Jump to content

Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6


BIGNEWY

Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6  

285 members have voted

  1. 1. Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6

    • YES - stations 4 and 6 should have HARM and Maverick
      99
    • NO - stations 4 and 6 should not have HARM and Maverick
      186

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, shagrat said:

because the USAF decided to leave two cables to be rigged "if necessary"...

You're saying that like it's fact. I doubt it is. They obviously did testing with it (ED tailcode picture) and probably decided it wasn't worth it. That's more likely the reason the wires aren't there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Northstar98 said:

 

 

 

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

This is the case of "I want what I want" and nothing else. Screw what the USAF F-16 Blk50 that ED is trying to simulate, we want options! Sounds like "Pimp my ride"!

For those that think some want to purposefully derail your fun, you are wrong. If ED decides whatever, tomorrows a new day either way. Whatever's on or off of the real jet is what should be (within sim limits), not what could be. You can get too deep into the rabbit hole with that kind of liberal thinking! Next thing you know, we have laser beams on our simulated jet. This is about "Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible. " 

I quoted that from the first line on the company website. Where's the confusion? Oh, wait! Lol

 

  • Like 1

DO it or Don't, but don't cry about it. Real men don't cry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if some people who wants "realism" think they fly with the same doctrine as the US, with same planifications and employing the same tactics.

Well, you can't.

The F16 may only carry 2 AGM88 IRL because of these and we can't replicate them in DCS, simply because of the documentation is not available to the public or we don't have certain airframe or feature.

 

I understand a lot of people gets upset by having a non standard/real loadout. I use realistic loadouts most of the time, but It's nice to have an extra option sometimes, and I feel limit the option for other players is not good. Not all players fly the same way. Even there are a great number of players who never read a manual and only fly watching videos on youtube.

 

Maybe it would be nice if the rearm window tells you the loadout is not 100% to reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Matti0503 said:

You're saying that like it's fact. I doubt it is. They obviously did testing with it (ED tailcode picture) and probably decided it wasn't worth it. That's more likely the reason the wires aren't there.

 

Doesn't worth ... or simply not possible because of : missile/pylon separation unsafe due to local airflow interference, landing gear/door potentially conflicting in case of selective jettison like for some other pylons/racks, airframe masking the HARM sensors on those stations, issue on controllability or aerodynamic behavior issues on FLCS authority, asymmetric departures, elevators damaged/destroyed by missile flames, software incompatibilities in Mux buses ... etc ... could be tons of possible reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ED ends up not going for their ultra-realism and adds the option for HARMs to be carried on 4/6 then I ask ED to also disregards the ultra-realism in order to add the GBU-54 LJDAM for usage, as this began being used on the Viper in 2008 (within a year of our "2007" USAF/ANG F-16)


Edited by FoxOne007
  • Like 3

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, so much hate over an LAU-88 and a wire on stations 4+6....
Just make a server preset for having only USAF approved loadouts or allowing all loadouts ever possible.

Removing the HARM's kills HAF loadouts which would allow 4 HARM's, 6 mavericks were allowed for "wartime". Having them kills realism on pure USAF loadouts, so just do a server preset. Enable the mission makers to chose between settings, forbid certain loadouts or allowing special ones.


Edited by TobiasA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Ignition said:

I wonder if some people who wants "realism" think they fly with the same doctrine as the US, with same planifications and employing the same tactics.

Well, you can't.

 

Kinda irrelevant as said before; where DCS concerns realism is in the assets - exactly how DCS' own official description describes it.

 

It leaves what missions you fly, how you fly them and the scenarios you build up to do. I 

 

Quote

I understand a lot of people gets upset by having a non standard/real loadout. I use realistic loadouts most of the time, but It's nice to have an extra option sometimes, and I feel limit the option for other players is not good. Not all players fly the same way.

 

How does a player flying the aircraft affect how many of the same weapons they have? I can fly a mission with 2 HARMs as well as I can do 4, I just have a second aircraft with me.

 

And where's the line here? We'll allow some realistic loadouts but not others and just decide which one arbitrarily?

 

Isn't just picking something and committing it easily the better option? That has the bonus of being more consistent and aligned with ED's own stated goals?

 

Quote

Even there are a great number of players who never read a manual and only fly watching videos on youtube.

 

And? Again, read DCS' description, it mentions nothing about what scenarios you fly or how you fly them or how you learn them.

 

12 minutes ago, TobiasA said:

Oh boy, so much hate over an LAU-88 and a wire on stations 4+6....

 

Oh boy, so much hate for things being realistic on a platform that is explicitly stated as trying to be as realistic as possible...


Edited by Northstar98
  • Thanks 3

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gerade eben schrieb Northstar98:

Oh boy, so much hate for things being realistic on a platform that is explicitly stated as trying to be as realistic as possible...

 

Yes, but it also doesn't hurt realism simply not loading HARMs on 4/6 or simply not allowing it on a server, since the weapon behaviour is still the same when you only load on 3/7 which is realistic for the USAF, but also not for the HAF on the syria map.

And we should keep it civil, the last 10 pages were sometimes not that polite.
Long story short: It should be possible to forbid it, but also possible to allow it in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, TobiasA said:

Yes, but it also doesn't hurt realism simply not loading HARMs on 4/6 or simply not allowing it on a server, since the weapon behaviour is still the same when you only load on 3/7

 

And it doesn't hurt realism if the FDM allows you to fly into space if nobody flies into space... Of course this is ridiculous but where's the line? What about other weapon combinations that aren't realistic for our specific aircraft?

 

People complaining that the F-16 module should be able to pull as much g as the real one? Well realism isn't hurt if you don't try and pull that much g.

 

The argument that a problem stops being a problem if you ignore it is nothing more than a cop-out IMO.

 

Where's the line here? Are things supposed to be authentic representations of their real life counterparts (at least as far as feasible/possible) or aren't they? There isn't a 3rd option here... 

 

Ultimately the module and the platform are supposed to be authentic to reality. Our F-16 is stated to be a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 c. 2007; so why should it be anything else?

 


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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. 😉 

 

 

Because they can carry two MAVs along with the two HARMs... 😉

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, FoxOne007 said:

If ED ends up not going for their ultra-realism and adds the option for HARMs to be carried on 4/6 then I ask ED to also disregards the ultra-realism in order to add the GBU-54 LJDAM for usage, as this began being used on the Viper in 2008 (within a year of our "2007" USAF/ANG F-16)

 

Yes, actually why not? I mean apart from "realism" what is preventing this?

Same goes for CBU-87/97 for aircraft that can drop Mk-20/CBU-99. What makes it physicaly impossible to drop them from the same station? The only reason I can come up with, is that the NAVY did not buy them and uses their old stock. Now if the MARINES would acquisition a couple CBU-97 for a specific strike mission, what would prevent them to load them onto an F/A-18C or Harrier? The Container and mechanism including electric fusing shouldn't be any different, right?

So is 4 times CBU-97 an unrealistic loadout for a F/A-18C in terms of capability? 🤔

 


Edited by shagrat

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FoxOne007 said:

If ED ends up not going for their ultra-realism and adds the option for HARMs to be carried on 4/6 then I ask ED to also disregards the ultra-realism in order to add the GBU-54 LJDAM for usage, as this began being used on the Viper in 2008 (within a year of our "2007" USAF/ANG F-16)

 

And remove the Wall-Eye from the Hornet that was out of inventory 10 years before our Hornet year.

And same thing goes to many many things, like our F-15C is from 1985 (mixture, but that is the most common year configuration) so it should lack the AIM-120A, B and C as it became in service in very ultra small batch in 1991. Now we would have F-15C with the AIM-7 only, more fitting to the cold war era and leave Hornet and Viper to 2005/2007, and AV-8B N/A to 2008 (because it has the Litening G4 from 2008) and of course JF-17 would gain a lot of new balance features for RedAir when F-15C is out of actives.

 

The MiG-21Bis would lose a Grom, and.... well,

 

Lots of things would change if the modules would be required to have more realistic weapons loadout for their service year and weapons year. And oh boy that blue cry when F-15C and F/A-18C would lose something with the F-16CM.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

And remove the Wall-Eye from the Hornet that was out of inventory 10 years before our Hornet year.

And same thing goes to many many things, like our F-15C is from 1985 (mixture, but that is the most common year configuration) so it should lack the AIM-120A, B and C as it became in service in very ultra small batch in 1991. Now we would have F-15C with the AIM-7 only, more fitting to the cold war era and leave Hornet and Viper to 2005/2007, and AV-8B N/A to 2008 (because it has the Litening G4 from 2008) and of course JF-17 would gain a lot of new balance features for RedAir when F-15C is out of actives.

 

The MiG-21Bis would lose a Grom, and.... well,

 

Lots of things would change if the modules would be required to have more realistic weapons loadout for their service year and weapons year. And oh boy that blue cry when F-15C and F/A-18C would lose something with the F-16CM.

 

 

 

 

I fully agree that they should get removed, I don't pick what I want on a plane based on what I like

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How's this for a compromise: We can still load HARMs on STA 4&6 but can't fire them, this would be the most realistic option.

 

Edit: I can already hear the people asking on the Discord why their HARMs won't fire, I retract this statement.


Edited by Matti0503
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

Yes, actually why not? I mean apart from "realism" what is preventing this?

Same goes for CBU-87/97 for aircraft that can drop Mk-20/CBU-99. What makes it physicaly impossible to drop them from the same station? The only reason I can come up with, is that the NAVY did not buy them and uses their old stock. Now if the MARINES would acquisition a couple CBU-97 for a specific strike mission, what would prevent them to load them onto an F/A-18C or Harrier? The Container and mechanism including electric fusing shouldn't be any different, right?

So is 4 times CBU-97 an unrealistic loadout for a F/A-18C in terms of capability? 🤔

 

 

IDK, different weapons have different intergrations in airplane software. the -54 is actually carried by the Viper irl, unlike the CBU-87/97 in case of the Hornet.

 

49 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

And remove the Wall-Eye from the Hornet that was out of inventory 10 years before our Hornet year.

And same thing goes to many many things, like our F-15C is from 1985 (mixture, but that is the most common year configuration) so it should lack the AIM-120A, B and C as it became in service in very ultra small batch in 1991. Now we would have F-15C with the AIM-7 only, more fitting to the cold war era and leave Hornet and Viper to 2005/2007, and AV-8B N/A to 2008 (because it has the Litening G4 from 2008) and of course JF-17 would gain a lot of new balance features for RedAir when F-15C is out of actives.

 

The MiG-21Bis would lose a Grom, and.... well,

 

Lots of things would change if the modules would be required to have more realistic weapons loadout for their service year and weapons year. And oh boy that blue cry when F-15C and F/A-18C would lose something with the F-16CM.

 

 

 

 

That is a different case. at some point those weapons were are are carried by said/mentioned aircraft. unlike HARMs on STA 4/6 on the Viper. If a weapon like the Walleye was carried a while ago that means the jet has the capability to actually employ them


Edited by FoxOne007

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • NineLine locked this topic
  • Wags unlocked, locked, unpinned and unlocked this topic

This is the proof, that they tested it!

 

On the website: f-16.net you find an discription of the Block 50 USAF. And Lt. Carl Krittenden can be quoted form this artikel: "Two HARM missiles are normally carried on a typical SEAD mission, however, 4-missiles loads are currently being test-flown at Eglin AFB."

In the following context of this artikel you can clearly see, that this test were done a log time before 2007. The artikel itself is a very old one. I already had contacted the website and the autor.

Ehlin AFB was not a test site like Area 51 or was a testsite for manufactors only. No it was a regular AFB and they tested it multiple times with normal block 50 USAF planes.

Thats the exact proof of concept we all are searching for.

 

LINK: https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Thank you all for your participation. 

 

Poll now closed. 

  • Thanks 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

If they're going to promise x, they should deliver x.

 

 

 

I agree.

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Where's the line here?

 

 

This is a good question to ask, but I don't think it's hard to answer. Provide the authentic aircraft as accurate as possible (deliver the x), then lump anything else into an "other" checkbox. This way we retain all the limitations necessary to mimic the target aircraft while at the same time providing a work around for situations where we can afford to deviate from absolute historical accuracy.

 

What options ED might choose to give us in the checkbox is up to them. Adding existing sim weapons with existing aircraft interfacing to existing pylons is low hanging fruit that won't take much work on their part. Adding something completely out of fantasy like, and I'm just exaggerating for the sake of making a point, rotary gattling lasers would take more work and frankly aren't in the realm of plausibility so I don't think there is any fear of ED wasting time on such a thing.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 3 Minuten schrieb Matti0503:

cool that they tested it but was the average, combat use viper ever equipped with the wiring? I don't think so

Then took off the walleye II because when your f18c of about 2005 was in service the Walleye was not in service for the hornet for years!


Edited by jojojung
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 1 Minute schrieb Matti0503:

you're completely missing my point but I agree that the Walleye and the SLAM should be removed

I cant say what the result of this testing was. I dont know them but the autor says that "normaly two HARMS" indicating that there are special cases for 4 HARMS but thats my interpretation.

To resolve this I have send an E-Mail to the Website and hope to contact the autor Lt. Carl Krittenden.

But there was so much written in this topic here about, never a single time on the block 50 etc. and this is the proof that the HARMS on 4 and 6 worked. If they were put into service I can not say but I will try to find it out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jojojung said:

I cant say what the result of this testing was. I dont know them but the autor says that "normaly two HARMS" indicating that there are special cases for 4 HARMS but thats my interpretation.

To resolve this I have send an E-Mail to the Website and hope to contact the autor Lt. Carl Krittenden.

But there was so much written in this topic here about, never a single time on the block 50 etc. and this is the proof that the HARMS on 4 and 6 worked. If they were put into service I can not say but I will try to find it out!

What type of testing exactly tho? Just carry test or actual firing. If it was firing, they probably had a special Viper with the needed Wiring just for this purpose. It not being on other/later Vipers would indicate that these tests weren't particularly successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...