that it may load on 4 and 6 in the documents if the plane cant use HARM from those stations.

 

Why would they risk the whole plane when they could just send another strike flight? I'd expect that it still would probably not happen. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by AlexCaboose

[Furiz]

4 minutes ago, AlexCaboose said:

 

Why would they risk the whole plane when they could just send another strike flight? I'd expect that it still would probably not happen. 

 

Maybe there is a situation that there is no planes, they don't have unlimited airframes, why not have the option for that scenario,

they do run by the "hope for the best, prepare for the worst".

 

But they usually need fuel, that's why most F-16 pics are with 2 bags. You cant put a tanker into red zone.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Furiz

[AlexCaboose]

Just now, Furiz said:

Maybe there is a situation that there is no planes, they don't have unlimited airframes, why not have the option for that scenario,

they do run by the "hope for the best, prepare for the worst".

That's my point. They don't have unlimited airframes, why would they risk that level of damage?

[Furiz]

1 minute ago, AlexCaboose said:

That's my point. They don't have unlimited airframes, why would they risk that level of damage?

 

Lesser of 2 evils.

[AlexCaboose]

Just now, Furiz said:

 

Lesser of 2 evils.

How is killing one or two extra tanks the lesser of two evils when an aircraft is far more valuable? Regardless, that's pretty off topic. The pylons weren't wired for HARMs and so shouldn't be allowed.

[GGTharos]

3 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Maybe there is a situation that there is no planes, they don't have unlimited airframes, why not have the option for that scenario,

they do run by the "hope for the best, prepare for the worst".

 

Yeah, it does work that way in the movies.  It isn't unprecedented to see field mods being done, but at this point there's too much complexity for it ... besides, what you have is a non-field modified aircraft, that specific USAf ANG Block 50.

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

 If it's just our imagination, there is a simple solution: note the true to life loadouts in the manual and whoever wants timeline correct realism can set the loadouts accordingly and people who fly this specific version of the F-16C on Caucasus, over Iraq or Normandy/the Channel can adapt a mission specific loadout. No harm done...

Well put. DCS as a simulator needs to provide for a realistic simulation. That doesn't exclude providing options that aren't perfectly historically accurate though. What's hard to understand in this debate is why one side wants to restrict the other in a way that doesn't really matter (ie if someone flies with 4 HARM's in their DCS, it doesn't matter to you).

 

That said I strongly urge the use a checkbox rather than leaving this as fine print in the manual for a number of reasons, one of them being greater control on the part of mission makers to create a realistic scenario.

52 minutes ago, AlexCaboose said:

Or, just hear us out, we play MP and want to see people taking realistic loadouts.
 

Why must this require taking the option to load 4 HARMs out of the game though? DCS has an unlimited weapons checkbox, it doesn't make the sim less realistic. The same is true of a 4 HARM or whatever checkbox.

 

1 minute ago, Desert Fox said:

 

I could totally accept unrealistic loadout options and equipment being restricted to using the game mode That's separation enough

That makes them pointless pretty much. Why would you want arcade flight physics just to carry more/different weapons? If the US decided to modify a one off F-16 to test 4 HARM carry capability, it wouldn't suddenly become a UFO.

[Furiz]

2 minutes ago, AlexCaboose said:

The pylons weren't wired for HARMs and so shouldn't be allowed.

 

How do you know that?

if you do know, and have a proof pls send to ED, spamming here wont make it true.

[shagrat]

Just now, m4ti140 said:

There are different kinds of realism. Assists are expected and acceptable, because we aren't actual fighter pilots, with few exceptions. Historical realism on the other hand is something that other more arcade titles had massive forum flame wars in order to MAINTAIN - because making piloting easier is one thing, but giving the aircraft capabilities it should not physically have is another. We're moving from skill to tactics territory.

No, I answered the question if DCS is a game. I pointed out that it has always been a game intended to enable the consumer to adjust his gameplay from Arcade (the Battlefield like interface/not assists) to full study sim.

The point we discuss has come up a lot of times, actually whenever there is something the very vocal competitive MP community sees as a threat to their way of "owning" newbies on public servers. At least that is my perception. The argument is always along "realism", to make features optional is usually not accepted and especially when to have a 100% realistic loadout in DCS you only need to load it accordingly, I have a hard time to believe that realism is the real concern.

In the end we can load a LOT of totally ridiculous loadouts on most planes anyway and there isn't much to prevent it.

People that fly full real will respectively use real loadouts, others will adjust to the needs of their fictional mission and arcade players will cram as many bombs, APKWS, CBU-97, JSOW as possible under their wings, because they don't care... Restrictions won't change the arcade players, but tend to p... off mission builders and the sim fans that fly creative missions and can't find an additional 8 buddies to fill up the strike package for a realistic strike, etc. and one guy has to do the task of a realistic flight of two to four.

[Exorcet]

Just now, Desert Fox said:

 

Arcade flight physics for arcade loadouts. Don't see anything wrong here.

What makes 4 HARM an arcade loadout?

[shagrat]

5 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

At least for the 6 Maverick loadout (edit: talking specifically the A-10A having these, but there are similar loadout options for other aircraft) afaik that came from the 80s where the life expectancy on a fighter pilot was like half an hour in case of a conflict. Plane was accepted to be lost and an operational single use asset anyways, so why care about damage and maximize effect instead?

 

But that's what i've been talking about earlier in this thread: that there are things maybe possible or theoretically planned and capable of, but in actual daily routine (what DCS simulates in the end) these things are irrelevant since they are special case use only (full blown WW3 including nuclear warfare and all the shit). And i don't think DCS should consider these special cases.

 

That's the problem, because DCS should provide the Sandbox and leave the "special cases" to the Mission builders and campaign producers. Especially as campaigns get more and more of a cash cow it seems.

An easy way to fix this " problem" would be to have a selectable option to enforce loadout syncs in the mission with loadouts the mission designer adds to the flights as selectable templates and you can only select from the drop-down menu.

Realism for server admins and realism focused campaigns and flexibility and enough options for more relaxed campaigns or closed squadron servers.

[shagrat]

1 minute ago, Desert Fox said:

 

From all i know it is nothing being possible in real life. I have never seen any evidence of it being used operational, no pilots or ground crew reporting this, no videos, no images, nothing. That makes it a fictional fantasy loadout only available in a "video game" aka arcade loadout until proven otherwise. And with that, belongs to the arcade mode if at all.

Well, if you would have discussed the use of GBU-12/16 and a LANTIRN on the F-14A/B during Desert Storm you would argue the same. A bit later the first Bombcat dropped warheads on foreheads... So if they decide to rig the cables and update the MC in 1 or 2 years from now, would you promote the implementation in DCS as vigorously as you object it now?

[Exorcet]

1 minute ago, Desert Fox said:

 

From all i know it is nothing being possible in real life. I have never seen any evidence of it being used operational, no pilots or ground crew reporting this, no videos, no images, nothing. That makes it a fictional fantasy loadout only available in a "video game" aka arcade loadout until proven otherwise. And with that, belongs to the arcade mode if at all.

But it is possible in real life, the pylons just need to be compatible with the weapon and the aircraft needs to be able to communicate to the weapon through the pylons.

 

Most F-16's might not be able to do this, but it is possible that they can be modified to do so. Beyond that we have a history of modified aircraft (and other things) to look back on:

 

 

Arcade flight model is something truly impossible as it breaks physics, so I don't see why you would lump them together. For the most part I'd load 2 AGM-88 just because it seems like that's the norm. However there are definitely reasons to load 4 such as simulating another F-16 variant (instead of waiting how ever many years for ED to produce another variant). In such a case I'd have no reason to want arcade flight physics to ruin the experience.

[shagrat]

47 minutes ago, AlexCaboose said:

 

This is what ED's own marketing materials on their website have to say:

 

[shagrat]

2 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Well, looking at how we got a 2007 Viper this is the same question as with getting in APKWS which are available in 2016: it would theoretically be possible to fit them physically since the pylon did not change since then... in theory... and ignoring the fact the 2007 Viper is not the 2016 Viper and there need to be software upgrades made for APKWS and and and.

 

If, in 1 or 2 years, the cables would get installed, that's not just a 2007 Viper with extra cables... there have been a lot of additional changes to the airframe between 2007 and 2023/2024. So, if all the other changes would get implemented too and it would be an accurate simulation of the frame in that state when the cables get in: of course, it would be part of that frame and i would want it to be in accurately.

 

6 minutes ago, m4ti140 said:

This is not even a valid argument. The F-16CM being modelled here is specifically block 50 from 2007. It doesn't matter what happens to it in 2022, cause that's not the version being modelled and doing so would involve way more than just adding a loadout.
I'd personally prefer a Block 52+ export variant, I'd also prefer to have multiple variants of each aircraft to cover more scenarios, like with Heatblur's F-14A. I'd like to have TFR. Ideally I'd like an F-16A, cause we have more redfor assets for ballanced late cold war/early gen 4 scenarios. Also french fries and sauce... cause all of that is not what we have in game, is it? ED declared they're making a specific variant of the aircraft.

Which is a room for AI improvement. And not an argument for allowing 4x HARM

Ok, so concerning realism that means every scenario on DCS maps other than Red Flag etc. on the NTTR should be disabled for this module as well. I mean we should have a pretty good idea where that 2007 Viper has been deployed between 2007 and the next upgrade that changed the systems / software and would be a fictional made up scenario... Totally unrealistic...

[shagrat]

4 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Yeah. It would be possible if if if... IF the cables would be put in. IF the software would this. IF that. IF that... but we don't have IF, we have a 2007 USAF/NG Block 50 Viper and so far there is no evidence this version is capable of actually using 4 HARMS. It's really that easy.

 

It would in real life be possible to construct a new triple rack and fit three HARM per pylon. There is a history of modified aircraft... o.O

Well then don't use them on pylons 4 and 6. What's the problem?

[Exorcet]

2 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Yeah. It would be possible if if if... IF the cables would be put in. IF the software would this. IF that. IF that... but we don't have IF, we have a 2007 USAF/NG Block 50 Viper and so far there is no evidence this version is capable of actually using 4 HARMS. It's really that easy.

 

It would in real life be possible to construct a new triple rack and fit three HARM per pylon. There is a history of modified aircraft... o.O

Yes, the if is what separates the 4 HARM loadout from arcade physics. There is no if you could add to arcade flight mode, it simply can't be.

 

Moving on to the point that we have a specific model simulated, I understand that. It's why I'm asking for a loadout checkbox. That option preserves the authentic simulation of a specific F-16. A player needs to check the box in order to step away from the historical simulation. This means you would never check the box, I assume, and thus never have to deal with F-16's that carry more than 2 HARM. No realism is lost.

 

Online you'd also look for missions where the mission creator did not check the box just like I assume you avoid servers with arcade mode enabled, so again nothing is lost. Surely this is a win win for everyone.