Community poll for HARM and Maverick on stations 4 and 6

[shagrat]

1 minute ago, Desert Fox said:

 

From all i know it is nothing being possible in real life. I have never seen any evidence of it being used operational, no pilots or ground crew reporting this, no videos, no images, nothing. That makes it a fictional fantasy loadout only available in a "video game" aka arcade loadout until proven otherwise. And with that, belongs to the arcade mode if at all.

Well, if you would have discussed the use of GBU-12/16 and a LANTIRN on the F-14A/B during Desert Storm you would argue the same. A bit later the first Bombcat dropped warheads on foreheads... So if they decide to rig the cables and update the MC in 1 or 2 years from now, would you promote the implementation in DCS as vigorously as you object it now?

[Exorcet]

1 minute ago, Desert Fox said:

 

From all i know it is nothing being possible in real life. I have never seen any evidence of it being used operational, no pilots or ground crew reporting this, no videos, no images, nothing. That makes it a fictional fantasy loadout only available in a "video game" aka arcade loadout until proven otherwise. And with that, belongs to the arcade mode if at all.

But it is possible in real life, the pylons just need to be compatible with the weapon and the aircraft needs to be able to communicate to the weapon through the pylons.

 

Most F-16's might not be able to do this, but it is possible that they can be modified to do so. Beyond that we have a history of modified aircraft (and other things) to look back on:

 

 

Arcade flight model is something truly impossible as it breaks physics, so I don't see why you would lump them together. For the most part I'd load 2 AGM-88 just because it seems like that's the norm. However there are definitely reasons to load 4 such as simulating another F-16 variant (instead of waiting how ever many years for ED to produce another variant). In such a case I'd have no reason to want arcade flight physics to ruin the experience.

[m4ti140]

Just now, shagrat said:

Well, if you would have discussed the use of GBU-12/16 and a LANTIRN on the F-14A/B during Desert Storm you would argue the same. A bit later the first Bombcat dropped warheads on foreheads... So if they decide to rig the cables and update the MC in 1 or 2 years from now, would you promote the implementation in DCS as vigorously as you object it now?

This is not even a valid argument. The F-16CM being modelled here is specifically block 50 from 2007. It doesn't matter what happens to it in 2022, cause that's not the version being modelled and doing so would involve way more than just adding a loadout.
I'd personally prefer a Block 52+ export variant, I'd also prefer to have multiple variants of each aircraft to cover more scenarios, like with Heatblur's F-14A. I'd like to have TFR. Ideally I'd like an F-16A, cause we have more redfor assets for ballanced late cold war/early gen 4 scenarios. Also french fries and sauce... cause all of that is not what we have in game, is it? ED declared they're making a specific variant of the aircraft.

6 minutes ago, LC214 said:

Yes I clearly understand the differences. I am saying that in DCS, JDAMs are infinitely more useful against SAM networks as they do not get shot down at all. And unless you have a player in combined arms controlling the SAMs, they will not move out of the way. From a real life perspective yes you are absolutely correct, but in DCS JDAMs are simply more effective.

Which is a room for AI improvement. And not an argument for allowing 4x HARM

[shagrat]

47 minutes ago, AlexCaboose said:

 

This is what ED's own marketing materials on their website have to say:

 

[shagrat]

2 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Well, looking at how we got a 2007 Viper this is the same question as with getting in APKWS which are available in 2016: it would theoretically be possible to fit them physically since the pylon did not change since then... in theory... and ignoring the fact the 2007 Viper is not the 2016 Viper and there need to be software upgrades made for APKWS and and and.

 

If, in 1 or 2 years, the cables would get installed, that's not just a 2007 Viper with extra cables... there have been a lot of additional changes to the airframe between 2007 and 2023/2024. So, if all the other changes would get implemented too and it would be an accurate simulation of the frame in that state when the cables get in: of course, it would be part of that frame and i would want it to be in accurately.

 

6 minutes ago, m4ti140 said:

This is not even a valid argument. The F-16CM being modelled here is specifically block 50 from 2007. It doesn't matter what happens to it in 2022, cause that's not the version being modelled and doing so would involve way more than just adding a loadout.
I'd personally prefer a Block 52+ export variant, I'd also prefer to have multiple variants of each aircraft to cover more scenarios, like with Heatblur's F-14A. I'd like to have TFR. Ideally I'd like an F-16A, cause we have more redfor assets for ballanced late cold war/early gen 4 scenarios. Also french fries and sauce... cause all of that is not what we have in game, is it? ED declared they're making a specific variant of the aircraft.

Which is a room for AI improvement. And not an argument for allowing 4x HARM

Ok, so concerning realism that means every scenario on DCS maps other than Red Flag etc. on the NTTR should be disabled for this module as well. I mean we should have a pretty good idea where that 2007 Viper has been deployed between 2007 and the next upgrade that changed the systems / software and would be a fictional made up scenario... Totally unrealistic...

[shagrat]

4 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Yeah. It would be possible if if if... IF the cables would be put in. IF the software would this. IF that. IF that... but we don't have IF, we have a 2007 USAF/NG Block 50 Viper and so far there is no evidence this version is capable of actually using 4 HARMS. It's really that easy.

 

It would in real life be possible to construct a new triple rack and fit three HARM per pylon. There is a history of modified aircraft... o.O

Well then don't use them on pylons 4 and 6. What's the problem?

[Exorcet]

2 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Yeah. It would be possible if if if... IF the cables would be put in. IF the software would this. IF that. IF that... but we don't have IF, we have a 2007 USAF/NG Block 50 Viper and so far there is no evidence this version is capable of actually using 4 HARMS. It's really that easy.

 

It would in real life be possible to construct a new triple rack and fit three HARM per pylon. There is a history of modified aircraft... o.O

Yes, the if is what separates the 4 HARM loadout from arcade physics. There is no if you could add to arcade flight mode, it simply can't be.

 

Moving on to the point that we have a specific model simulated, I understand that. It's why I'm asking for a loadout checkbox. That option preserves the authentic simulation of a specific F-16. A player needs to check the box in order to step away from the historical simulation. This means you would never check the box, I assume, and thus never have to deal with F-16's that carry more than 2 HARM. No realism is lost.

 

Online you'd also look for missions where the mission creator did not check the box just like I assume you avoid servers with arcade mode enabled, so again nothing is lost. Surely this is a win win for everyone.

[shagrat]

2 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Okay, but where does it say "casual gameplay results in unrealistic loadouts and equipment"?

Where does it say "loadouts" are restricted to timeframe specific limitations?

And then we need to get an understanding of what is unrealistic?

1.If the loadout is not documented?

2.If the loadout is possible, approved, but wasn't used operational (yet)?

3.If the loadout is possible with no altercations to physical model and systems representation in the simulation and controls in cockpit?

4.If a loadout is using weapons not designed for this airframe, but could technically be loaded (British bombs on US aircraft)?

 

My personal understanding is 3.

[Enduro14]

Dear lord....

[FoxOne007]

10 hours ago, ebabil said:

You are right. In ace combat, you may run out of fuel if you forget your CFT's or you may end up out of the runway if you don't deploy your dragchute

Then enjoy playing that while we will be flying here in a realistic USAF F-16

[shagrat]

16 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Touché and this is a big grime for me regarding DCS: there simply is not way in DCS' current state to do scenarios which are historically plausible. All the modules are over the place timeline wise and don't fit in with the ground assets we got and so on and so on.

 

But this really isn't an argument to get a questionable loadout in, right? Justify something wrong because there is so many other wrong things already.  If it was an argument at all, then for taking more care in the future to get modules, maps and assets in that are harmonized for realism and historical accuracy.

Yeah, but the whole point is, why are we so obsessed with enforcing realism on anyone playing DCS?

There are people flying fighter jets in air racing, others do fun flying, etc.

Why should there be a need to drastically restrict everything, especially if we can simply decide not to load a HARM or MAV on pylons 4 and 6? A simple Note on the loadout menu "not realistic on this station" could even inform us if we are not aware.

I would really like to know what's the reason behind the USAFs decision to not rig the two cables and enhance the mission capability? I mean a loadout with 2*HARM and 2*MAV would be pretty useful for SEAD/DEAD, I guess.

Edited February 22, 2021 by shagrat
Typos corrected

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, m4ti140 said:

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.

I didn't see this before but just FYI it's a very good feature which has existed before. Here is one example:

 

Ignore everything but the Weapon Prefs you see in the menu in the first few seconds (7 seconds on) of the video. It's literally a checkbox for turning weapons on/off so you could disable OP weapons (or any weapon for any reason) in your match.

 

Sadly I don't think the video goes into the menu, but you can see it explained in the game manual:

 

https://www.gamesdatabase.org/Media/SYSTEM/Sony_Playstation_2/manual/Formated/Red_Faction_2_-_2002_-_THQ,_Inc..pdf

[FoxAlfa]

Guys capabilities are nice, but the limitation make a good simulation, so please enforce true limitation. People will learn to work around them, it will make them better pilots. 

[shagrat]

1 hour ago, m4ti140 said:

.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.

That's at least honest. So it's not about "realism"... It is as so often, about disadvantages in a competitive multiplayer environment!

It is about denying other players options, that put you at a disadvantage.

The problem is that does not remotely take into consideration the PvE players flying missions against AI scenarios and single players that fly campaigns.

So to cater the needs of a small group that fears for their "edge" in competitive Multiplayer, the large majority of players would be restricted... That's why I like option checkboxes.

Edited February 22, 2021 by shagrat

[Exorcet]

5 minutes ago, shagrat said:

That's at least honest. So it's not about "realism"... It is as so often, about disadvantages in a competitive multiplayer environment!

It is about denying other players options, that put you at a disadvantage.

The problem is that does not remotely take into consideration the PvE players flying missions against AI scenarios and single players that fly campaigns.

So to cater the needs of a small group that fears for their "edge" in competitive Multiplayer, the large majority of players would be restricted... That's why I like option checkboxes.

 

Though in this case, it's debatable who is at a disadvantage. The 2 HARM loadout is lighter and less draggy. If a plane is lost and munitions are limited, the 2 HARM load out mitigates losses.

 

Then again, it would be a non issue with a loadout checkbox.

[shagrat]

1 hour ago, m4ti140 said:

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.

Imagine buying a Shooter game to have some single player fun or play PvE with a buddy against some bots. Buying a couple add-on campaigns and then there is a patch that limits the ammo of your favorite weapon in a way, that it's totally useless, because some MP guys asked to have that restriction, instead of making an option to restrict them on the server side or change tactics in MP...

Talking DCS: what about switching Lasercodes on GBUs mid flight? What's about 10 AMRAAM Hornet BVR trucks? And so on? Fly in a like minded group and omit public servers if you can't stand a bit of creative leeway.

Ultra-realism has its place in DCS, but it isn't a dogma, just one end of the spectrum.

 

[shagrat]

10 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Though in this case, it's debatable who is at a disadvantage. The 2 HARM loadout is lighter and less draggy. If a plane is lost and munitions are limited, the 2 HARM load out mitigates losses.

 

Then again, it would be a non issue with a loadout checkbox.

That's a good point. But a mixed 2*HARM and 2*MAV would be a great DEAD option.

And I agree an option checkbox or optional synched loadouts restricted by the server to the mission builders templates would be the most flexible solution to mitigate.

[Oozler]

I play this game to be as accurate as security allows. If the block of F16 we have modelled in the game has a capability then we should as well. If the block of F16 we have in the game does not allow certain capabilities then we should not have it as well... This is very simple and I fail to see an issue. Do we want our cake, eat it AND have sexy time with the baker? I mean - come on, man! 

[AlexCaboose]

 

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

It does specify "hardcore realistic AND casual gameplay modes." Sounds to me like they're pretty well separated in intent.

37 minutes ago, shagrat said:

That's at least honest. So it's not about "realism"... It is as so often, about disadvantages in a competitive multiplayer environment!

It is about denying other players options, that put you at a disadvantage.

The problem is that does not remotely take into consideration the PvE players flying missions against AI scenarios and single players that fly campaigns.

So to cater the needs of a small group that fears for their "edge" in competitive Multiplayer, the large majority of players would be restricted... That's why I like option checkboxes.

 

It is entirely about realism to me, personally. ED said they're modeling a 2007 USANG F-16CM Bl. 50 and 4x HARMs were not able to be fired.

Edited February 23, 2021 by AlexCaboose

[Exorcet]

19 minutes ago, shagrat said:

That's a good point. But a mixed 2*HARM and 2*MAV would be a great DEAD option.

 

Yeah I agree with that. Making missions in DCS has actually made me wonder on quite a few occasions why aircraft don't have more load out options that would allow one flight to do the job of two. I guess a lot of it comes down to numbers. In real life air forces can throw out a lot of planes, so it matters less what each individual one can carry. According to Wiki, Package Q involved 78 Blue aircraft and 55 Red. This in addition to many SAM's. A mission like that in DCS could struggle to run on some PC's. However, one could compromise in simulation by adding more weapons to less planes.

[jojojung]

The problem is that the hornet was the only multirole aircraft for the navy, so they make everthing possible in case of loadout etc. because there was no alternative.

In the USAF many possible thinks, like put some wires to some pylons and it would all be working fine, was not implemented in peacetime because there was no big preasure to do this. Ecspecially in the Air National Guard.
In the USAF in 2007 was a F15 E which had a lot of more payload options, so there was no need to do the cable with pylon 4 and 6.

In case of a real war, were the 2007 F16 of the USANG would really go to combat, this cable fixes would be done quickly for sure.
So for the hornet guys its easy to say: "unrealistic". I think a hornet with 10 AIM 120 is more unrealistic in case of a real war, but it was tried on the hornet, because there was no F15E or anything else for the NAVY.
I think ED must find the balance for themselves but its importand to see the things from different viewpoints. Maybe the "unrealistic" killer argument is not the only and the best way to handle this well.

 

[randomTOTEN]

33 minutes ago, jojojung said:

I think a hornet with 10 AIM 120 is more unrealistic in case of a real war

this bad argument keeps coming up

the Hornet pylons are all wired to support launching all 10 weapons, the aircraft is approved to fly even in peace time with all 10 mounted, and there is evidence of operational aircraft flying this configuration for various reasons. There is absolutely nothing "unrealistic" about it other than choices for mission planning. In ED's terms, it is "Operationally Valid"

 

this is a terrible comparison and it needs to stop being used. they are completely different.

[Ignition]

40 minutes ago, jojojung said:

The problem is that the hornet was the only multirole aircraft for the navy, so they make everthing possible in case of loadout etc. because there was no alternative.

In the USAF many possible thinks, like put some wires to some pylons and it would all be working fine, was not implemented in peacetime because there was no big preasure to do this. Ecspecially in the Air National Guard.
In the USAF in 2007 was a F15 E which had a lot of more payload options, so there was no need to do the cable with pylon 4 and 6.

In case of a real war, were the 2007 F16 of the USANG would really go to combat, this cable fixes would be done quickly for sure.
So for the hornet guys its easy to say: "unrealistic". I think a hornet with 10 AIM 120 is more unrealistic in case of a real war, but it was tried on the hornet, because there was no F15E or anything else for the NAVY.
I think ED must find the balance for themselves but its importand to see the things from different viewpoints. Maybe the "unrealistic" killer argument is not the only and the best way to handle this well.

 

Yeah, agree. The F18 has 10 AMRAAM and 8 JSOW LOL.

I think the option for HARMS in 4/6 is good for a gameplay perspective and for non historic combat scenarios. I know it may not have the wire IRL but we're talking of a game with multiplayer, and I think there needs to be some compromise on all aircrafts. I don't think 4 agm88 would destroy the balance in PUBLIC multiplayer as 8 JSOW or 10 AMRAAM F-18.

People have the option to not load HARMS on 4/6 if they wish.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Ignition

[shagrat]

55 minutes ago, Oozler said:

I play this game to be as accurate as security allows. If the block of F16 we have modelled in the game has a capability then we should as well. If the block of F16 we have in the game does not allow certain capabilities then we should not have it as well... This is very simple and I fail to see an issue. Do we want our cake, eat it AND have sexy time with the baker? I mean - come on, man! 

The point is, there is no "need to fix" it, as it isn't broken. For your style of gameplay simply do not load any HARM or MAV on station 4 & 6 and you are 100% realistic, with no additional work needed from ED.

 

[Raisuli]

Now, about the UGM-133s on the wingtips...