Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6

[AlexCaboose]

3 hours ago, Hentai Paisen said:

If you are playing DCS multiplayer on servers where people can and are taking unrealistic loadouts you aren't playing DCS realistically anyways.

Completely wrong. There's nothing that stops you from taking it, other than an agreement that it won't be done on a private server. Regardless, it is not accurate for the specific aircraft being modeled and should not exist.

[Fri13]

9 hours ago, shagrat said:

Definitely not, just that the document is judged not by itself to be "legit", but by who provides it and

how many accept it as legit.

Exactly. We need to know a lot about the documentation before its evidence value gets higher.

 

But regardless all evidence is evidence, that we need to categorize and evaluate. And finally make decision what is most trustworthy.

 

9 hours ago, shagrat said:

The problem is the official documents e.g. Squadron SOP, mission planning documentation with specific loadouts, especially if we talk unusual loadouts in "unusual missions" won't be mass distributed on the internet, what makes the fact, that you find documents in several places more credible? Basically because you trust the website, the distributer, the guy posting, etc.

That's what I meant. We take documentation and information as legit, because we (as individuals) trust the source.

 

We might want to trust the source. This is problematic example in history that we want to trust people "who were there" far more than documentation from that same event, and even more than a laws of nature (that people gladly forget when emotional opinions start to generate) and finally when the logic would be required, it is easily put aside as nothing else is felt as trustworthy than "I was there, you weren't" evidence. Regardless how bad human memory is and "telephone game" with rest cause twists.

 

9 hours ago, shagrat said:

If a majority trusts the same source we assume it's credible.

That doesn't necessary mean that it is 100% accurate. I've seen a lot of newspapers, but also well researched military books mix up things from aircrafts types to weapons, smaller details wrong or major f... ups.

 

These days it is much more challenging to find the original source when everyone starts to quote the few that quoted original and then everyone is quoting those few. You find only quotes to those few but not the original, and if the original is hidden away, you might never really find the truth among all the quotes.

 

This is the historical research problem that whole genre can be in hands of dozen historian that all base their work to one source, that is in conflict with itself. But when the ratio of produced evidence (history books) saturate the market, the error (no matter how stupid and large) will spread like wildfire and everyone believes based that as "it is common knowledge".

 

9 hours ago, shagrat said:

What puzzles me is the notion that "others need to bring evidence and proof to me that there statement is correct" while I myself of course make statements "that are correct and credible, unless you proof me I am  wrong".

(I assume "there" meant "theirs"?)

I take the path that Science is suppose to be free and open, where everyone are suppose to be challenging the information. That together it can be solved what is more usable. Anyone can make a hypothesis based to evidence, and everyone are responsible to research that hypothesis to be either false or true, and if it even becomes false - it might become valuable later.

 

This means as well that if example ED says that they only use a declassified documentation and does not accept a highly classified material, then they can not suddenly jump behind unanimous sources that no one can verify, use or challenge, and say "as intended".

 

Every researcher needs to take a stance against their own work, question that is it logical, is there evidence to point otherwise. Just recheck and process again by comparing information to other information.

 

9 hours ago, shagrat said:

The real question with the HARMs is: if we assume the F-16C (this particular model) hadn't been enabled/upgraded to use them, is it just the wiring and Software changes that won't change anything other than our imagination, or would it require different switches, MFD stores page etc. 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...

 

In a DCS modules I primarily want to take a hard technical limitation. And it really means that there is no way electronically or digitally to use something. Like there is no required wires or required panel etc.

 

As I would leave the politics outside. It means the politics in US Navy case the congress decisions to funding weapons manufacturing and delivery to battlegroup.

The battlegroup politics that what weapons they have in operational service and what are stored to warehouse in the unknown location.

The squadron politics that what strategies and tactics they use to fill their mission.

 

As in political situation one writes the manuals and the loadouts etc to match theirs work, regardless technical capabilities that what is there in the airframe.

 

And when in DCS the module is limited to not just the airframe, to general model, but as well to specific country, specific squadron, to very specific unit.... It becomes more problematic than benefit as politics influence everything and not the technical capabilities.

 

And there are different politics in the engineering party. Like in the Fighter Pilot Podcast episode about electronic warfare it was pointed out in F/A-18C super hornet that every single super hornet was wired for the special electronic jamming equipment. Even if the squadron doesn't use them, they are there. As this made it easier to calculate landing weights and all as airframes were as capable. And if was required to get the EW capability, you only needed to load the actual pods.

 

So such information supports that there are two kind situations:

 

1) that there are modifications that has different technical capabilities.

 

2) that there are technical compatibilities that are not just used.

 

And yet it doesn't lead to conclusion because Super Hornet is not same as Viper.

[naizarak]

it either can or it can't.  all indicators point to can't.  what is there to "discuss"

[Furiz]

1 minute ago, naizarak said:

it either can or it can't.  all indicators point to can't.  what is there to "discuss"

 

what indicators?

Only some people saying it can't,

 

you can google the documents that say:

 

The High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) (AGM-88) (Figure 4-11) is a program-mable, frequency adjustable, air-to-ground, anti-radiation missile that may be loaded on weapon stations 3, 4, 6 and 7, however, it is only flight certified on stations 3 and 7.

 

So what does flight certified mean?

Since it can be loaded I assume they wouldn't just ferry it, it would seem that it is possible to launch it from 4 and 6, but it is not certified for a reason no one can explain here.

 

So what indicators are pointing that it can't?

[Fri13]

8 minutes ago, Furiz said:

So what does flight certified mean?

 

Doesn't its specification already tell what it means? It is not flight certified, so it is only ground certified....

 

 

[QuiGon]

11 hours ago, LC214 said:

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.

And guess what: I have bought the F-16 on the fact that it could only carry 2 HARMs as it has been the case initially, untill people started crying for 4...

 

  

10 hours ago, LC214 said:

This argument pops up literally every single time. How about this, keep what ED has already given to the plane, and stop there? Just because people are saying it is ridiculous for them to remove capability that they already added does NOT mean people are asking for things like double racked AMRAAMs.

You seem to forget (or just don't know), that we have already been at this point last year, when it was only possible to take 2 HARMs on the F-16. Then some people started crying for moar missiles and ED increased it to 4 without thinking. It's strange how this change didn't bother you, even though it too was a change for an aircraft already given to us...

Edited February 23, 2021 by QuiGon

[QuiGon]

10 hours ago, shagrat said:

If it can't physically launch them (because of a cable missing) don't load them on that stations. What's the point?

The point is that it can't physically launch them on those stations, just like an AIM-54 for example, which I also don't want to see there, neither on my F-16 nor on any other F-16 I encounter in SP or MP missions!

 

 

9 hours 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.

Then keep the 4 HARMs to the arcade mode, which can be disabled by server hosters, who currently have no option to disable HARMs on the inner pylons...

 

  

9 hours ago, shagrat said:

That's the problem, because DCS should provide the Sandbox and leave the "special cases" to the Mission builders and campaign producers.

Then ED should provide the mission builders, campaign producers and server hosters with such options, as there is currently no damn option to disable HARMs on stations 4 & 6!

Edited February 23, 2021 by QuiGon

[Gruman]

I voted no. Don't need the 4 HARMs and plenty of SME did state that no wiring is available for those two extra stations. Enough for me. Same is valid for the Maverick

A reason more to have a friendly Hornet or A-10C in the mission .

 

[Edit] But beeing able to ferry them would be nice for specific logistic operations, but guess this would confuse a lot of virtual pilots.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Gruman

[shagrat]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

Exactly. We need to know a lot about the documentation before its evidence value gets higher.

 

But regardless all evidence is evidence, that we need to categorize and evaluate. And finally make decision what is most trustworthy.

 

 

We might want to trust the source. This is problematic example in history that we want to trust people "who were there" far more than documentation from that same event, and even more than a laws of nature (that people gladly forget when emotional opinions start to generate) and finally when the logic would be required, it is easily put aside as nothing else is felt as trustworthy than "I was there, you weren't" evidence. Regardless how bad human memory is and "telephone game" with rest cause twists.

 

 

These days it is much more challenging to find the original source when everyone starts to quote the few that quoted original and then everyone is quoting those few. You find only quotes to those few but not the original, and if the original is hidden away, you might never really find the truth among all the quotes.

 

This is the historical research problem that whole genre can be in hands of dozen historian that all base their work to one source, that is in conflict with itself. But when the ratio of produced evidence (history books) saturate the market, the error (no matter how stupid and large) will spread like wildfire and everyone believes based that as "it is common knowledge".

 

(I assume "there" meant "theirs"?)

I take the path that Science is suppose to be free and open, where everyone are suppose to be challenging the information. That together it can be solved what is more usable. Anyone can make a hypothesis based to evidence, and everyone are responsible to research that hypothesis to be either false or true, and if it even becomes false - it might become valuable later.

 

This means as well that if example ED says that they only use a declassified documentation and does not accept a highly classified material, then they can not suddenly jump behind unanimous sources that no one can verify, use or challenge, and say "as intended".

 

Every researcher needs to take a stance against their own work, question that is it logical, is there evidence to point otherwise. Just recheck and process again by comparing information to other information.

 

 

In a DCS modules I primarily want to take a hard technical limitation. And it really means that there is no way electronically or digitally to use something. Like there is no required wires or required panel etc.

 

As I would leave the politics outside. It means the politics in US Navy case the congress decisions to funding weapons manufacturing and delivery to battlegroup.

The battlegroup politics that what weapons they have in operational service and what are stored to warehouse in the unknown location.

The squadron politics that what strategies and tactics they use to fill their mission.

 

As in political situation one writes the manuals and the loadouts etc to match theirs work, regardless technical capabilities that what is there in the airframe.

 

And when in DCS the module is limited to not just the airframe, to general model, but as well to specific country, specific squadron, to very specific unit.... It becomes more problematic than benefit as politics influence everything and not the technical capabilities.

 

And there are different politics in the engineering party. Like in the Fighter Pilot Podcast episode about electronic warfare it was pointed out in F/A-18C super hornet that every single super hornet was wired for the special electronic jamming equipment. Even if the squadron doesn't use them, they are there. As this made it easier to calculate landing weights and all as airframes were as capable. And if was required to get the EW capability, you only needed to load the actual pods.

 

So such information supports that there are two kind situations:

 

1) that there are modifications that has different technical capabilities.

 

2) that there are technical compatibilities that are not just used.

 

And yet it doesn't lead to conclusion because Super Hornet is not same as Viper.

Thank you for your thoughts. Yep, autocorrect likely, that should read "theirs".

Though I do not agree with certain details on what is acceptable to be "most realistic" I agree with most of what you said.

Personally I am not that fond of the "never used  IRL" or "we model a specific aircraft BuNo" approaches.

Never used (no photo proof) is difficult as there often is a lot more going on that's simply classified and not documented and ultimately the mission planning dictates loadouts and in certain limitations we see a bit of leeway (e.g. field mods and even putting operational needs over strict doctrine or even safety concerns).

A specific BuNo would basically mean just this one specific aircraft. As we all fly in multiple "clones" of the same machine.

As long as we talk about a cable not rigged from the pylon to the MC interface or preventing the use of dumb bomb variants from pylons because they were tested, but not cleared, I would like the option to do scenarios more based on mission requirements.

When it comes to historical missions or re-enactment of real life conflicts, I can "restrict" the loadout to realisic ones by myself.

As for the balancing of competitive Multiplayer I couldn't care less. There never was or will be a balanced conflict on this planet where both parties put up restrictions on weapons or agreed on a specific amount of "points" to balance anything.

Anyway I am of the opinion, that while you can load a ton of weapons on your airframe the reason in real life and DCS to not load as much as possible are the same. Weight, drag, agility vs. what is needed to do the job. The less you load, the higher your survivability, the more you load the more bombs on target. As we rarely see strike packages of 16 aircraft plus in DCS there is a certain need to match loadouts to the more realistic environments. We can either try adding AI SEAD flights and pray, or reduce the threats to accommodate for the missing players. I would rather put a creative loadout with 2 HARM and 2 MAV than putting an AI flight in with HARM to suppress  a SA-11 site and pray I can get close enough and take it out with a MAV...

 

1 hour ago, Gruman said:

I voted no. Don't need the 4 HARMs and plenty of SME did state that no wiring is available for those two extra stations. Enough for me. Same is valid for the Maverick

A reason more to have a friendly Hornet or A-10C in the mission .

 

[Edit] But beeing able to ferry them would be nice for specific logistic operations, but guess this would confuse a lot of virtual pilots.

 

Agree on the HARMs but that will disable the MAVs as well. And that's a pretty interesting option for DEAD.

See above.

Edited February 23, 2021 by shagrat

[shagrat]

1 hour ago, QuiGon said:

The point is that it can't physically launch them on those stations, just like an AIM-54 for example, which I also don't want to see there, neither on my F-16 nor on any other F-16 I encounter in SP or MP missions!

 

 

Then keep the 4 HARMs to the arcade mode, which can be disabled by server hosters, who currently have no option to disable HARMs on the inner pylons...

 

  

Then ED should provide the mission builders, campaign producers and server hosters with such options, as there is currently no damn option to disable HARMs on stations 4 & 6!

 

Well, you can easily "disable" them for yourself, by not loading them.

As  for public competitive MP that has been pointed out, usually does not care a lot about realistic loadouts anyway so an A/B-52-10C Warthog strategic bomber isn't unheard of, yet not exactly "realistic".

I don't like the enforcement of "perceived balance" onto the whole Singleplayer and PvE community to cater for a minority of competitive groups, that usually fly on closed Servers anyway, up to establishing own complex rules for their gameplay. What's next? Enforcement of SATAL rulesets, based on MP missions with red and blue slots?

 

The point with the  "cable not wired" is about the fact that the aircraft could easily support another set of HARM/MAV on that pylons, but someone decided to not rig a video cable... That is a totally different thing than an AIM-54 or any other weapon not in the MC/SMS. It is not that HARM or MAV are not available for the F-16C,we talk about rigging a cable for some $50 each, right?

[QuiGon]

7 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Well, you can easily "disable" them for yourself, by not loading them.

As  for public competitive MP that has been pointed out, usually does not care a lot about realistic loadouts anyway so an A/B-52-10C Warthog strategic bomber isn't unheard of, yet not exactly "realistic".

 

I'm not talking about competitive/balanced MP, I'm talking about realistic missions in either SP/MP.

[Ignition]

1 hour ago, Gruman said:

I voted no. Don't need the 4 HARMs and plenty of SME did state that no wiring is available for those two extra stations. Enough for me. Same is valid for the Maverick

A reason more to have a friendly Hornet or A-10C in the mission .

 

[Edit] But beeing able to ferry them would be nice for specific logistic operations, but guess this would confuse a lot of virtual pilots.

 

 

Yeah, the same which loads 6 mavericks in DCS but it burns the wheels IRL, and it can only fly when there're no enemy CAP.
DCS is not reality, stop believing this.
And stop reading the internet, a guy on the internet said "this isn't true" and then all repeat the same thing.

6 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

I'm not talking about competitive/balanced MP, I'm talking about realistic missions in either SP/MP.

Then don't load the AGM88 on station 4/6, its not difficult.

[Fleur79]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb QuiGon:

 

I'm not talking about competitive/balanced MP, I'm talking about realistic missions in either SP/MP.

the very competitive multiplayers can/want to also pull 9g+ all the time ;). the very best thing of DCS is caring for realism! i do not own the f16 yet, but i´m sure she´s quite a capable little fighter. if the chosen model cannot fire 4 HARMs, why even make a poll for it? my viggen cannot fire single unguided rockets but only all at one time. and it´s good that way, because it´s just correct. and that makes the appeal of a realistic simulation. live with the "limitations" and do your best. best wishes, fleur

[shagrat]

39 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

I'm not talking about competitive/balanced MP, I'm talking about realistic missions in either SP/MP.

But what is the problem in SP/MP if the participants want to "fly realistic" simply select a realistic loadout. If you want to simulate the missing wiring for pylons 4 & 6 and don't load HARM and MAV on these stations.

Leaves campaign and mission designers with more options and flexibility and players can still pick timeframe realistic weapon loadouts, even restrict themselves to loadouts based on historcal missions. Why take these options away to restrict everyone? I don't see the point...

[QuiGon]

26 minutes ago, shagrat said:

But what is the problem in SP/MP if the participants want to "fly realistic" simply select a realistic loadout. If you want to simulate the missing wiring for pylons 4 & 6 and don't load HARM and MAV on these stations.

 

I want to host realistic MP sessions, so I need an option to disable the use of HARMs on pylons 4 & 6 for all clients. I can't do that right now as DCS does not provide any such option. Simple.

[Linx]

Just leave it as is and focus on more important DCS: F-16C related tasks.
Let mission builders decide what is allowed and what is not.

[QuiGon]

19 minutes ago, Linx said:

Let mission builders decide what is allowed and what is not.

 

They are currently missing the option to do so!

[jojojung]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Furiz:

 

what indicators?

Only some people saying it can't,

 

you can google the documents that say:

 

The High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) (AGM-88) (Figure 4-11) is a program-mable, frequency adjustable, air-to-ground, anti-radiation missile that may be loaded on weapon stations 3, 4, 6 and 7, however, it is only flight certified on stations 3 and 7.

 

So what does flight certified mean?

Since it can be loaded I assume they wouldn't just ferry it, it would seem that it is possible to launch it from 4 and 6, but it is not certified for a reason no one can explain here.

 

So what indicators are pointing that it can't?

 

So what do we all want? Above and in the Internet there is evidance that the Harms can be loaded and use (with little modifications) on station 4 and 6 but its not certified. Do we want a simulator for exact 2007 and peacetime with only limited war operations or do we want to simulate wartime. For myself its absolutely clear that in wartime and if the national guard has to do a SEAD operation within 200 nm and all depends on this sead operation, nobody will care about the one piecetime certification. In the military there are a lot of regulations on many systems in peacetime to take effort to security reasons and to reduce the chance of accidents.

 

Of course there must be a red line to dont get frankensteins planes but if its possible from the manufactor side of view and only a country decide not to use it in peacetime thats a different case.

Edited February 23, 2021 by jojojung

[Linx]

19 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

They are currently missing the option to do so!

Just preset the loadout that you want people to use in the mission.
But if it's a public server that you want to control, then 4x HARM on a Viper is the least of your worries.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Linx

[jojojung]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb QuiGon:

 

They are currently missing the option to do so!

Sure there are. With the skript of available recource managent. So the ammunition on the airport where the planes get started is limited. But this is a very laborios way to get it done.

[shagrat]

2 hours ago, QuiGon said:

 

I want to host realistic MP sessions, so I need an option to disable the use of HARMs on pylons 4 & 6 for all clients. I can't do that right now as DCS does not provide any such option. Simple.

Talk to the people and establish a set of rules and promote a solution to define synched loadouts? That way you could also prevent the max bomb loadouts.

The great thing about a group that can agree on flying with certain rules in place, is far better than hoping restrictions will attract people?

I mean SP missions isn't an argument at all, everybody can simply choose a true to life loadout, or not. E.g. if he feels he wants more HARMs he could simply switch to unlimited weapons. It is in his own interest to decide for real vs. creative loadout.

In MP closed group servers everybody should have an interest in flying the mission as intended (realistic loadout). If I would join a server and all I get is restrictions, because I am not interested in a "realistic" loadout, what would compel me to join? If I like a challenging true to life mission I won't need the restrictions, just work with the loadout I have.

[Spectre1-1]

18 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Talk to the people and establish a set of rules and promote a solution to define synched loadouts? That way you could also prevent the max bomb loadouts.

The great thing about a group that can agree on flying with certain rules in place, is far better than hoping restrictions will attract people?

I mean SP missions isn't an argument at all, everybody can simply choose a true to life loadout, or not. E.g. if he feels he wants more HARMs he could simply switch to unlimited weapons. It is in his own interest to decide for real vs. creative loadout.

In MP closed group servers everybody should have an interest in flying the mission as intended (realistic loadout). If I would join a server and all I get is restrictions, because I am not interested in a "realistic" loadout, what would compel me to join? If I like a challenging true to life mission I won't need the restrictions, just work with the loadout I have.

its not about not using it because you deem it unrealistic
the plane physically cannot use them, if I asked for an ATFLIR on a viper it would be the same argument, it just doesn't work with the plane
also for some reason the people that agree that 4 HARMS are realistic but 12 mavs aren't and that's a contradiction. Sounds like people are being selective with what parts of realism they want.

and for the earlier convo (dunno how to quote that), if a person bought a plane purely because of the numbers of HARMs it can carry they should have done more research, ED is not responsible for the bad choices its customers make.

[Matti0503]

5 minutes ago, Spectre1-1 said:

 ED is not responsible for the bad choices its customers make.

You mean like pressuring them into including the LAU-88 or inboard HARMs? 

[jojojung]

vor 18 Minuten schrieb Spectre1-1:

its not about not using it because you deem it unrealistic
the plane physically cannot use them, if I asked for an ATFLIR on a viper it would be the same argument, it just doesn't work with the plane
also for some reason the people that agree that 4 HARMS are realistic but 12 mavs aren't and that's a contradiction. Sounds like people are being selective with what parts of realism they want.

and for the earlier convo (dunno how to quote that), if a person bought a plane purely because of the numbers of HARMs it can carry they should have done more research, ED is not responsible for the bad choices its customers make.

 

ATFLIR is not a good comparision in this case. ATFLIR is total incompartible because of software, avionics etc. HARM are already implemented in the avionics and software of the viper. I understand your point but just in this case the viper can physically use them. Physical is the wrong therm to your argument. The Airframe would do it, the strukture will do it, the software etc can do it.

But it can not use them because the avionical connaction is not there thats correct. As you said it (physically) is not correct.

[Spectre1-1]

fair enough, should have worded it carefully