Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6

[QuiGon]

19 hours ago, Furiz said:

Would you believe me if I said I worked on Viper for years and we have loaded 4 HARM occasionally when it was a short sortie?

Haha, no. There's more needed than just stating you have worked on F-16s. Add some technical details and background that is not publicly known, then I might consider it...

  

 

19 hours ago, Furiz said:

You are asking for ED to provide facts but you don't have any.

 

Yes, but I'm not the one saying the F-16 has this feature. In science (and pretty much everywhere else except religion) you usually assume something is NOT the case unless proven otherwise. I could also say that the F-16 can launch R-77 missiles. I bet you won't find any proof against that, because probably none of the F-16 documentation, even the classified ones, will state that the F-16 can't launch R-77s.

So yeah, I tend to "believe" that things exist after I have seen evidence of it. I have not seen any evidence that the capability of our F-16 to launch HARMs from the innermost stations exists. Even more, I have seen technical descriptions why it can not do that (missing specific wireing for video feed). I don't know about you, but to me this all is a much better indication that this it is not possible than that it is.

Edited February 22, 2021 by QuiGon

[Jackjack171]

4 hours ago, Furiz said:

Please read everything then comment. You clearly read last few posts.

 

I was commenting to a post from a person that asked ED to display facts, then I said where are your facts.

Cause they are only posting quotes from people that say they are military, I don't want to discuss that fact cause we can never know if they are military or not, and I am not asking for such credentials cause they won't post that and if even they do post that who can say those are legit here in the forums, I'm simply trying to point out that speaking here has no value since they cant prove anything without facts/credentials,

 

but they are loud in their cause, and they are just pushing their own opinion without displaying any fact or proof other than "I worked on it and I know".

Well that simply doesn't cut it for me and I hope it won't cut it for ED, I hope ED wont just take someones word no matter how much they know about systems etc...

that is why I'm speaking here, not cause I know a lot about it, I really don't, I just don't like when people try to bully something with constant spam.

 

in the end I'm happy with whatever outcome, be it 4 or 2 HARM as long as it is correct to a simulated aircraft.

I read what you said bro. It was still a valid question! 

I believe ED has their stuff together is all. If speaking here has no value, then why are we here? I've read the same things you have. I didn't see it as spam. I saw it as collective input. Information can come from a variety of sources. I post in the Supercarrier forum all the time as that was my craft. 

We are all here to help (most of us) is my point! And again, I trust the ED process. I'm sure they are not so dumb to get burned again!

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

SMEs that provide information to ED get their credentials checked.   ED had been burned a very long time ago.

Oh I believe it bro! 

[QuiGon]

 

4 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Correct, our SME's are verified. 

 

I would really love to hear what it is exactly, that they told ED about the capabilities of the stations 4 & 6!

If there really is credible evidence that the F-16 can launch HARMs from stations 4 & 6 then I'm all for it, but so far I haven't seen any such evidence.

Edited February 22, 2021 by QuiGon

[shagrat]

5 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

In science (and pretty much everywhere else except religion) you usually assume something is NOT the case unless proven otherwise.

In science especially you create a hypothesis from thin air and try to find evidence that supports it, if you find enough eligible authorities that support and accept your hypothesis, your evidence can't be proven wrong and there is no better hypothesis (more or stronger evidence for another theorie) then it is assumed as "current state of knowledge" until either someone comes up with evidence that your theorie is wrong or your evidence flawed, or someone comes up with more or better evidence supporting a different hypothesis and everybody agrees... We learn this in school, when we go through the "smallest parts all matter is made from" 7th grade it's "All matter is made of molecules", 8th grade we learn they were wrong "and there were these things called Atoms", but yet later we learn that actually matter is made from "neutrons, electrons, positrons, etc." and then someone says: "Quarks... because antimatter" and though science largely agrees that antimatter is a thing, I would like to see evidence in form of anything other than fancy hypothesis based on assumptions.

So for the stations on the F-16... Well, what real evidence do we have? People telling people stuff plus documents that everyone can create at home on his computer to look legit. That's for both arguments, actually. So it's like in science. If the majority of peers agrees with your hypothesis...

 

[MROK73]

43 minutes ago, shagrat said:

People telling people stuff plus documents that everyone can create at home on his computer to look legit. That's for both arguments, actually. So it's like in science. If the majority of peers agrees with your hypothesis...

 

Weird...Very Weird.

Don't you guys ever look at the available -1 and -34 on net, both for MLU and HAF?? I've seen referenced here, in this forum several times. Are they "documents that everyone can create at home on his computer to look legit"?

I don't think so...

[QuiGon]

13 hours ago, shagrat said:

People telling people stuff plus documents that everyone can create at home on his computer to look legit.

 

With this stance we would never have any evidence ever. One could post as many -1s or other docs and it would still not be sufficent. Nothing would be...

Edited February 23, 2021 by QuiGon

[Fri13]

14 minutes ago, MROK73 said:

Are they "documents that everyone can create at home on his computer to look legit"?

I don't think so...

 

Are you making a challenge, that who can doctor the most funniest official documentation?

The problem is not that they can't look real, as it is actually easy thing to do as you modify just the few pages as you want.

 

But the problem is that you would need to get that exact file to multiple places to be found by anyone else, so they would think it is the real deal by the source.

[Dee-Jay]

And ... "why" ... anyone would spend time doing this! Come on ...

 

As MROK73 said, grab a -34 on the Web, and see by yourself.

 

 

[Coxy_99]

MUH BASED REALISM right here.

[Dee-Jay]

3 minutes ago, LC214 said:

This is a decision that should have been made months ago.

 

Why?! ... Fixes comes every updates. (I do not remember how many times I changed/modified the DB of another sim to match the new information gained and along some RL tapes updates).

 

For instance, the fact that the landing gear handle behavior is basically false doesn't mean that is can't and should not be fixed ... later on (in fact, as soon as possible because currently, it is "dramatically unsafe").

[randomTOTEN]

15 minutes ago, LC214 said:

Why bother taking it away after already adding it.

uhh...because you're fixing a problem?

we're still in Early Access

Edited February 22, 2021 by randomTOTEN

[John Galt]

An interface adapter was used with the AGM-84 and the Harpoon specific weapons control algorithms had to be supplied to the SMS.

 

[Dee-Jay]

14 minutes 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.

Mmm ... in fact you're right. Money.

This is quite sometimes THE problem indeed. This is why some ppl prefers to work for free, so that money is not an issue in producing an accurate F-16 simulation.

 

However ... DCS aims quality also, I am sure about that. It is simply a matter of passion. It can't be only about money.

And ditto Wags in his intro video of the DCS F-16 module just before its release: " ... will set the benchmark in F-16 simulation".

So I hope that it will be. Still lot of work ... but I am patient and try to be confident and I think that, if some ppl bought the F-16 just because it can load 4 HARMs and not because it is an F-16, IMHO, they have simply badly chosen their horse.

 

Regards.

[probad]

1 hour 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

this must not be a person interested in airplanes

 

so why should we care again?

Edited February 22, 2021 by probad

[shagrat]

1 hour ago, QuiGon said:

 

With this stance we would never have any evidence ever. Once could post as many -1s or other docs and it would still not be sufficent. Nothing would be...

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.

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

Are you making a challenge, that who can doctor the most funniest official documentation?

The problem is not that they can't look real, as it is actually easy thing to do as you modify just the few pages as you want.

 

But the problem is that you would need to get that exact file to multiple places to be found by anyone else, so they would think it is the real deal by the source.

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. 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.

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".

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...

[AlexCaboose]

1 hour 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.

If this hypothetical person bought the F-16 solely for the purpose of having 4x HARMs, they should have done more research. 

[AlexCaboose]

8 minutes ago, LC214 said:

I have to agree. I am willing to bet the majority of the people who voted no do not play on multiplayer servers where people would be taking loadouts they deem unrealistic anyway.

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

Just now, LC214 said:

Yeah because everyone is absolutely going to read through the entire NATOPS on a plane before buying it instead of watching a couple videos.

Who would read the NATOPs for the F-16? More like the -1, -34, CAF, etc. Regardless, the point stands - someone who is buying the F-16 SOLEY because it can carry 4x HARMs should be doing more research. There are plenty of reasons to buy, fly, and love the Viper. 4x HARMs isn't one of them. A quick google search of F-16s will how you that it just doesn't happen.

[shagrat]

12 minutes ago, LC214 said:

I have to agree. I am willing to bet the majority of the people who voted no do not play on multiplayer servers where people would be taking loadouts they deem unrealistic anyway.

The fun fact is, over the discussion about realism of the module loadouts, discussed so heated, we tend to forget, how many Vipers actually used life HARMs against air defenses on any(!) of the DCS maps... So why is a 100% true to life loadout (mind not avionics/system representation) so critical, but flying fantasy conflicts over parts of the world we have a hard time even imagine any halfway realistic conflict, is a non-issue?

I mean the Raven One campaign is fantastic, but it is a work of fiction along the novell and feels very real. Still even that conflict with Iraq is a fictional event (as in game).

Edited February 22, 2021 by shagrat

[AlexCaboose]

Just now, shagrat said:

The fun fact is, over the discussion about realism in the module loadouts, discussed so heated, we tend to forget, how many Vipers actually used life HARMs against air defenses on any(!) of the DCS maps... So why is a 100% true to life loadout (mind not avionics/system representation) so critical, but flying fantasy conflicts over parts of the world we have a hard time even imagine any halfway realistic conflict, is a non-issue?

I mean the Raven One campaign is fantastic, but it is a work of fiction along the novell and feels very real, still even that conflict with Iraq is a fictional event (as in game).

Because if it can't physically launch them, it doesn't matter what map it's on. The conflict and scenario may be fictional, but the aircraft is not. Should we have an F-35 in DCS? It would be just as fictional as 4x HARMs. What about a moving map on the HSD because it's convenient? Perhaps while we're at it we should get double racked AMRAAMs because that looks cool. Because all of that is just as fantasy as having 4x HARMs. The sim is a sandbox, but the aircraft are not.

[shagrat]

3 minutes ago, AlexCaboose said:

Because if it can't physically launch them, it doesn't matter what map it's on. The conflict and scenario may be fictional, but the aircraft is not. Should we have an F-35 in DCS? It would be just as fictional as 4x HARMs. What about a moving map on the HSD because it's convenient? Perhaps while we're at it we should get double racked AMRAAMs because that looks cool. Because all of that is just as fantasy as having 4x HARMs. The sim is a sandbox, but the aircraft are not.

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

And if the argument is, as so often "realism" the map/scenario is a big(!) part of that.

[m4ti140]

On 2/20/2021 at 11:43 PM, Enduro14 said:

I would put forth, if it can ferry them then have that in Dcs, but if it cant shoot them, then have no ability to shoot them hardwired in dcs, no pun intended lol

This. Having ability to ferry them would still be of use, since we have warehouses in DCS.

[Furiz]

4 minutes ago, AlexCaboose said:

Because if it can't physically launch them, it doesn't matter what map it's on. The conflict and scenario may be fictional, but the aircraft is not. Should we have an F-35 in DCS? It would be just as fictional as 4x HARMs. What about a moving map on the HSD because it's convenient? Perhaps while we're at it we should get double racked AMRAAMs because that looks cool. Because all of that is just as fantasy as having 4x HARMs. The sim is a sandbox, but the aircraft are not.

It can but its just not certified to do it, and that may be for who knows what reason.

 

Just out of curiosity, I never really tried to find out, what about Hornet 8 times JSOW? Is that certified? (not trying to spring a new discussion, simply don't know about that, but I was always curious cause it looks a bit way way too draggy and cripples the planes maneuverability)

[AlexCaboose]

1 minute 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.

It pops up because if it's not realistic it shouldn't exist. If ED accidentally modeled an AESA radar it shouldn't stay on the aircraft because "oh well, we already gave it that capability." If it's not real, it's not real. ED billed the module as being the most accurate representation of a 2007 USANG F-16CM Bl. 50. There's really no difference between 4x HARMs and double racked AMRAAMs as neither  are real.

[m4ti140]

On 2/21/2021 at 5:48 PM, Terzi said:

I think stations 3 and 7 should also be limited to 2 mavericks. The blast of the 3rd maverick on LAU-88 risks damaging the tail stabilator. However it was installed and tested back then. Never seen combat operation as far as I know.

I have a better idea: if wiring is there then allow 3 mavs, but actually model the chance of stabilator damage. Granted, this isn't something you'd risk in peacetime but I can see a situation like that during WW3. And DCS doesn't even have proper mechanics in place to simulate peacetime operations accurately, at least not yet.

[AlexCaboose]

5 minutes ago, Furiz said:

It can but its just not certified to do it, and that may be for who knows what reason.

 

Just out of curiosity, I never really tried to find out, what about Hornet 8 times JSOW? Is that certified? (not trying to spring a new discussion, simply don't know about that, but I was always curious cause it looks a bit way way too draggy and cripples the planes maneuverability)

I have no idea, I'm not a Hornet guy. I don't believe it's realistic though. 
It's more than just not being certified. It's not even wired for it.
 

1 minute ago, m4ti140 said:

I have a better idea: if wiring is there then allow 3 mavs, but actually model the chance of stabilator damage. Granted, this isn't something you'd risk in peacetime but I can see a situation like that during WW3. And DCS doesn't even have proper mechanics in place to simulate peacetime operations accurately, at least not yet.

I absolutely agree, there should be a high probability of catastrophic stab damage. But at the moment, that doesn't exist, and I don't think anyone sees that being programmed in anytime soon. If it's not certified for use, it's not accurate.

 

Just now, LC214 said:

I seriously doubt ED would accidentally model an AESA radar, that's hardly an equivalent argument.

It's an equivalent argument because neither are something that the 2007 USANG F-16CM Bl. 50 would have access to.