Jump to content

Sniper XR for the Viper?


Gimonz

Recommended Posts

vor 11 Stunden schrieb Smoked:

Who knows if they are going to release it or not... What gets me is simple... We could start naming the other sim in here by name and they would swoop down in an instant and close and lock the thread, meaning they are reading these forum posts... A simple clarification from any of them would be nice.. 

I asked @BIGNEWY per PM and he confirmed it, that it is canceled for the moment because of less unclassified data. I'm very disapointed too and hope that they get the information they needed... The Viper community deserves it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing in terms of transparency and good communications is that the sniper pod was removed more or less silently from the planned features list in July 2020 without a clear communication of this and in the newsletter from 14. Aug. 2020 it was still listed. Maybe thats because the Sniper Pod was one of the most desired features in the community poll. I think the cry out would be much, much greater if the hole community realise that the Sniper Pod was canceled but most people like me still thought that it is still planned because the Newsletter from Aug. 2020 is ne newest official statement to that issue.

I would realy like to see if they try as close as they can get with the available open source data to realise the Sniper Pod in the game, as they did many other compromises to other systems which are not 100% accurate but implemented in DCS in the past.
 


Edited by jojojung
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SparxOne said:

Literally the same thing he answered on steam... But feeling better about it now that somebody else PMed him on the forum and comes back with the same answer...

 

😬🥵

 

giphy.gif

Are you daft? Why is it weird that people want confirmation on the official forums? I don't own DCS on steam, why the hell should I have to go there for information about DCS? I don't know if you've noticed, but this thread has 53 posts and none of them is an answer from an ED employee. They stealthily removed it from the road map, and now they refuse to talk about it. It's like Stalin photo shopping people out of photographs. But you can be damn sure that if I posted a picture of classified manuals or something, they'd be here in a flash. It's not that they're not listening, they're just choosing to completely ignore us. Par for the course as an DCS F-16 customer though... 💩

  • Like 1

-Col. Russ Everts opinion on surface-to-air missiles: "It makes you feel a little better if it's coming for one of your buddies. However, if it's coming for you, it doesn't make you feel too good, but it does rearrange your priorities."

 

DCS Wishlist:

MC-130E Combat Talon   |   F/A-18F Lot 26   |   HH-60G Pave Hawk   |   E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound   |   EA-6A/B Prowler   |   J-35F2/J Draken   |   RA-5C Vigilante

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, jojojung said:

The sad thing in terms of transparency and good communications is that the sniper pod was removed more or less silently from the planned features list in July 2020 without a clear communication of this and in the newsletter from 14. Aug. 2020 it was still listed. Maybe thats because the Sniper Pod was one of the most desired features in the community poll. I think the cry out would be much, much greater if the hole community realise that the Sniper Pod was canceled but most people like me still thought that it is still planned because the Newsletter from Aug. 2020 is ne newest official statement to that issue.

I would realy like to see if they try as close as they can get with the available open source data to realise the Sniper Pod in the game, as they did many other compromises to other systems which are not 100% accurate but implemented in DCS in the past.
 

 

I completely agree! The Sniper XR would vastly improve the capabilities of the Viper, even without the advanced features like target recognition and stuff. I've heard of F-16 pilots being able to point track targets with the Sniper XR at over 80 nm. I'd be happy if they developed an initial trial version of the Sniper pod, when it had the same software as the LITENING. Alternatively, they could guesstimate the systems like they do with so much else.

  • Like 2

-Col. Russ Everts opinion on surface-to-air missiles: "It makes you feel a little better if it's coming for one of your buddies. However, if it's coming for you, it doesn't make you feel too good, but it does rearrange your priorities."

 

DCS Wishlist:

MC-130E Combat Talon   |   F/A-18F Lot 26   |   HH-60G Pave Hawk   |   E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound   |   EA-6A/B Prowler   |   J-35F2/J Draken   |   RA-5C Vigilante

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 2 Stunden schrieb WHOGX5:

I completely agree! The Sniper XR would vastly improve the capabilities of the Viper, even without the advanced features like target recognition and stuff. I've heard of F-16 pilots being able to point track targets with the Sniper XR at over 80 nm. I'd be happy if they developed an initial trial version of the Sniper pod, when it had the same software as the LITENING. Alternatively, they could guesstimate the systems like they do with so much else.

Maybe ED think about it! @Wags just said that the AGM 154C was removed from the planned systems in terms of realism issues (as always). But thats OK! Clear communication! Sniper Pod was removed silently to reduce the cry out from the community.
By the way: Is there a list of all the systems which were pronounced at release and then canceled as time goes by? Must be a few now.
No good times for the Viper pilots!
 

Still waiting to get the hornet fixed to realism issues (Laser Codes, magic TOO/HAS Sensor for the Harm, MAV aligment not necessary, no drag difference between single rack and double rack AMRAAMs...)

 


Edited by jojojung
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WHOGX5 said:

Are you daft? Why is it weird that people want confirmation on the official forums? I don't own DCS on steam, why the hell should I have to go there for information about DCS? I don't know if you've noticed, but this thread has 53 posts and none of them is an answer from an ED employee. They stealthily removed it from the road map, and now they refuse to talk about it. It's like Stalin photo shopping people out of photographs. But you can be damn sure that if I posted a picture of classified manuals or something, they'd be here in a flash. It's not that they're not listening, they're just choosing to completely ignore us. Par for the course as an DCS F-16 customer though... 💩

 

Don't call me daft because you're feeling too entitled to get your absolute wanted answer here on the forums when the answer would literally be the same as the one i got on steam that i passed forward on here (Which by the way was on the official DCS newsletter section of steam) ! Jojojung even proved it by sending a PM and receiving the same damned answer here on the Official Forum !

As you're saying it yourself and seem to strangely understand it for that matter, this thread has 50+ answers and none from an ED employee ! They don't seem to want to respond directly here while havin given the answer twice already. What more do you need ? Nick to call you personnaly or something ? Just like Furiz, unless your personnal agenda isn't filled, you'll be having a fit until you get your candy.

 

Whether they stealthily removed it or don't want to talk about it, matter won't change, Bignewy decided to give an answer via steam and via a PM here on the Official Forum, that seems to be all you'll get until they decide to change, which for some reason won't seem to happen soon since they've left this thread going for 50+ responses without their official response.

 

Now please go ahead and unleash yourself on me, have the last words on this matter, i can't be f***ed to respond anymore.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SparxOne said:

 

Don't call me daft because you're feeling too entitled to get your absolute wanted answer here on the forums when the answer would literally be the same as the one i got on steam that i passed forward on here (Which by the way was on the official DCS newsletter section of steam) ! Jojojung even proved it by sending a PM and receiving the same damned answer here on the Official Forum !

As you're saying it yourself and seem to strangely understand it for that matter, this thread has 50+ answers and none from an ED employee ! They don't seem to want to respond directly here while havin given the answer twice already. What more do you need ? Nick to call you personnaly or something ? Just like Furiz, unless your personnal agenda isn't filled, you'll be having a fit until you get your candy.

 

Whether they stealthily removed it or don't want to talk about it, matter won't change, Bignewy decided to give an answer via steam and via a PM here on the Official Forum, that seems to be all you'll get until they decide to change, which for some reason won't seem to happen soon since they've left this thread going for 50+ responses without their official response.

 

Now please go ahead and unleash yourself on me, have the last words on this matter, i can't be f***ed to respond anymore.

Oops, seems like I struck a nerve. First of all, I completely agree with Deadpool. Second of all, the reason we have an official forum is so that we have a point of contact with Eagle Dynamics. I don't mind ED being active on other platforms, not at all. But it's very strange when questions are answered on other platforms but not their own official forum. It's even stranger that they answer the questions in PMs but they refuse to reply in the actual thread for all to see.

 

This time the information made its way from Steam onto the forum. Great. But how many unanswered questions have not been relayed to the forums? Do I have to be active on the ED forums, Steam, Reddit, Facebook and Youtube to get a complete picture and find the answers I'm looking for? I don't understand how you can be defending that.

 

I hope you can cope with this "unleashing" onto you. Stay strong! 💞

-Col. Russ Everts opinion on surface-to-air missiles: "It makes you feel a little better if it's coming for one of your buddies. However, if it's coming for you, it doesn't make you feel too good, but it does rearrange your priorities."

 

DCS Wishlist:

MC-130E Combat Talon   |   F/A-18F Lot 26   |   HH-60G Pave Hawk   |   E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound   |   EA-6A/B Prowler   |   J-35F2/J Draken   |   RA-5C Vigilante

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 2 Stunden schrieb WHOGX5:

Oops, seems like I struck a nerve. First of all, I completely agree with Deadpool. Second of all, the reason we have an official forum is so that we have a point of contact with Eagle Dynamics. I don't mind ED being active on other platforms, not at all. But it's very strange when questions are answered on other platforms but not their own official forum. It's even stranger that they answer the questions in PMs but they refuse to reply in the actual thread for all to see.

 

This time the information made its way from Steam onto the forum. Great. But how many unanswered questions have not been relayed to the forums? Do I have to be active on the ED forums, Steam, Reddit, Facebook and Youtube to get a complete picture and find the answers I'm looking for? I don't understand how you can be defending that.

 

I hope you can cope with this "unleashing" onto you. Stay strong! 💞

I hope the reason they dosnt make it as public as needed with the canceled Sniper Pod is because they hope to get the information they need and can implement the sniper pod in the game. @BIGNEWY has said to me that they really try to get more information but at the moment it is canceled because they dont have this data available.
We have no other choise then to rely on the devs that they do the best they can not only for the hornet and others but also on the viper!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WHOGX5 said:

This time the information made its way from Steam onto the forum. Great. But how many unanswered questions have not been relayed to the forums? Do I have to be active on the ED forums, Steam, Reddit, Facebook and Youtube to get a complete picture and find the answers I'm looking for? I don't understand how you can be defending that.

 

Short Answer: Yes.

 

Long Answer: No, You shouldn't! Every single official information from any official first or third party should have presence in this Official DCS World Forum. They can as well be in all other places, but this should be #1 place. It would be even easy to post a message here and then link it to those other channels, this way everyone is directed to one place for news, information, statements etc.

 

 

  • Like 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

9 minutes ago, Crptalk said:

So neither the F-16 block 50+HTS or F-18 will have the correct tgp for its time period.

 

The Hornet should use the AN/AAS-38 Nite Hawk pod, that would require to carry two pods. One that offers FLIR and Laser Designator itself and other AN/ASQ-173 that offers Laser Spot Tracker.  http://cmano-db.com/pdf/weapon/63/

 

Because lack of better photos: 

 

fullsizeoutput_23d8_1024x1024@2x.jpg?v=1

 

It would make far more interesting missions as well when you would have proper awful FLIR quality and challenges and problems with self-designation etc as in reality. 

Yes, ED could keep the incorrect pods that has already developed for Hornet and Viper with time and money, but at least they should spend little more time to add the proper targeting pods and their characteristics in to them and make them default ones. 

 

What ever the F-16 should really carry should be for the same, a proper ones for the year that were available and primarily what was the most used one.  

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

What I am not getting is that they will not have any documents on the AIM-120 or the ECM pods .. yet they just model that .. guesstimates etc.

 

Now my curiosity and frustration gets poked when suddenly the rules change.

How dire!!! must the paper-front be for them to not guesstimate the pod .. 

To me it sounds like they couldn't even get their hands on footage on youtube or whatnot. And *this* then further means that there was *nothing* on the pod when they announced it originally. And that's horrible sales behaviour.

I find it amazing at what lax realism some of the hornets toys (and yes .. given that you get the walleye, which will never see the light of day in a 2005 conflict (from the time perioud it's supposed to be in)) are in .. and the sheer quantity .. 

this is adding insult to injury. But it has been for quite some time. The F-16 in DCS should be a warning to everyone on how you botch a product launch and drag it through the dirt. And since there are no competitors, they get away with it. It's unfair, I wish it was different, but here we are.

  • Like 2

Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Do not expect a reply to any questions, 30.06.2021 - Silenced by Nineline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, deadpool said:

What I am not getting is that they will not have any documents on the AIM-120 or the ECM pods .. yet they just model that .. guesstimates etc.

 

Exactly about the missiles.

 

But the ECM, IFF and such are cases that ED should really go for educated guesses. There is so much public domain and classified as unclassified information about both that ED could make 100 times better simulation for those two. They don't get the encryption keys and such never, ever. But that is just situation for those who have ultimatum "if you can't do it perfectly, don't do it at all" opinion and doesn't accept educated guesses at all. 

 

Simulating a various different radars is not difficult (done that, been there). Simulating the interference for them is neither difficult. Making a IFF system that would actually be usable and realistic is not impossible task either.

 

But when it comes to missiles, the whole thing drops to some odd circular status. "No information = No changes" and yet all was based to just some random decisions from some public sources. Now we have at least a calculation for the missile drag and such, but that is really the only part they can now at least do, but it needs to as well support various other evidences.

 

1 hour ago, deadpool said:

Now my curiosity and frustration gets poked when suddenly the rules change.

How dire!!! must the paper-front be for them to not guesstimate the pod .. 

To me it sounds like they couldn't even get their hands on footage on youtube or whatnot. And *this* then further means that there was *nothing* on the pod when they announced it originally. And that's horrible sales behaviour.

I find it amazing at what lax realism some of the hornets toys (and yes .. given that you get the walleye, which will never see the light of day in a 2005 conflict (from the time perioud it's supposed to be in)) are in .. and the sheer quantity .. 

 

How much data one really does need for a targeting pod? Many want to see proper OSD (On Screen Display) elements (labels, graphical lines etc), but even far more want to be successful with the pod. They want unrealistic ranges, they want their laser is perfection, they want that the pod is perfect. 

There are only few of us who want realistic very limited resolutions, blurry imagery, limited laser ranges, severely low gimbal turn rates, tracking capabilities etc. All kind things that makes targeting pods more of a "nice to have" than "amazing feature". 

  In one another platform I read that one guy told that he approached the ED about Litening in back in the days when Hornet was out. He said that he was engineer working with the targeting pods and could explain the parts that are public information in them, like gimbal rates, stabilization errors and such by official route. Said that ED responded that they are not interested. A person is ready to invite someone from ED to have a access to official public information and they decline? Well, the guy was like "forget then, do what ever fantasy you want!" as current targeting pods are 100 times better than they should be. 

 

1 hour ago, deadpool said:

this is adding insult to injury. But it has been for quite some time. The F-16 in DCS should be a warning to everyone on how you botch a product launch and drag it through the dirt. And since there are no competitors, they get away with it. It's unfair, I wish it was different, but here we are.

 

I think too many is giving too hard time for all those. Maybe the F-16 audience is just too demanding considering the alternative, that they couldn't just jump right away to "almost ready" module and ditch the alternative simulator, but for most parts F-16 has been good. Sure its not fast as could, it is no where excellent, but it is not so awful than people make it to be for Early Access. If it would have been pushed out from Early Access as such (a la Razbam AV-8B N/A Harrier.... That still is missing like 60% of the proper features and functions) then I could understand. 

 

But these small things like a targeting pod and their functionality etc has a lot of weight for summary. Have a thousand small cuts and everything looks bad. But so does the actions that something is declined clearly to be implemented or done simply because "We don't have the public data" and then you can't get that public data revealed to you to show that it is so. So users are required to provide the evidence, but ED can just say "Not based our sources". Well, if someone else here say "based to my sources this and that is so" then it is not enough and he gets attacked. When ED does that, it is just "ED said so, that is the word of authority so STFU". 

 

The question always remains that if someone would be able simulate Sniper XR by 80% of its features, is it always a reason not to do it because missing 20% or not directly just do educated guess with rest of it? It is better to try, than not try at all. Usually it is better to implement, than leave it completely out. And then be open and honest about what are the educated guessed parts, and if in future someone can give some evidence for changes then it can be always altered. Like if educated guess is that FOV is 2.25 degrees and it is shown with evidence that it should be 2.4 degrees, then no harm done, just change it. But not to implement it at all because unknown exact value means you never get things done. 

 

This is reason why we have those missiles, radars, targeting systems etc as well because otherwise we wouldn't have them at all. 

  • Like 3

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

21 hours ago, Wags said:

Dear all,

 

While the we'd like to add the Sniper TGP at some point, after the project is feature complete, it is not something we can promise at this time.

 

We'll see...

 

Kind regards,

Wags

How can you have Kate promise it back in autumn 2020 and then now go back and say no….. so either she was lying and you never had the info for it, or something else is going on….

  • Thanks 5

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FoxOne007 said:

How can you have Kate promise it back in autumn 2020 and then now go back and say no….. so either she was lying and you never had the info for it, or something else is going on….

 

In my opinion "lying" is unwarranted suggestion. 

 

You are correct that having plans should already include that information is available and it is known to be possible. It would be better then otherwise say "we wish...." as that doesn't mean that something is possible or would happen.... Just like Wags said "we would like to...".

 

IMHO I like to first see the coming me FLIR simulation, as it should be more dramatic than we have now and what sniper pod could offer.

 

But we need to wait. It is the hard part.

  • Like 2

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

vor 13 Minuten schrieb Fri13:

 

In my opinion "lying" is unwarranted suggestion. 

 

You are correct that having plans should already include that information is available and it is known to be possible. It would be better then otherwise say "we wish...." as that doesn't mean that something is possible or would happen.... Just like Wags said "we would like to...".

 

IMHO I like to first see the coming me FLIR simulation, as it should be more dramatic than we have now and what sniper pod could offer.

 

But we need to wait. It is the hard part.

Its only frustrating at the moment to be a viper guy. The discision to model a USNG Blk 50 from 2007 was totaly wrong because its less capable in many ways then international version of the Blk. 50 f.e. HAF. Lot of systems are canceled.
Realism is a big thing on the viper but not on other ED modules. HARMs are removed from station 4 and 6 because there was only testing on these stations not operational (and not wired). I can understand that! But is Walleye II operational in a 2005 conflict? Of course not! Is it implemented to the ED Hornet? Of course!


EDs policies are inconsitent at all and that makes it very unfair!


Edited by jojojung
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Furiz said:

What does "under consideration" tag mean?

 

Trying to get data, or you have data but trying to get the liscence or something else?

 

I would guess that you speculated, querying that would it even be possible get the data and is there legal parts to need to be dealt etc. 

 

So just "feeling around".

  • 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

"Subject to Change" should not be the excuse not to make the Sniper pod. If it does exist in the F-16 in question (which it does), it should definitely be added. In case the data is classified or not accessible right now, that's fine to leave it for future opportunities. But when we purchase the product it is an unwritten promise that we expect the full package (all available weapons and systems) just like any other module.

 

It doesn't really change the fact that this F-16 has the Sniper pod, whether ED was promising it or not, whether removing from the list or not. It is a fact that must be there at some point.

[CENTER]

Signum_Signatur.png

[/CENTER]

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...