correct as-is Excellent Viper patch ED! Can we talk about LAU-88 now?

[TheBigTatanka]

If it works like this in real life, then it should be like this.

It depends. It's an operator limitation vs an aircraft capability limitation. It's not unlike the old discussion that the jet was too fast on the deck -- people wanted ED to take away thrust or otherwise modify the top speed of the jet, because it was exceeding the limit of the canopy glass.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Xavven]

4 minutes ago, ASW said:

If it works like this in real life, then it should be like this.

 

It does work like this IRL with the ~2007 USAF ANG Viper.

 

However, one could also mount a GBU-31 on station 4/7 and it wouldn't guide when dropped. But I'm not sure that adding non-functional munitions is a good idea given that it would only serve to confuse newbies.

[Munkwolf]

3 minutes ago, ASW said:

If it works like this in real life, then it should be like this.

 

Imo, that's kind of the root issue here. Afaik, the change was made because the specific USAF version of the block we have didn't use them.

 

Imo, that should be a mission or server restriction, not a module restriction.

[TheBigTatanka]

Right, it should not be a module restriction if the jet is capable of it /was capable of it before 2007 -- it's an operator limitation.

I've flown 4 jets in my career, 3 for the USAF -- There are always capabilities or features that are not used procedurally that once were or could be again. If I were making a sim (and I'm glad I'm not, and I'm thankful that others are), i would not tie people's hands behind their backs because of an operator limit.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[ViFF]

1 hour ago, TheBigTatanka said:

It's frustrating, it's technically possible to use smart weapons on 4/6 with a wiring modification; nothing in the design that prevents it.

As far as ferrying HARMs on 4/6 -- that would be cool if we were in a whole-world sim and had a totally working INS system and a persistent dynamic campaign with warehouse system.

I'm just frustrated by this move to limit one jet for "realism" while allowing complete fantasy in other mods.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

 

Agreed very frustrating. The "wiring modification" is actually an intervention by the specific operator (ANG) to dumb down what was an otherwise a fully capable aircraft delivered from the OEM, all for the sake of cutting down maintenance and replacement costs of umbilical connectors becuase these are components that have a high rate of change due to all the punishment they take from being exposed to adverse weather conditions and normal wear and tear when releasing ordinance. The Israelis for example, kept them and are carrying GBU-31 JDAMS on stations 4 and 6 on their Block 40 Vipers.

Edited July 22, 2021 by ViFF

[Frederf]

12 minutes ago, TheBigTatanka said:

Right, it should not be a module restriction if the jet is capable of it /was capable of it before 2007 -- it's an operator limitation.

I've flown 4 jets in my career, 3 for the USAF -- There are always capabilities or features that are not used procedurally that once were or could be again. If I were making a sim (and I'm glad I'm not, and I'm thankful that others are), i would not tie people's hands behind their backs because of an operator limit.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

In this particular case it's not just a regulatory restriction. The airplane is physically incapable of it.

[TheBigTatanka]

In this particular case it's not just a regulatory restriction. The airplane is physically incapable of it.

Because at the direction of the operator, the wiring was removed -- but that's a reversible decision; and not all that difficult in the scheme of things.

We're talking about one wiring harness here. And the plane was designed with the ability and intent that this feature be used.



Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Frederf]

It's a couple months rebuilding the airplane and I'm not sure if the OFP needs any changes. It's significant plus it was never done. The realm of things that can be done with similar effort is vast.

[PickleMonster]

12 hours ago, Rubberduck85 said:

How about creating a "checkbox system" in the editor.
 

How about using the scripting system to check if more than 4 AGM-65's are on the aircraft?

Edited July 22, 2021 by PickleMonster

[TheBigTatanka]

It's a couple months rebuilding the airplane and I'm not sure if the OFP needs any changes. It's significant plus it was never done. The realm of things that can be done with similar effort is vast.

That's true. I was told about a month.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[jppsx]

this situation is quite ridiculous that f16 get nerfed to please a few people who are obese whit usaf regulation on what plane should carry to limit maintenance cost .

if some one want to follow usaf regulation to save money they just have load payload they want 

[Steel Jaw]

Is DCSW a simulation or an arcade shooter?  Granted hard to tell some days given what I see on the servers.  But if this claims to be a SIMULATION then yes disable triple Rifles on the Viper as it is totally unrealistic.  And no, I don’t care what so called arcade players think if that.  Carry on.

[Terzi]

Well do the triple mavericks as it is feasible in real life.

 

But also add the probability that the third maverick's booster cap can damage the tail stabilisators. Just like in real life. I don't dare to fly triple mavericks. Just unsafe.

[Xavven]

I don't really have a dog in this fight myself because I plan to continue running wing tanks on 4/6, but here are a couple things for ED to consider:

1. The newbies getting confused factor -- if the HARM cannot be launched from stations 4/6 then perhaps adding a note on it would be helpful in the loadout screen. Could I suggest "AGM-88C HARM - High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (Non functional on this station)" or just remove it outright? I think the addition of the little descriptions a couple patches ago was really good. It would have helped me when I was new to DCS and didn't know which bombs were practice bombs, which sidewinders and mavericks were a training/captive version, etc.
2. I just added a player-flyable Israeli F-16CM bl. 50 in the mission editor now. We were just having a discussion about payloads in this thread https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/277761-inner-wing-pylon-payloads/ and someone posted a photograph of an IAF F-16 with GBU-31 on 4/6 (no idea if it's a bl. 50 or a different block though!). I get that the USAF ANG doesn't have the umbilicals for 4/6, but it would be nice to fly the F-16 for other countries in their configurations. Just something to think about.

[Rubberduck85]

How about using the scripting system to check if more than 4 AGM-65's are on the aircraft?

Even better, more time for ED to focus on issues as this isn't one.

Regards

Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

[jppsx]

 

29 minutes ago, Mower said:

Is DCSW a simulation or an arcade shooter?  Granted hard to tell some days given what I see on the servers.  But if this claims to be a SIMULATION then yes disable triple Rifles on the Viper as it is totally unrealistic.  And no, I don’t care what so called arcade players think if that.  Carry on.

not enough that pilon 4 and 6 got nerfed to simulate the usaf cutting maintenance on the wiring to save money now you need to ruin the mav , can you guy just use payload you want and not ruin everyone one else fun because of your obsessions on payload made to save money to the usaf on maintenance  .  who are you to tell what other should be loading on there plane , you not a general or commanding any air force and setting up the rule as what people should be able to load .

[TheBigTatanka]

 


not enough that pilon 4 and 6 got nerfed to simulate the usaf cutting maintenance on the wiring to save money now you need to ruin the mav , can you guy just use payload you want and not ruin everyone one else fun because of your obsessions on payload made to save money to the usaf on maintenance  .  who are you to tell what other should be loading on there plane , you not a general or commanding any air force and setting up the rule as what people should be able to load .

100% agree.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Northstar98]

35 minutes ago, jppsx said:

not enough that pilon 4 and 6 got nerfed to simulate the usaf cutting maintenance on the wiring to save money now you need to ruin the mav

 

It wasn't to save money, the wiring was never installed ever. When the thing rolled off of the factory, it wasn't wired on those hardpoints.

 

It isn't a nerf, it's more accurate.

 

One of you people really need to explain to me how making an aircraft more realistic and more like its real-life counterpart, in a simulator that's supposed to offer "the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible" is somehow a bad thing...

 

And while you're at it, can you please explain to me why an aircraft that ED has said they're going to take "great care though to develop a very accurate simulation of the F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007" should be anything other than precisely that.

 

35 minutes ago, jppsx said:

can you guy just use payload you want and not ruin everyone one else fun because of your obsessions on payload made to save money to the usaf on maintenance  .

 

Yes, how dare a simulator that's supposed to offer realism actually be realistic.

 

And is your fun solely dependent on having more than 2 mavericks? To the point that it would be ruined if you got less?

 

35 minutes ago, jppsx said:

who are you to tell what other should be loading on there plane , you not a general or commanding any air force and setting up the rule as what people should be able to load .

 

It's very simple - what's true to reality?

 

If the wiring isn't there in the real aircraft for the operator, variant and timeframe they're going for, then why should they be there in DCS?

Edited July 22, 2021 by Northstar98

[Steel Jaw]

54 minutes ago, jppsx said:

 

not enough that pilon 4 and 6 got nerfed to simulate the usaf cutting maintenance on the wiring to save money now you need to ruin the mav , can you guy just use payload you want and not ruin everyone one else fun because of your obsessions on payload made to save money to the usaf on maintenance  .  who are you to tell what other should be loading on there plane , you not a general or commanding any air force and setting up the rule as what people should be able to load .

No and too bad, be well.

[TheBigTatanka]

First of all, let's be clear that we are dealing with a video game, and not a true simulator, regardless of marketing.

All modules in DCS are symbols of their class, not 1:1 models of an individual particular machine that existed in the world.

If the block 50 viper is capable of carrying smart weapons on 4/6 -- which it is, either in the service of other nations, or with some modification in US service, then it should be represented in the game.

We're not going to get MLU Vipers, nor are we likely to get A model vipers -- so whatever ED makes needs to stand in for F-16s both past and future.

All the other jets in the game are amalgamations and symbols of a class. Look at the F-15C for example, should its early representation allow the carrying of 120Cs? Or the MiG-29, should it be able to carry three types of missiles the way it now does (it shouldn't). Should the US hornet carry a Spanish TGP?

This game is all about compromises, and like any simulation-game, requires a suspension of disbelief to be fun.

So we know that what ED is trying to model here could carry and use smart weapons on 4/6 with a wiring modification. We also know that as a symbol of the viper, it gives the most flexibility to players to have the system stand as it was -- and that doesn't interfere with anyone else's enjoyment, and if it did ... That can be limited server / mission side.

Part of this issue is guys coming in here asking for options and capabilities to be removed from the viper, when we really need that dev time spent on important system implementations.

You don't see guys in other forum sections begging for capability to be removed from other jets for the sake of "realism." Remember, authenticity and realism are moving targets, they change at the same rate they occur.



Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Rubberduck85]

 
It's very simple - what's true to reality?
 
If the wiring isn't there in the real aircraft for the operator, variant and timeframe they're going for, then why should they be there in DCS?

The current mav implementation is possible but not a standard loadout. ED's word.

Possible =/= unrealistic.

Not standard =/= impossible.

No one is being unrealistic, someone likes using non standard loadout if they want.
And guess what? It's not my case.

Again DCS is a sandbox simulator, not a doctrine simulator. I would never dream to tell people how to have fun.

If this fact represents a problem to the point that it's unbearable, this is called "OCD" in the clinical field and might require professional counseling.

Regards


Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

[Steel Jaw]

14 minutes ago, TheBigTatanka said:

First of all, let's be clear that we are dealing with a video game, and not a true simulator, regardless of marketing.

All modules in DCS are symbols of their class, not 1:1 models of an individual particular machine that existed in the world.

If the block 50 viper is capable of carrying smart weapons on 4/6 -- which it is, either in the service of other nations, or with some modification in US service, then it should be represented in the game.

We're not going to get MLU Vipers, nor are we likely to get A model vipers -- so whatever ED makes needs to stand in for F-16s both past and future.

All the other jets in the game are amalgamations and symbols of a class. Look at the F-15C for example, should its early representation allow the carrying of 120Cs? Or the MiG-29, should it be able to carry three types of missiles the way it now does (it shouldn't). Should the US hornet carry a Spanish TGP?

This game is all about compromises, and like any simulation-game, requires a suspension of disbelief to be fun.

So we know that what ED is trying to model here could carry and use smart weapons on 4/6 with a wiring modification. We also know that as a symbol of the viper, it gives the most flexibility to players to have the system stand as it was -- and that doesn't interfere with anyone else's enjoyment, and if it did ... That can be limited server / mission side.

Part of this issue is guys coming in here asking for options and capabilities to be removed from the viper, when we really need that dev time spent on important system implementations.

You don't see guys in other forum sections begging for capability to be removed from other jets for the sake of "realism." Remember, authenticity and realism are moving targets, they change at the same rate they occur.



Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

Where’s the negative rep option for calling this a video game…

[ViFF]

28 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

It wasn't to save money, the wiring was never installed ever. When the thing rolled off of the factory, it wasn't wired on those hardpoints.

 

Nope. Sorry. You are wrong. All block 50s that came off the production line have 1760 capable Aircraft station interfaces (ASI) on all the pylon stations: outboard, inboard and centerline. The CCIP upgrade program and integration of MN-4260 and MN-426030 programs into a single program to standardize all pylons of all Vipers Blocks 25 to 42 to was to have the same Federal Stock Number to reflect the Block 50 configuration. The umbilicals come as a separate component of the pylon. You can choose to install them or not. The  ANG choose not to install them. Its that simple. This has nothing to do with "wiring on the aircraft".

 

[Northstar98]

20 minutes ago, TheBigTatanka said:

First of all, let's be clear that we are dealing with a video game, and not a true simulator, regardless of marketing.

 

Why do people have this idea that video game and realism are mutually exclusive concepts?

 

20 minutes ago, TheBigTatanka said:

All modules in DCS are symbols of their class, not 1:1 models of an individual particular machine that existed in the world.

 

No idea what you mean by symbols of their class but hey ho.

 

And of course they're not 1:1, that's why the goal is realism where feasible.

 

20 minutes ago, TheBigTatanka said:

If the block 50 viper is capable of carrying smart weapons on 4/6 -- which it is, either in the service of other nations, or with some modification in US service, then it should be represented in the game.

 

Well seeing as the aircraft is supposed to represent a USAF/ANG variant, and doesn't have said modifications, then isn't this kinda moot?

 

20 minutes ago, TheBigTatanka said:

We're not going to get MLU Vipers, nor are we likely to get A model vipers -- so whatever ED makes needs to stand in for F-16s both past and future.

 

What does timeframe have to do with it?

 

20 minutes ago, TheBigTatanka said:

All the other jets in the game are amalgamations and symbols of a class. Look at the F-15C for example, should its early representation allow the carrying of 120Cs? Or the MiG-29, should it be able to carry three types of missiles the way it now does (it shouldn't).

 

Well, they're FC3, with simplified systems modelling, FC3 being essentially the aircraft from LOMAC ported and upgraded for DCS - no wonder they have inaccuracies as they're not full-fidelity modules that are explicitly supposed be something specific (i.e certain year, certain operator etc).

 

20 minutes ago, TheBigTatanka said:

Should the US hornet carry a Spanish TGP?

 

No it shouldn't. But IIRC the only reason why we got LITENING in the first place was just to give the Hornet a TGP, as it was only very recently the Hornet got one that is more appropriate (though Nite Hawk would be more appropriate still).

 

20 minutes ago, TheBigTatanka said:

This game is all about compromises, and like any simulation-game, requires a suspension of disbelief to be fun.

 

Well, given the state of the whole mile-wide inch deep thing they've got going on, yes you're going to have to require some suspension of disbelief, same goes for the scenarios which are completely sandbox (as they should be).

 

20 minutes ago, TheBigTatanka said:

So we know that what ED is trying to model here could carry and use smart weapons on 4/6 with a wiring modification.

 

And it can also carry and use everything under subsequent software tapes too, and going by Scrapes comments, that would be even easier.

 

20 minutes ago, TheBigTatanka said:

We also know that as a symbol of the viper, it gives the most flexibility to players to have the system stand as it was -- and that doesn't interfere with anyone else's enjoyment, and if it did ... That can be limited server / mission side.

 

It is explicitly stated that ED want to develop an F-16CM which is representative of one used by the USAF/ANG, as a specific variant, representing the way it was at a specific point in time.

 

20 minutes ago, TheBigTatanka said:

Part of this issue is guys coming in here asking for options and capabilities to be removed from the viper, when we really need that dev time spent on important system implementations.

 

I agree that there should be more focus on important system implementation, as well as the long list of everything else, but this change is most likely a small amendment in a database .lua file - I strongly doubt the impact is significant at all.

 

20 minutes ago, TheBigTatanka said:

You don't see guys in other forum sections begging for capability to be removed from other jets for the sake of "realism."

 

What's your point?

 

18 minutes ago, Rubberduck85 said:

The current mav implementation is possible but not a standard loadout. ED's word.

Possible =/= unrealistic.

Not standard =/= impossible.

No one is being unrealistic, someone likes using non standard loadout if they want.

 

Well my comment was directed at stations 4 and 6.

 

But personally:

 

If the weapon can be used as is, is appropriate for the stated timeframe (if specified), and is appropriate for the operator (again, if specified), then by all means go ahead - I don't care which weapons or not are used IRL because that's something wholly scenario and mission based, and seeing as mission is up to you, it shouldn't be a factor.

 

18 minutes ago, Rubberduck85 said:

Again DCS is a sandbox simulator, not a doctrine simulator. I would never dream to tell people how to have fun.

 

I'm not telling people how they should have fun - you fly your aircraft in whatever way you like, in whatever scenario you like. I just think its silly picking up something intended to be realistic, then having a problem with it being made more realistic.

 

18 minutes ago, Rubberduck85 said:

If this fact represents a problem to the point that it's unbearable, this is called "OCD" in the clinical field and might require professional counseling.

 

Funny how that only seems to apply to one side though doesn't it?

 

3 minutes ago, ViFF said:

The umbilicals come as a separate component of the pylon. You can choose to install them or not. The  ANG choose not to install them. Its that simple. This has nothing to do with "wiring on the aircraft".

 

So I take it this RL weapons engineer on the F-16CM is mistaken?

[Rubberduck85]

 
So I take it this RL weapons engineer on the F-16CM is mistaken?

Again, realism as you intend it is only about how ANG use it as standard loadout, just doctrine. Again, this is not a doctrine simulator.
You ARE telling people how to have fun by saying that the way they use it is not realistic enough, hence your idea of realism should translate into having them play as the ANG flies by their doctrine. This is called presumption.

About the "sides" argument, i really don't get it. No one literally cares if you mount 1 agm65 with Lau-117 or 2/3 with lau-88.
To me, it's even hilarious that someone is frustrated by it to the point of wasting time on it, still you do. So yes apparently it only applies to your "side".

I will always stand against this "doctrine police" mentality, regardless of which game/simulation/module is discussed.
I know, it's a lost cause with some people but then again maybe I'm presumptuous, maybe i don't realize that pretending to be a ANG pilot that flies according to a specific doctrine is the only true emotion in an otherwise dull existence.


Regards

Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk