Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6

[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

[QuiGon]

1 hour ago, jojojung said:

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.

By "little modifications" you mean integrating the required wiring into the station and connect it inside the wing? That's more than what I would call a little modification and I thought DCS is supposed to simulate the actual aircraft features as they are IRL and not some what if scenarios what would be possible with theoretical modifications of the aircraft...

 

1 hour ago, jojojung said:

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.

That doesn't work in this case, as it would limit the overall number of HARMs available, which is not what I want to achieve. I want to restrict the number of HARMs for station 4 & 6 for technically possible IRL loadouts.

Edited February 23, 2021 by QuiGon

[jojojung]

vor 1 Minute schrieb QuiGon:

 

By "little modifications" you mean integrating the required wiring into the station and connect it inside the wing? That's more than what I would call a little modification and I thought DCS is supposed to simulate the actual aircraft features as they are IRL and not some what if scenarios what would be possible with theoretical modifications of the aircraft...

thats an absolut understandable point of view! No question about that! But I'm sure there are other understandable view pionts out there.

[Spectre1-1]

4 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

By "little modifications" you mean integrating the required wiring into the station and connect it inside the wing? That's more than what I would call a little modification and I thought DCS is supposed to simulate the actual aircraft features as they are IRL and not some what if scenarios what would be possible with theoretical modifications of the aircraft...

you need to rebuild the wing entirely to do it, and as Scrape said its infeasible and no one does it, the US just handles not having enough HARMs by throwing another plane at the problem, I'd even bet that it would be cheaper to do so 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Spectre1-1

[QuiGon]

1 hour 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.

 

Man, you're such a hypocrite. Usually you always advertise that DCS should be a sandbox and should provide options to mission makers and server admins, so that they can decide what to do with their mission. But usually it's about features that you like.

Now it's about something that you don't like (removing HARMs from station 4 & 6) and suddenly you are all against DCS providing such an option (a checkbox for mission makers and server hosters to disable HARMs on station 4 & 6).

Edited February 23, 2021 by QuiGon

[jojojung]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb Spectre1-1:

you need to rebuild the wing entirely to do it, and as Scrape said its infeasible and no one does it, the US just handles not having enough HARMs by throwing another plane at the problem, I'd even bet that it would be cheaper to do so 

 

Yeah thats the point! Thats how it works at the time.

It would think that in a real wartime situation there would be a buildup to the vipers but I know thats hypothetical and difficult to proof in our situation.

[Wing]

I thought DCS was supposed to be simulating what is FACT?

So what is the issue here... I am confused.

 

Fact of the matter is - there is no wiring for those stations in order to support that weapon system. PERIOD.

Quit bantering around, there should be no argument at this point unless if DCS is no longer trying to simulate fact for their modules. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Wing

[Northstar98]

Voted no.

 

By all indications and numerous SMEs chiming in, stations 4 and 6 lack required wiring to employ weapons like the HARM and the Maverick. The data cable makes the weapon unusable even if it can be carried - the cable handles video from the weapon, and presumably the connection to the weapon to the aircraft systems, allowing you to control seekers etc. 

 

ED are supposed to be delivering an aircraft that is supposed to be an authentic representation of a particular aircraft variant, at a particular point in time as used by a specific operator and by all counts 4 HARMs satisfies none of those.

 

I see people are going on about scenarios and how oh if you want x to be super realistic, the implication is that you effectively have to ban the mission editor. I'd like to point out what's written on the product description of DCS on the main page:

 

Quote

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible.

  

See how it mentions nothing about the missions you take it in? Just that the assets themselves are representative of their real life counterparts. DCS is a sandbox yes, but it's quite clear that the building blocks should be an authentic representation of reality where possible. The sandbox part is more what you do with said building blocks, which is and should be, up to you.

 

As for "It's just a video game", yes, but what I don't get is why a video game needs to be necessarily unrealistic. Ultimately it's true that DCS is a video game, but it's a video game that's supposed to be what the quote above says it's supposed to be. Of course we can go on for ages where it falls short and ultimately we'll never get it 100%, but it's clear the intention is realism where possible.

 

 

And if people want to go on about what scenarios you can take it in? Realistically, apart from WWII aircraft, we have next to no realistic airbases that our modules operate out of IRL, for the F-16, we only have the 64th Aggressor Squadron liveries out of Nellis...

 

Ultimately any mission you make is never going to make an aircraft into something it's not, you can certainly pretend and try and approximate, but it's still the same aircraft. You can fly our F-16 in WWII missions if the mood takes you, but at the end of the day, the aircraft you're flying still represents a 2007 USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, which is exactly what it should be.

 

If we're offering a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, representing an aircraft as it was in 2007 (M4.2/M4.3 spec), on a platform that is supposed to be as "realistic as possible"; why should our F-16 be anything other than a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 c. 2007?

 

Ultimately, I think coming to a platform that is supposed to be as realistic as possible, and taking an issue with it being so is pretty silly. If you don't like stuff to be as realistic as possible? Fine, but then in that case, then DCS might be unsuitable for you.

 

The only thing I will say is that developers should be consistent with the rules. If we're going to be strict for one aircraft, we should be strict for all the others.

 

 

And no, I didn't get the F-16 variant I wanted either; but I'd rather ask for that variant rather than try and fictionalise up an aircraft into being something it's not. And if a developer promises x, why should we get anything that isn't x?

Edited February 23, 2021 by Northstar98

[jojojung]

vor 34 Minuten schrieb Northstar98:

 

Ultimately, I think coming to a platform that is supposed to be as realistic as possible, and taking an issue with it being so is pretty silly. If you don't like stuff to be as realistic as possible? Fine, but then in that case, then DCS might be unsuitable for you.

 

The only thing I will say is that developers should be consistent with the rules. If we're going to be strict for one aircraft, we should be strict for all the others.

 

 

 

Youre right and I understand that. But how to explain then the laser code change in flight with GBU-12 and the magic HARM seeker f.e. in the Hornet or the not nessecarelly boresight MAV in the A10? No community polls for this realism errors since years.

Realisim is not a one way direction for only a few modules while other modules dont get fixed in therms of realism. So to follow your words you cant play the Hornet and the A10 at the moment because of many simplified sytems right?
I personally find it difficult when the killer argument "realism and real simulation" is only used in a one way direction. Either this is a principal for all modules or for none.

Edited February 23, 2021 by jojojung

[Spectre1-1]

well, since the viper is the topic at hand that's what we are discussing, but me and many people I know in DCS would also like the removal of unrealistic things from all planes that being said, I don't want to derail this particular topic

[Northstar98]

19 minutes ago, jojojung said:

Youre right and I understand that. But how to explain then the laser code change in flight with GBU-12 and the magic HARM seeker f.e. in the Hornet or the not nessecarelly boresight MAV in the A10? No community polls for this realism errors since years.

 

These should be changed, these are things that have been brought up, just not much word from ED.

 

And like I said, if you're going to be strict about the rules, be consistent across all the aircraft.

 

19 minutes ago, jojojung said:

Realisim is not a one way direction for only a few modules while other modules dont get fixed in therms of realism. So to follow your words you cant play the Hornet and the A10 at the moment because of many simplified sytems right?

 

They're not 'unplayable' any more than the F-16 is unplayable because it doesn't have weapons that aren't implemented yet.

 

And like I said, we should be consistent, and these aircraft should have the same rules apply to them. DCS has a consistency problem as it is, it would be great if it got addressed.

 

19 minutes ago, jojojung said:

 personally find it difficult when the killer argument "realism and real simulation" is only used in a one way direction. Either this is a principal for all modules or for none.

 

Yes, like I said, if we're going to be strict about it and set certain standards, then this should be the case across the board.

[jojojung]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb Spectre1-1:

well, since the viper is the topic at hand that's what we are discussing, but me and many people I know in DCS would also like the removal of unrealistic things from all planes that being said, I don't want to derail this particular topic

Agreed! Youre right back to this particulare topic.

Probably only an impression that realism issues for the viper are immedeately discussed while realism issues for other planes are still accepted since years and nobody cares about. I fly the hornet fairly oftem am I like it very much. But its systems must be treated the same scaptical way that the viper does.

[Skysurfer]

I love how this entire thread has snowballed into a discussion about what DCS is or should be. Everyone has their own preferences, which are all equally valid. It's up to ED which direction they want to take the game and whether they want to stick to the "more realistic" approach with their FF modules. As a reference, not even Prowlers or Growlers carried/carry more than two HARM's operationally - I wonder why.  

 

 

[Northstar98]

21 minutes ago, Skysurfer said:

I love how this entire thread has snowballed into a discussion about what DCS is or should be. Everyone has their own preferences, which are all equally valid. It's up to ED which direction they want to take the game and whether they want to stick to the "more realistic" approach with their FF modules. As a reference, not even Prowlers or Growlers carried/carry more than two HARM's operationally - I wonder why.  

 

Well, everything I've said comes from ED. Where it's quite clear that realism is the goal, and our F-16C is supposed to be a specific aircraft, from a specific point in time, as used by a specific operator.

 

Given these 2 things, why should we purposefully make aircraft that contradicts it?

 

And I don't care what aircraft it is or what asset it is all I ask is that devs pick something and commit to it. If they're going to promise x, they should deliver x.

 

 

Just so everyone is on the same page, here's the official word on the F-16, straight from our lord and saviour.

 

Quote

We will be taking great care though to develop a very accurate simulation of the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007.

 

For this project, we are striving to create a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time. We have no desire to create a Frankenstein's Monster that combines multiple F-16C versions from different time periods.

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Northstar98

[Skysurfer]

11 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Well, everything I've said comes from ED. Where it's quite clear that realism is the goal, and our F-16C is supposed to be a specific aircraft, from a specific point in time, as used by a specific operator.

 

 

 

 

I wasn't specifically referencing your post but the general discussion here. Realism is also a broad term and there's people that will argue with you that there can't be any realism in a game / desktop simulation etc. - to which I can only sigh and leave the conversation. Obviously a game/flightsim wont even grasp the complexity of real ops. or the phychological and physiological effects on you and your body while operating an aircraft, let alone in a combat environment. What can be done however is having accurate systems, loadouts and general cabalities which all work according to the manuals / SME's and have a flight model that is somewhere within +/- 5% of the real, charted performance data. Like, not even a fixed based sim will do much more than DCS when it comes to all of that apart from having a physical, hardware interface for muscle memory and better procedure training and obviously potentially delving a lot deeper in the more classified subsystems. As someone who works on these in the commercial side of things I can draw a fairly good comparison, coming from the days of FS2004, FSX and now P3D. 

 

I understand people wanting 4 HARM's, for various reasons, for their missions and fictional scenarios but they also need to understand that the real jet which ED have decided to model can't fire/deploy these from said pylons. Maybe some foreign, export version can but not this one. I'm sure ED's upcoming stand-alone product "MAC" will cater a lot more to those people who just want a more arcady, simplified approach while retaining the same graphics as DCS. Moral of the story - you'll never please everyone. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Skysurfer

[shagrat]

2 hours ago, Spectre1-1 said:

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.

The plane is Intended to use them. Somebody decided to leave the cables for when it's necessary. The question is why there is a difference between 100% realism if it is about some cable rigged, or certain combinations of bombs/GBUs/CBUs not documented with picture proof a certain faction looses it, but is blissfully happy to fly a modern F/A-18C from a carrier in the Black Sea in a Russia vs. Georgia conflict?

Especially as the solution to the perceived "problem" is as simple as NOT to put an unrealistic loadout on your plane. But no, we need to enforce limitations and restrictions to address the fear of a disadvantage in MP?

If ED would consider a generic option to deny/allow individual loadouts and give us a server option that limits the players to select from predefined loadouts defined in the miz file, that would be ok. But I am definitely not happy with taking away options for everyone because the USAF decided to leave two cables to be rigged "if necessary"...

[Jackjack171]

56 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Voted no.

 

By all indications and numerous SMEs chiming in, stations 4 and 6 lack required wiring to employ weapons like the HARM and the Maverick.

Bro, sadly, it seems some of our brethren do not care about SME's or anyone else's inputs. How do you argue for realism/like systems (just look in the forums) and yet want something else? Look at all of the turn rate/G-force/flight dynamics post from guys as if they've flown the real thing! Yet, when it comes to a weapons system that they want or how much more ordnance that they can pack on a jet, realism goes out of the window. This is hypocrisy! Either DCS is as close to realism as possible, or it turns into something else! I hope that ED can provide some kind of "proof" that these guys are asking for.

Yes, this is a game. It is also more of a simulation. It sounds a lot like some just want to hurl ordnance around to rack up scores on some server (totally fine) and most want to simulate real life, something that most of us will never get to do IRL!

I've launched many jets over a 20+ year span IRL and have never seen any of these heavy fat pig loadouts some guys carry. Hilarious! 

[randomTOTEN]

14 minutes ago, shagrat said:

The plane is Intended to use them. Somebody decided to leave the cables for when it's necessary.

Then it's not intended to be used.

[Northstar98]

18 minutes ago, shagrat said:

The plane is Intended to use them. Somebody decided to leave the cables for when it's necessary.

 

Then give us an example of an F-16C wired for 4 HARMs, because by all indications the wiring isn't present.

 

I'm sure it could be modified to be compatible, but where's the line? If we're going oh well it's hypothetically possible that x can be wired for it, then it's 'possible' for sidewinders and AMRAAMs to be wired for the centreline station as well as 4 and 6. The question should be is it IRL? If not, then no.

 

DCS is supposed to have aircraft that authentically represent reality, if you have a problem with that (which is fine by the way), then maybe DCS isn't for you.

 

Quote

The question is why there is a difference between 100% realism if it is about some cable rigged, or certain combinations of bombs/GBUs/CBUs not documented with picture proof a certain faction looses it, but is blissfully happy to fly a modern F/A-18C from a carrier in the Black Sea in a Russia vs. Georgia conflict?

 

Because nothing in the DCS description, mentions anything about what missions you take the assets into, just that the assets themselves are accurate representations of reality, at least where possible. 

 

You can build whatever you like with the building blocks, but the building blocks themselves are to be as realistic as possible.

 

Also, are you implicitly advocating for the deletion of the mission editor? Because that's what you'd have to do here.

 

And should ED ban F-16C players from taking off from anywhere other than Nellis? Because out of all the USAF/ANG F-16C liveries, the only one we have an airbase for is the 64th Aggressors...

 

Quote

Especially as the solution to the perceived "problem" is as simple as NOT to put an unrealistic loadout on your plane. But no, we need to enforce limitations and restrictions to address the fear of a disadvantage in MP?

 

And if you want to employ 4 HARMs, the simple solution is to take an aircraft that can employ 4 HARMs! And not to take an aircraft that can't!

 

You're a taking a module that is supposed to be realistic, but then taking issue that it's realistic. I'm very sorry shagrat that the real aircraft, the one our F-16 is supposed to "authentically represent", isn't capable of employing 4 HARMs.

 

Quote

But I am definitely not happy with taking away options for everyone because the USAF decided to leave two cables to be rigged "if necessary"...

 

You mean you're not happy with a module that's supposed to be realistic, actually being realistic?

Edited February 23, 2021 by Northstar98