Announcement Regarding AGM-65 Maverick Loads

[Recluse]

2 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

IMHO it has not been discussed almost at all. Almost everyone else is just discussing about F being removed or not to be removed. But the TPOD overriding all Mavericks simultaneous use is barely mentioned by anyone else than me.  

 

That is what I meant 

[USA_Recon]

1 hour ago, Beirut said:

 

Well now that you mention it... 

 

It's a question of balance, and fun and entertainment are a big fat part of the equation. If they said they were going to mount AMRAAMS on the wingtips, okay, that's a bridge too far. If they said they were going to reduce the AGM-65F to only two pylons because of real life tech reasons, okay, I prefer four, but two it is. But to remove existing features that people use and enjoy, that are realistic on apparently some level, that can become a problem. This is a game after all and it has to be fun or no one will buy anything.

 

If I want truly hardcore realism, I'll go to work.

 

 

If that is why it was done then too bad.  I believe in ED sticking to realism over balance .  If it needed a jtac then use a jtac.  
 

If it was done because it had the capability to carry it then fine.  But don’t say it was done for “balance”.  

[shagrat]

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

But at not any position should any weapon be include in the aircraft without technical compatibility because players want so

That's what I said. Model the real life capabilities, but leave doctrine, budget decisions and stock recommission, etc. to the mission builders.

Edited July 7, 2021 by shagrat

[shagrat]

3 hours ago, QuiGon said:

 

Not for me. It means more casual washed down Frankenplanes in the future instead of a true to real life simulation of actual aircraft.

 

  

 

This!

 

That's the problem here, the AV-8B never "lost" the capability to employ the F, they simply had no reason to do it for a long time (permissive, low threat environment, ultimately doctrine change).

The thing is as far as I know the "plane" does have a wiring on the pylon that supports seeker control and a video feed plus the usual "launch" stuff. The TPOD simulates a Maverick video feed to show on the MPCD, only one feed at a time, but basically the difference between the E and F is what they "feed" to the display. The F feeds a video from.the IR cam, the E a "video" of a black background and the laser spot it tracks. The seeker is controlled by relative axis commands from the MC ("look X degree right, Y degree down") or directly by the TDC axis inputs... If it is a Laser Seeker or IR camera is irrelevant to the airframe... Please correct me if I am wrong, here!

 

So if that's the difference, what is the actual change on the plane that makes it impossible on the 2010 Software version to employ an AGM-65F?

I can't see any and the argument was solely "the AGM-65F has never been used" on the 2010(!) version.

If there is evidence that some brilliant mind actually put in the effort to prevent(!) the usage of an AGM-65F on the plane it would be a different story.

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, USA_Recon said:

If that is why it was done then too bad.  I believe in ED sticking to realism over balance .  If it needed a jtac then use a jtac.  
 

If it was done because it had the capability to carry it then fine.  But don’t say it was done for “balance”.  

 

I mean, lets be real here.

E mavs will now suck more since you can't self lase them (good thing), you need a buddy (bad, since DCS ai doesn't do this) or you use a Jtac if thats feaisable from your mission design.

F mavs will be made more realistic (great IMO), so now you have to do the alignment dance, and with the new flir model they will suck more.

E-2mavs will be the new hawtness, which tbh they are so thats all good.

 

So in this case from a capability/realism standpoint it all looks good to me.

 

TBH I'm pretty excited we get toss/loft bombing included. 

 

And I'm curious about the combatflite integration since DCS desperately needs mission planning tools, especially for multiplayer.

 

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Recluse]

8 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

F mavs will be made more realistic (great IMO), so now you have to do the alignment dance, and with the new flir model they will suck more.

 

I hated the Maverick Boresighting in the F-16 (BMS) which I guess is also a thing in DCS F-16 but not in the F/A-18 (YET)  and wasn't in the Harrier. 

 

I could just hear the rivet counter pearls being clutched!!

 

 

[Aries144]

Razbam,

Allowing mission and server designers the ability to set the era for a given airframe via ordnance allowance or limitation is the right decision. In this case it allows for full simulation of the many near peer conflicts the Harrier Night Attack participated in, rather than limiting it to the ordnance commonly carried during one very restrictive COIN operation.

Thank you for your commitment to simulation over ease of maintenance. We'll do our part to support your efforts with our money.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Aries144

[Baco]

Yes, more options is Better than less, every time ;).

I was always Puzzeld by the decistion to keep the airframes exactly as waht they represent and not being able to make believe its soem other block or sligt variation of teh same aircraft. specially with having older armament and systems available for missions.

I hop eit begins a trend of more flexibility in DCS.

 

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

That's the problem here, the AV-8B never "lost" the capability to employ the F, they simply had no reason to do it for a long time (permissive, low threat environment, ultimately doctrine change).

The thing is as far as I know the "plane" does have a wiring on the pylon that supports seeker control and a video feed plus the usual "launch" stuff. The TPOD simulates a Maverick video feed to show on the MPCD, only one feed at a time, but basically the difference between the E and F is what they "feed" to the display. The F feeds a video from.the IR cam, the E a "video" of a black background and the laser spot it tracks. The seeker is controlled by relative axis commands from the MC ("look X degree right, Y degree down") or directly by the TDC axis inputs... If it is a Laser Seeker or IR camera is irrelevant to the airframe... Please correct me if I am wrong, here!

 

You are not incorrect. It is so that for the plane it doesn't matter what a video feed there is received from the weapon, it is just shown as standard tells. The laser maverick video is just artificial one where the seeker head position relative to gimbal limit is drawn without any live video. Where the IR maverick draws that same seeker angle relative to gimbal but with a IR camera video at the background. Just as you say.

   

 

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

So if that's the difference, what is the actual change on the plane that makes it impossible on the 2010 Software version to employ an AGM-65F?

I can't see any and the argument was solely "the AGM-65F has never been used" on the 2010(!) version.

 

Only thing I can come up is that the storage codes would be removed so the ordnance ground crew can not enter the proper weapons code (1.14.5.1 Stores Management Preflight Programming.) to the system when loading the IRMAV from the panel inside main wheelwell. But then again why would you if you don't have them in the storage anyways?

 

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

If there is evidence that some brilliant mind actually put in the effort to prevent(!) the usage of an AGM-65F on the plane it would be a different story.

 

It would be interesting to get that evidence (like example in Chapter 3 of complete list of codes).  I would come up with two reasons:

1) To decrease used computer memory for some new weapons loadouts.

2) To minimize the possibility to select IRMAV for the LMAV. 

 

But neither one does not make really sense.

[vsTerminus]

First of all I want to say thank you Razbam for listening to the community and taking our feedback to heart. But I do want to clear one thing up:

 

 

> But this decision, based on the facts stated before, overlooked the fact that some of our customers liked the idea or are fond of using said missile.

 

This is not the right way to look at it.

 

> Having said that, it has been decided to keep the weapon to better represent early 2000s AV-8B N/A capabilities to give the freedom to the player to fly realistic mid 2010s loadouts or not.

 

This is.

 

The fact remains that the IR Maverick was tested and cleared for use on the Harrier, it *was* used operationally, and even if certain groups decided to stop using it the jet is still approved for its use. My preference has always been to look at DCS as not having to be confined to operational guidelines but by whatever is technically possible for the airframe. Let mission creators and pilots themselves decide how operationally accurate they want to be with their loadouts.

 

Maybe Razbam can help us pressure ED into improving the store limitations side of things, because right now it's not even possible for us to detect if a plane has a targeting pod attached. The warehouse functionality is opaque to the scripting environment and breaks every time a new weapon is added. Servers that currently restrict loadouts have to do it by destroying the plane or other hackish workarounds because there is no proper way to limit weapons per slot or per airframe.

 

Anyway, keeping the IR mavs was a good decision in my view. DCS frequently requires us to shoehorn modules into different time periods and the primary way we do that is by restricting weapons. Keeping IR Mavs around allows us to better do that in the Harrier. So thank you.

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

you need a buddy (bad, since DCS ai doesn't do this)

 

One thing that ED could do to really improve the gameplay in DCS. Allow AI aircraft to designate targets for you, or you for it. It would be great to have already a Mi-24P Petrovich like AI intelligence for Night Missions where you could paint an area with TPOD laser marker (or dual-marker/laser) and the AI would look at that area and search target there. Or you to launch a flare rocket or bomb on area and AI would search inside that area, or otherway around. 

 

It would be even so great to have the AI fly and designate targets with a smoke rocket. This would make Su-25 and KA-50 or Mi-8 far more useful when you could put rocket on area and AI would search and engage targets there visually.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

F mavs will be made more realistic (great IMO), so now you have to do the alignment dance, and with the new flir model they will suck more.

 

Hopefully we need to do aligment for the DMT too. Just like for the NAVFLIR already.

 

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

E-2mavs will be the new hawtness, which tbh they are so thats all good.

 

The Laser mavericks limitations should be on all modules, but it seems that Razbam has just overcome now the TPOD <-> E2/L limitation as well that should be there same way as it is with E or F Mavericks.

 

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

TBH I'm pretty excited we get toss/loft bombing included. 

 

That was surprising addition. 

I still hope they could slip in the much needed proper TPOD stations on the proper ones. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

And I'm curious about the combatflite integration since DCS desperately needs mission planning tools, especially for multiplayer.

 

That I missed totally.... Wow. 

[Pikey]

And with that, Maverick-gate was concluded and we can be friends again.

Realism is in the eye of the beholder. Advice, knowledge and rulesets are much more cherished than hard level restrictions. The mission designer is the one that should get to choose.

[Pikey]

1 hour ago, vsTerminus said:

Maybe Razbam can help us pressure ED into improving the store limitations side of things, because right now it's not even possible for us to detect if a plane has a targeting pod attached. The warehouse functionality is opaque to the scripting environment and breaks every time a new weapon is added. Servers that currently restrict loadouts have to do it by destroying the plane or other hackish workarounds because there is no proper way to limit weapons per slot or per airframe.

I've asked this over and over and I know ED know its wanted because I've had long and verbose talks with many people over the years, and ED do read our posts. I would like a way to compile all the people that asked and put it in a mega thread so that the full force of the ask would be comprehended, unfortunatley, it's not acknowledged like many wishlist items, sometimes they hit you with it years down the line, sometimes you wait a decade and you didn't get it ED is a blindfolded box of chocolates.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Pikey

[Teeps]

Good choice Razbam, thank you.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Recluse said:

I hated the Maverick Boresighting in the F-16 (BMS) which I guess is also a thing in DCS F-16 but not in the F/A-18 (YET)  and wasn't in the Harrier. 

 

I could just hear the rivet counter pearls being clutched!!

 

 

 

Its a thing with all mavs AFAIK. ED just didn't add it to the A10 or F18 early on. I think/hope they are gonna redo it for all modules with the IR rework.

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Its a thing with all mavs AFAIK. ED just didn't add it to the A10 or F18 early on. I think/hope they are gonna redo it for all modules with the IR rework.

 

I hope they add as well special option to have mavericks aligned if hot started. As it will make testing easier and many user happy when they don't need to deal with alignment each time they respawn or start their own mission. 

Just like navigation systems alignment, have option to have targeting systems too...

 

 

[Thanatos31]

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

One thing that ED could do to really improve the gameplay in DCS. Allow AI aircraft to designate targets for you, or you for it. It would be great to have already a Mi-24P Petrovich like AI intelligence for Night Missions where you could paint an area with TPOD laser marker (or dual-marker/laser) and the AI would look at that area and search target there. Or you to launch a flare rocket or bomb on area and AI would search inside that area, or otherway around. 

 

It would be even so great to have the AI fly and designate targets with a smoke rocket. This would make Su-25 and KA-50 or Mi-8 far more useful when you could put rocket on area and AI would search and engage targets there visually.  

 

 

 

Hopefully we need to do aligment for the DMT too. Just like for the NAVFLIR already.

 

 

The Laser mavericks limitations should be on all modules, but it seems that Razbam has just overcome now the TPOD <-> E2/L limitation as well that should be there same way as it is with E or F Mavericks.

 

 

That was surprising addition. 

I still hope they could slip in the much needed proper TPOD stations on the proper ones. 

 

 

 

That I missed totally.... Wow. 

 What’s the correct TPOD stations / pylons thing? 

[Fri13]

10 minutes ago, Thanatos31 said:

 What’s the correct TPOD stations / pylons thing? 

 

All five stations. 2,3, 4B, 5 and 6 wired for TPOD.

 

Razbam said almost two years ago that they are included but didn't.

 

 

[FupDuck]

19 hours ago, Tippis said:

Was it really necessary to delete the feedback thread?

It has a plethora of very good points and ideas in it that will be worth coming back to and reminding you, and indeed all DCS devs, of.

So that's what happened! I was wondering why it was saying I didn't have access to the post. 

 

And I agree, why delete that? Amongst the shit posts were a few good ideas and lots of good historical information! 

[Gizmo03]

Sorry for that stupid question but i think i missed something. 

As far as i know there is some kind of incompatibility between the IRMAV and the TPod, right so far? But what about the LMAVs?
Is it NOT working with the TGP? Even with the E-2?

If thats correct and there neither another aircraft to designate a target nor a JTAC the LMAV can‘t be used?

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

I hope they add as well special option to have mavericks aligned if hot started. As it will make testing easier and many user happy when they don't need to deal with alignment each time they respawn or start their own mission. 

Just like navigation systems alignment, have option to have targeting systems too...

 

 

 

If you airstart in a viper its all auto aligned. Or maybe even hot start IDK, you do need to align from a cold start tho.

22 minutes ago, Gizmo03 said:

Sorry for that stupid question but i think i missed something. 

As far as i know there is some kind of incompatibility between the IRMAV and the TPod, right so far? But what about the LMAVs?
Is it NOT working with the TGP? Even with the E-2?

If thats correct and there neither another aircraft to designate a target nor a JTAC the LMAV can‘t be used?

 

You can self laze with E-2 mavs. Standard model E you can't (when they change it, currently you can).

[QuiGon]

5 hours ago, shagrat said:

That's the problem here, the AV-8B never "lost" the capability to employ the F, they simply had no reason to do it for a long time (permissive, low threat environment, ultimately doctrine change).

The thing is as far as I know the "plane" does have a wiring on the pylon that supports seeker control and a video feed plus the usual "launch" stuff. The TPOD simulates a Maverick video feed to show on the MPCD, only one feed at a time, but basically the difference between the E and F is what they "feed" to the display. The F feeds a video from.the IR cam, the E a "video" of a black background and the laser spot it tracks. The seeker is controlled by relative axis commands from the MC ("look X degree right, Y degree down") or directly by the TDC axis inputs... If it is a Laser Seeker or IR camera is irrelevant to the airframe... Please correct me if I am wrong, here!

 

So if that's the difference, what is the actual change on the plane that makes it impossible on the 2010 Software version to employ an AGM-65F?

I can't see any and the argument was solely "the AGM-65F has never been used" on the 2010(!) version.

If there is evidence that some brilliant mind actually put in the effort to prevent(!) the usage of an AGM-65F on the plane it would be a different story.

 

That's all nice, but when you quoted me there I wasn't even talking about the Maverick and if it is realistic or not. I was replying to a general comment on the dev philosophy of letting users decide over aircraft capabilities in general.

[Gizmo03]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb Harlikwin:

You can self laze with E-2 mavs. Standard model E you can't (when they change it, currently you can).

Got it. Thanks!!

[Beirut]

9 hours ago, QuiGon said:

 

Not for me. It means more casual washed down Frankenplanes in the future instead of a true to real life simulation of actual aircraft.

 

 

 

Far as I've seen no one, not one person, advocates a Frankeplane. Neither have I seen any developer offer one.

 

If the devs propose an interior weapons bay on the Harrier that holds 6xAIM-54s, then we can have the discussion. The AGM-65F situation, as it stands now, is not within a light-year of a Frankenplane scenario.

[Fri13]

18 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

You can self laze with E-2 mavs. Standard model E you can't (when they change it, currently you can).

 

Technically you should be able self-designate E same way as E2/L, but it likely will not survive the launch and you waste the missile.

 

There is no checking in Maverick that do you have a TPOD and is it firing a laser or not. The E Maverick doesn't care from where the laser comes from.

 

Based to the marketing and explanations the E2/L just has timer between losing a lock to laser spot and deciding it is lost and time to pull evasive maneuver to avoid impact.

 

This is what should be simulated in all modules capable launch Mavericks, not just Harrier. And it is not to do with the TPOD itself as others don't seem to have a such a emulation.