Announcement Regarding AGM-65 Maverick Loads

[FupDuck]

For what it's worth, I went ahead and pulled the trigger on the Harrier. My third full fidelity module! 

 

Really looking forward to the new training missions. As a feature request for those, can the time of day be adjusted so that the sun isn't behind the text? 

[Pikey]

2 minutes ago, Sandmonkee said:

For what it's worth, I went ahead and pulled the trigger on the Harrier. My third full fidelity module! 

 

Really looking forward to the new training missions. As a feature request for those, can the time of day be adjusted so that the sun isn't behind the text? 

It's a great module, completely unique in DCS, from the stats on my server and a recent poll It looks like the fourth most popular behind some crackers. It's often my go-to, and you have to look at it this way, its been hard work for Razbam but you have to judge them on the result rather than the journey.

[Beirut]

4 minutes ago, Sandmonkee said:

For what it's worth, I went ahead and pulled the trigger on the Harrier. My third full fidelity module! 

 

 

Excellent!

 

Notwithstanding the last few days of back and forth, the Harrier is a terrific plane. The night lighting in the cockpit and the night vision with the goggles and the HUD are great. It's a blast to fly and it has a solid A2G punch.

 

I'd be hard pressed to think of a DCS plane I enjoy more.

[Victor3]

Thank you!

[CoBlue]

Good call Razbam!

[Fri13]

10 hours ago, Gizmo03 said:

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?

 

Unlike now in Razbam upcoming changes, the TPOD is interference with all mavericks.

With the IIR and Laser. It doesn't matter as Mavericks utilize same video feed and same control standard and all.

 

The TPOD in the Harrier is used via Maverick emulation. The system handles TPOD as it would be Maverick missile to get it video and to send controls to it.

 

And systems allows only one Maverick video to be active at the time. And this is why when TPOD video is shown in one MFCD then it overrides the Maverick video when you try to press uncage when Maverick is selected.

 

What you need to do is to switch away from the TPOD video by pressing MENU or SSS Right (if TPOD video on right) to switch to NAVFLIR for the moment you uncage a Maverick, acquire a lock (laser or contrast) and launch it, and then you can switch back to TPOD that has continued to operate at background for 15 seconds (laser is armes and firing 15 seconds after switching away from TPOD video).

 

You don't need to set TPOD to standby mode (disarms laser, boresight itself) as Razbam has now made you to do it.

 

The key difference is that you can't hold TPOD on right MFCD all the time and just select Maverick, uncage it, lock and launch and continue using TPOD simultaneously. 

 

This is not a major problem if Razbam would implement as well proper Maverick logic.

That when you have Maverick missile selected and you uncage its seeker, the Maverick video will appear automatically to left MFCD or to right MFCD if the STRS page is open in it.

Right now you can't have a Maverick video visible unless you have STRS page open on left MFCD. And it is incorrect.

 

Currently the logic is like on second time using same Maverick. As in first time a maverick is uncaged the video appears to left MFCD automarically. But if you switch away from it by pressing MENU or SSS Left to open EHSI/EW then Maverick video is running at the background and is not recalled by uncage button. Now you need to do MENU -> STRS -> Uncage to get Maverick video back to left MFCD.

 

So at the moment Razbam has implemented Maverick uncage and video logic as it would be already opened previously and you always need to do this MENU -> STRS -> Uncage dancing.

 

So how would you utilize the Maverick with TPOD?

 

1. Search target with TPOD.

2. Select Maverick and A/G mode.

3. Track target with TPOD.

4. Master Arm On, create mark point or laze the target.

5. Switch away from TPOD video with MENU or SSS Down 2x + Right/Aft.

6. Uncage Maverick.

7. Confirm lock/track for Maverick to laser or contrast.

8. Launch Maverick 

9. Open TPOD on right MFCD with MENU -> TPOD.

 

Do this under 15 seconds and TPOD continues firing laser on target undisturbed.

The Litening is a standalone unit, it performs at the background its own things and is not part of the aircraft sensors.

It just has these safety features like 15 second disarmed for laser when TPOD video is not shown.

 

Because for optimal "keyhole" launch for Maverick, you need to anyways fly toward target for launch. This allows you to use LMAV search pattern with HUD mode what is smallest. You acquire quickly the laser if you are in range etc, and get to launch. But likely the missile will block your TPOD video with smoke or heat waves and E maverick will lose lock and go dud. While E2/L variant will survive the launch for few seconds lack of laser and will acquire laser again. Making possible to self-designate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[QuiGon]

10 hours ago, Beirut said:

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

 

I guess you have not heard about Black Shark 3 then... (see here on pages 9 - 17)

Or about the MiG-21bis and it's features from other variants than ours (beam riding missiles, CCIP)

Or the Sabre (see here)

...

[Beirut]

33 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

I guess you have not heard about Black Shark 3 then... (see here on pages 9 - 17)

Or about the MiG-21bis and it's features from other variants than ours (beam riding missiles, CCIP)

Or the Sabre (see here)

...

 

Hmmmmm, terrible indeed. 

 

I guess this means people will have to embrace the horror and use self-control and simply not buy those modules or not use those options. 

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

Gib more details on iff menus 

[Tippis]

I will gladly advocate franken-planes for the simple reason that the appellation has long since become a laughably weak excuse to do exactly the kind of backwards limitations and reductions in functionality that Razbam has now been forced to reverse course on. One can only hope that this will now spread to the other developers and that the silly label dies the ignominious death it so thoroughly deserves.

 

Most of the time, the “franken:ness” of a plane is just reality, but without the artificial constraints of doctrine added in. All capabilities should always be present on all aircraft — let the mission-maker decide what specific would apply to a given mission that would make any given setup “legit” or a “frankenplane”.

[Fri13]

29 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

I guess you have not heard about Black Shark 3 then... (see here on pages 9 - 17)

 

BS3 is mostly true. Where ED took educated guess is that as it was planned that KA-52 leads the flight of KA-50, that they would share most of the parts as much as possible, as the front cockpit section is different between models. And as KA-52 had same wing and avionics as KA-50 at the early phase, then the KA-50 would have same wing as KA-52 got upgraded, as KA-50 as well for glass cockpit same as KA-52 got.

 

The KA-50 was designed to carry A/A missiles, IGLA or R-73 so it is realistic to have it supported.

 

The president-S system was as well designed for it, sold even as kit and used. So it is as well realistic. But because law, ED didn't dare to model the IR lamp turrets even when it was with it.

 

But where ED took creative license, is the president-S system MWS display integrated to ABRIS. Because we don't have glass cockpit version, and there is no information that where the system own small display would be placed, they simply use ABRIS to show the realistic threat display. The display is realistic, with small changes to avoid legal cases, like instead a triangle threat warning they used circle symbol. Instead a missile shaped symbol for missile position, they use a pointed block. But all that is almost identical to real thing. So that is where I have personally a problem with it as I would have liked to see display fitted somewhere as it works as RWR as well.

 

29 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

Or about the MiG-21bis and it's features from other variants than ours (beam riding missiles, CCIP)

 

The Kh-66 is sadly true not to be in Bis because it requires older PFM radar.

But the CCIP is true, except for the bombs. You have a CCIP pipper for cannon and rockets, but bombs are dropped using a old school angle, speed and altitude table and that should be removed from bombs.

As well the pipper following IR seeker is incorrect. 

 

29 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

Or the Sabre (see here)

...

 

For that I don't say anything.

 

 

[shagrat]

53 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

I guess you have not heard about Black Shark 3 then... (see here on pages 9 - 17)

Or about the MiG-21bis and it's features from other variants than ours (beam riding missiles, CCIP)

Or the Sabre (see here)

...

And what does that have to do with Razbam? Or the AV-8B? Or the AGM-65F?

And in case of "Black Sharks 3" there isn't even clear what exactly we get. Especially, as the whole Ka-50 was a prototype mix from the beginning... Still, that's EDs baby, so better complain there. 

The decision Razbam made, very much represents the capabilities of the AV-8B better now, and in fact makes it more(!) true to life. 

As discussed to death, already, the doctrine, even in real life, changes based on necessity and environment, but doctrine doesn't remove capabilities from an airframe. Changes to hardware and software do that.

That's why people are happy they did not decide to artificially remove a capability, simply because it wasn't used in a long time and ultimately someone changed doctrine.

My sincerest and honest thanks to Razbam to go the extra mile for us and model a more realistic representation of the Maverick family despite it being more effort.

[QuiGon]

28 minutes ago, shagrat said:

And what does that have to do with Razbam? Or the AV-8B? Or the AGM-65F?

 

Nothing. Once again you fail to read my posts within the context of which I wrote them and that's getting really frustrating. It was just a direct answer to the question where there are Frankenplanes in DCS and if you go back and follow the context that lead to it, you will find out how this came up here. I'm not repeating this here, just because you can't read context.

Edited July 8, 2021 by QuiGon

[Beirut]

46 minutes ago, Tippis said:

I will gladly advocate franken-planes for the simple reason that the appellation has long since become a laughably weak excuse to do exactly the kind of backwards limitations and reductions in functionality that Razbam has now been forced to reverse course on. One can only hope that this will now spread to the other developers and that the silly label dies the ignominious death it so thoroughly deserves.

 

Most of the time, the “franken:ness” of a plane is just reality, but without the artificial constraints of doctrine added in. All capabilities should always be present on all aircraft — let the mission-maker decide what specific would apply to a given mission that would make any given setup “legit” or a “frankenplane”.

 

Yep.

 

And there are parameters of acceptability in all of this. If the RWR framajance is off by 2 degrees and the whosit angle of the whachamacalit comes from a Block 101 model instead of a Block 101.2, I can live with it. However, if they make planes that look my my nephews old G.I. Joe toys, and they have backwards firing JDAMS mounted on the tailfin, then we have an issue.

 

I apologize for all the tech talk above, I know it can be hard to for laymen to understand.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Beirut

[Northstar98]

On 7/8/2021 at 1:14 PM, Tippis said:

I will gladly advocate franken-planes for the simple reason that the appellation has long since become a laughably weak excuse to do exactly the kind of backwards limitations and reductions in functionality that Razbam has now been forced to reverse course on. One can only hope that this will now spread to the other developers and that the silly label dies the ignominious death it so thoroughly deserves.

 

Most of the time, the “franken:ness” of a plane is just reality, but without the artificial constraints of doctrine added in. All capabilities should always be present on all aircraft — let the mission-maker decide what specific would apply to a given mission that would make any given setup “legit” or a “frankenplane”.

Apart from in situations where aircraft have been explicitly advertised as being a representation of a specific aircraft, as operated by a specific operator, at a specific point in time, as accurate as feasible. Where it very much is not reality at all. Where doctrine does in fact change what the aircraft is physically compatible with, be it from software or hardware.

Here doctrine is far from just being an artificial constraint, as it directly affects what the aircraft in question is actually capable of. All capabilities an aircraft has typically span across multiple variants however slight, where some apply and some do not.

If we get a unicorn variant that's customiseable to suit any variant you want, then I'd agree with you, but for most modules where this argument crops up, this absolutely isn't the case whatsoever, and doing so would probably not be feasible.

Now before people chime in about unrealistic scenarios this, and liveries that. The aim should be to get assets and maps as accurate to their IRL counterparts as feasibly possible. The scenarios you make and how you use said assets, should be, and is, completely up to you.

If it's true that in the mid 2010s AGM-65F integration was discontinued and the aircraft no longer supports it, then I'm okay with it being deleted. However, my main beef here is that the RAZBAM Harrier was essentially a unicorn variant going from the early 2000s (AGM-122), to the mid 2010s (APKWS, GBU-54), and now RAZBAM have suddenly decided that they intend for it to be a mid 2010s variant, despite this being a change after the aircraft has supposedly left EA and into release status, when it was pretty poorly communicated what variant they were going for.

In this case, I'm going to maintain that just offering different variants would be the solution that caters for absolutely everyone while sacrificing nothing.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Recluse]

37 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

Yep.

 

And there are parameters of acceptability in all of this. If the RWR framajance is off by 2 degrees and the whosit angle of the whachamacalit comes from a Block 101 model instead of a Block 101.2, I can live with it. However, if they make planes that look my my nephews old G.I. Joe toys, and they have backwards firing JDAMS mounted on the tailfin, then we have an issue.

 

I apologize for all the tech talk above, I know it can be hard to for laymen to understand.

 

 

It has been a constant source of amusement for me in the BUG forums:

 

"RWR framajance is off by 2 degrees"

 

OMG! THANK YOU! WILL BE FIXED IMMEDIATELY

 

"Missiles never fire"

 INVESTIGATING/MAYBE LATER/CORRECT AS IS

 

(OK a tiny bit of hyperbole here...)

 

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Recluse

[shagrat]

41 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

Nothing. Once again you fail to read my posts within the context of which I wrote them and that's getting really frustrating. It was just a direct answer to the question where there are Frankenplanes in DCS and if you go back and follow the context that lead to it, you will find out how this came up here. I'm not repeating this here, just because you can't read context.

 

Rest assured I read all your posts here, from the first, to this one. I just pointed out the stuff  you missed in the discussion, while you were busy to "promote" realism and putting the planes capabilities as true to real life as possible, while Razbam actually did exactly this.

We now get a more(!) realistic representation of the AV-8B and especially the Maverick operating procedures... Still you rant on about "Frankenplanes". Maybe you didn't read all the info that was posted in the discussion thread or here?

Anyway, I am very glad we model aircrafts and not doctrine, budget decisions and politics.

[Beirut]

22 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

If it's true that in the mid 2010s AGM-65F integration was discontinued and the aircraft no longer supports it, then I'm okay with it being deleted.

 

 

 

Maybe that's the crux of the issue: does it have to be deleted, or is it simply for the customer to use it or not, as he sees fit? 

 

If it's there, everyone has a choice. Isn't that the best option? 

 

 

[Fri13]

47 minutes ago, shagrat said:

As discussed to death, already, the doctrine, even in real life, changes based on necessity and environment, but doctrine doesn't remove capabilities from an airframe. Changes to hardware and software do that.

That's why people are happy they did not decide to artificially remove a capability, simply because it wasn't used in a long time and ultimately someone changed doctrine.

My sincerest and honest thanks to Razbam to go the extra mile for us and model a more realistic representation of the Maverick family despite it being more effort.

 

But that is the question/problem here.

 

Razbam made two claims.

 

1) Doctrine has changed and because politics the IRMAV is not anymore in inventory.

 

2) Because political change of not having IRMAV in inventory, that USMC made software updates that removed the IRMAV from the computer storage system so ordinance ground crew can not load the weapon to the mission computer.

 

Razbam made as well one another claim (possibly reason to delete whole thread).

 

3) IIR Maverick was never used on Harrier.

 

And that got storm response where people did provide evidence from 90's to early 2000. But that is not the question as circa 2015 model is simulated, and Razbam needs to provide evidence for their 2nd argument.

The first argument can be forgotten as it is political and doesn't matter in simulations, but if it is in reality reason to change the weapon compatibility that it can't be used, then documentation evidence is required for that, or the argument is invalid and hence IIR Maverick stays as valid loadout as it has been so for few years earlier (early 2010).

 

But....

 

If Razbam would had the evidence for the IIR Maverick incompatibility (not possible be launched) but bent to wishes of the community because so many just wants IIR Maverick, then it has lead to Harrier that is unrealistic now.

 

We never know really now, as Razbam has said that decision to keep IIR Maverick is purely because people want it so and hence unrealistic based to Razbam claim, regardless that Razbam didn't provide documentation for it. 

 

 

[Northstar98]

19 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Maybe that's the crux of the issue: does it have to be deleted, or is it simply for the customer to use it or not, as he sees fit?

 

I think the better question is, is it actually deleted on the real thing? The thing about doctrine and customer requirements, is that this does have a tangible effect on what the actual capability is.

 

RAZBAM's post seems to suggest that it actually is, it's no longer integrated with it. While I have no means of verifying it, I'm going to take their word for it for the sake of argument.

 

19 minutes ago, Beirut said:

If it's there, everyone has a choice. Isn't that the best option? 

 

Personally, I think the best choice is to offer variants that fit whatever eras - as far as I see it, it's the best solution while sacrificing nothing, especially when said variants should be fairly trivial to make.

 

Personally, if we want to go down the route of an aircraft that's supposed to be a specific representation for x operator, circa y the criteria should IMO be:

• Is the weapon integrated on the aircraft for operator x, and timeframe y?
• Is the weapon in service with the same operator, for the same timeframe?

If yes to both, go for it.

 

I think the best way to represent the capabilities of multiple aircraft variants, is to offer those variants - especially in cases where the change should be fairly trivial.

 

So we could have a mid 2000s Harrier, and a 2010 Harrier, that way we get to have AGM-65F, APKWS and GBU-54 - everyone is happy and absolutely nothing is sacrificed whatsoever.

[Beirut]

17 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

I think the better question is, is it actually deleted on the real thing? The thing about doctrine and customer requirements, is that this does have a tangible effect on what the actual capability is.

 

RAZBAM's post seems to suggest that it actually is, it's no longer integrated with it. While I have no means of verifying it, I'm going to take their word for it for the sake of argument.

 

 

Personally, I think the best choice is to offer variants that fit whatever eras - as far as I see it, it's the best solution while sacrificing nothing, especially when said variants should be fairly trivial to make.

 

Personally, if we want to go down the route of an aircraft that's supposed to be a specific representation for x operator, circa y the criteria should IMO be:

• Is the weapon integrated on the aircraft for operator x, and timeframe y?
• Is the weapon in service with the same operator, for the same timeframe?

If yes to both, go for it.

 

I think the best way to represent the capabilities of multiple aircraft variants, is to offer those variants - especially in cases where the change should be fairly trivial.

 

So we could have a mid 2000s Harrier, and a 2010 Harrier, that way we get to have AGM-65F, APKWS and GBU-54 - everyone is happy and absolutely nothing is sacrificed whatsoever.

 

You're probably right, but this may be a big part of the issue: ". . . said variants should be fairly trivial to make."

 

I'd be happy to have several models, but that means time and money on some level, whereas just leaving the AGM-65Fs is free. And that one of the reasons I thought removing the AGM-65F seemed like such a bad idea; not only do we have it and use it and most people enjoy it, but just leaving it alone costs nothing. 

 

Seemed like RB was spending a quarter to earn a dime.

 

 

[Northstar98]

2 minutes ago, Beirut said:

You're probably right, but this may be a big part of the issue: ". . . said variants should be fairly trivial to make."

 

I'd be happy to have several models, but that means time and money on some level, whereas just leaving the AGM-65Fs is free. And that one of the reasons I thought removing the AGM-65F seemed like such a bad idea; not only do we have it and use it and most people enjoy it, but just leaving it alone costs nothing. 

 

Seemed like RB was spending a quarter to earn a dime.

 

Well in this case I'd say it holds - the RAZBAM Harrier initially seemed to be reasonably representative of an early-to-mid 2000s aircraft. It's only more recently (2020 and onwards) where they gave it successive updates that put it more in line with a mid 2010s aircraft (APKWS, GBU-54, LITENING G4).

 

So instead of doing 2 variants, they started off as 1 and then ended up at another. Whereas what they could've done, is leave there 2000s Harrier with the features it had (obviously excluding bugs and stuff that's missing), copy and paste it, then do the 2010s upgrades that they did to it, if that makes sense.

 

Kinda exactly what happened with the A-10C and the A-10C II.

[SaxonRaider]

I fly the Harrier as British as we have no Harrier. So as far as weapons go, so long as at some point they had the missiles on the aircraft, then its all good.

 

Although what i think would be great it if there was something in DCS which would allow us to select a country and year of the aircraft and the weapons availability could be filtered out of the selections.

Edited July 8, 2021 by SaxonRaider

[shagrat]

4 hours ago, Fri13 said:

that USMC made software updates that removed the IRMAV from the computer storage system so ordinance ground crew can not load the weapon to the mission computer.

I am not aware, they said it in that detail.

What I've read is "All this new flow of new information and data *indicated* that the AGM-65F, while available to the Harriers in the 2000s, was not in service in the USMC and *not integrated in the mid 2010s update* the Harriers received."

Approaching from a logical point of view, the "removal" or even changes to any of the hardware, like wheel well interface, or any additional programming to "filter" a certain MAV version, translates into budget investment and additional effort to test it.

 

I can't think of a reason that justifies that waste of money and ressources. 

 

What I can think of, is the "removal" of the IRMAV training syllabus, the respective chapters in manuals and no longer training personnel in the specifics of that weapon, to safe time and money in training of ground crews and pilots, based on the doctrine changes.

 

That is why I think the AV-8B still has the same capability to fire an IRMAV, as it still has the capability to fire an AGM-122 Sidearm, or drop Mk-20 CBUs, as these far older weapons were obviously not removed by the "2010 update".

Edited July 8, 2021 by shagrat

[Fri13]

19 minutes ago, shagrat said:

I am not aware, they said it in that detail.

 

What they said is only part where it really leads to, a software change to remove the specific weapon code. 

 

19 minutes ago, shagrat said:

What I've read is "All this new flow of new information and data *indicated* that the AGM-65F, while available to the Harriers in the 2000s, was not in service in the USMC and *not integrated in the mid 2010s update* the Harriers received."

Approaching from a logical point of view, the "removal" or even changes to any of the hardware, like wheel well interface, or any additional programming to "filter" a certain MAV version, translates into budget investment and additional effort to test it.

 

The hardware in the main wheelwell isn't required to be changed. Just the software change (not even update software) to remove the listed weapon code from active ones.

 

19 minutes ago, shagrat said:

I can't think of a reason that justifies that waste of money and ressources. 

 

Good reason would be either one:

1) Free some memory from computer.

2) Normal maintenance task to disable unused codes to limit accidental entries.

 

But neither one is really good as if weapon is not even available for the missions, then you don't accidentally enter it either. 

 

19 minutes ago, shagrat said:

What I can think of, is the "removal" of the IRMAV training syllabus, the respective chapters in manuals and no longer training personnel in the specifics of that weapon, to safe time and money in training of ground crews and pilots, based on the doctrine changes.

 

Exactly. No weapon to be funded for the units, then update the manuals for doctrine and training. Easiest and cheapest thing. 

 

19 minutes ago, shagrat said:

That is why I think the AV-8B still has the same capability to fire an IRMAV, as it still has the capability to fire an AGM-122 Sidearm, or drop Mk-20 CBUs, as these far older weapons were obviously not removed by the "2010 update".

 

You don't need to remove them from software. You just don't enter their codes from your loadout paper to computer.

 

This is just again problematic for Razbam. 

 

They made claim about technical compatibility change in software.

 

They should follow it through without listening the community at all for opposition if that is clearly unrealistic weapon loadout.

Just present the evidence and people should understand that Harrier can't operate the weapon as it is technically impossible.

 

But now razbam makes question those AGM-122 and Mk.20's as how they can be in the compatibility list when you don't have them anymore? 

 

So instead going for a realistic Harrier as said, they listen community that just scream for "incompatible weapons" because Razbam has made such claim.

 

Either they are available (compatible) or they are not. It doesn't matter what community wants but just the technical capabilities.

 

Because evidence was not provided that technical compatibility is removed, then Razbam should have come forward and say they made mistake and it is supported and not to say that they listened upset mob and are scared to remove a incompatible weapon from Harrier.

As now it looks exactly like that developers bent front of the users who do not care about technical compatibility.