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

vor einer Stunde schrieb LC214:

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

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

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

Viggen goes the same way. 

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
11 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)

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LC214 said:

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

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TobiasA said:

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

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

Viggen goes the same way. 

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

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

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

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

And it leads to wrong procedures...

  • Like 2

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

  • ED Team
1 minute ago, LC214 said:

It's a video game and people have the ability to choose not use things they don't want to use?

Imagine the devs of an <insert a popular multiplayer FPS title here> added a DLC that gives players access to man portable nuke launchers for $59.99, completely ruining all multiplayer balance, and then told players that they can choose not to use them. That would go well, wouldn't it?
Yes, you can choose not to use them, but DCS is a multiplayer game and you don't exactly have a choice of not having it used against you. There are ways to limit weapons with scripts, but I don't think there's any tool to limit specific pylons.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

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

 

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

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

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

10 minutes ago, m4ti140 said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

so ofc the reasons matter.

 

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

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LC214 said:

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

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

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

  • ED Team
1 minute 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. 😎

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

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
1 minute ago, Furiz said:

 

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

 

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

 

so ofc the reasons matter.

 

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

 

No it doesn't matter, because even if the reason was the engineer in charge having a bad day at work, it won't change the fact that the aircraft doesn't have physical wiring for this, outside of the testbed unit that was used for weapon tests. It's not the same situation as with tripple maverick racks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, shagrat said:

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

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


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

5 minutes ago, Furiz said:

 

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

 

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

 

so ofc the reasons matter.

 

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

 

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


Edited by AlexCaboose
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AlexCaboose said:

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Edited by Furiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Furiz said:

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Furiz said:

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

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

 

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

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

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

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

 

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

52 minutes ago, AlexCaboose said:


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

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

 

1 minute ago, Desert Fox said:

 

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

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

  • Like 2

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

  • ED Team
7 minutes ago, LC214 said:

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

You have clearly no idea what you're talking about then, or what the purpose of HARMs is vs JDAMs. HARMs home in on radiation sources, JDAMs fly to designated coordinates. The former is used for SEAD, the other for DEAD if used against SAMs at all. JDAMs are useless against anything mobile, etc. Having twice the amount harms in flight can decide whether or not you can saturate the SAM site, or keep it suppressed for long enough. And since most multiplayer servers have F-16s on both sides (because we have no redfor equivalent of F-16CM block 50 - we'd need something like MiG-29M or newer. No, Jeff is not equivalent) by keeping things realistic you put yourself at a disadvantage compared to people who don't care. Fly the aircraft a bit more, read up on tactics, then we'll talk.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, m4ti140 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just now, Desert Fox said:

 

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

What makes 4 HARM an arcade loadout?

  • Like 1

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

5 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

  • Like 1

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

  • ED Team
14 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

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

 

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

 

Honestly I don't agree, the way DCS is set up it's better for simulating all out WW3 than peacetime air policing operations, until recently we didn't even have any ability to have neutral units in game and all Red Flag scenarios in game involve actual "blood and ichor", since training systems are usually not modelled (and AI is incapable of using them, there's no way to have it do mock fights).
So whether or not 6 mavs are allowed should be entirely up to whether or not the wiring and software capability is still there. It's not there for 4 HARMs, 6 mavs could still be there, don't know. Needs to be researched further. If it's there, then they should simulate consequences of using the loadout instead - having one or two aircraft in package fall out of the sky due to weapon plume in a WW3 style BAI scenario would add to the experience.


Edited by m4ti140
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...