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

[ASW]

3 часа назад, TheBigTatanka сказал:

ends. 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.

I completely agree. In the end, the server administrator can decide whether it works or not.

[ViFF]

47 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

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

 

First of all, yes, he is wrong. If you see an Israeli Block 40 Viper with JDAMS on 4 & 6 and you know that the end user agreements do not allow changes...

 

Again, as I posted in another thread, I have no problem with this limitation to that a circa 2007 ANG F-16 Block 50 is being accurately simulated. The amount of work that went into researching what is a valid loadout for the circa 2007 F-16 Block 50 Tape 7 that served in the ANG is very impressive and commendable.

 

However, the larger part of the customer base does not care about the details such as "removal or lack of of umbilicals" or restrictions of loadouts at the squadron level.

 

DCS claims to be a "sandbox simulation", there are loadout compromises with other ED modules such as the F-18 and A-10, and the F-16 is far more ubiquitous, serving in many Air Forces all over the world.

 
Based on publicly available information and information from SMEs of other nations that operate F-16 about what is technically possible, when I create a mission on the Syria map and place an F-16 of:
 
Country USAF - I expect to be able to load LAU-88 on stations 3 & 7.
 
Country ISRAEL - I expect GBU-31 JDAM on stations 4 and 6.
 
Country TURKEY - I expect JSOW C.
 
Country GREECE - I expect AGM-88 on stations 4 & 6 to work.
 

When choosing an F-16 of a different country you get a set of skins resembling what they have in their own country. The last thing they are concerned about is lack of realism. The customer knows these are additional content and not the focus of the module. It is obvious that the immersion is to have fun, and use the common loadouts they see on pictures of their nation's F-16s, but obviously within the limits of what is modelled in DCS. Not asking for Python 5 air to air missiles. Just the munitions that are already there in the game and we know can be used by these operators.

 

That's why I think the best solution is to have in the mission editor an option to enable "Expanded Loadouts for non USAF Vipers".

 

Cheers!

 

Edited July 22, 2021 by ViFF

[darkman222]

Agreed - just remove the confusion factor. Whatever the easiest way it is to do so. I am not a newbie to the F16 but thats way too deep for the average player to figure out without spending too much time.

Edited July 22, 2021 by darkman222

[Steel Jaw]

IBTL

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Rubberduck85 said:

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.

 

Are you talking about the Mavericks again, because I didn't even disagree with you there, and yet, you're arguing with me anyway?

 

Look if you're delivering something that is supposed to be specific, in something that is clearly aiming to be realistic, then why should it be anything other than exactly that?

 

1 hour ago, Rubberduck85 said:

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.

 

Presumption eh? Well that's a funny way of spelling straw man...

 

So let's really hammer this home:

 

I could not care less what missions you take your aircraft in, or how you fly them, or what skin you take, or how you talk on the radio, or what your difficulty options are set to, or whether you use autostart or any other assist, or where the AO is, or where you takeoff, or where you land, or what route you take, or what countries are involved.

 

You wanna take an F-16CM in a WWII scenario set on the Syria map, in a mission dated before the first manned, powered aircraft flew, fighting the Norwegians, then you go right ahead.

 

It's really simple:

 

If you advertise your product as being specifically x, and you want it to be as authentic to x as you can make it and you have no desire to make anything other than x, on a platform whose aim is to provide realistic building blocks for sandbox missions, then why should it be anything other than exactly that?

 

I don't care what variant, or operator you pick (though hopefully something popular), I'd just much rather they pick something and then stick with it.

 

If you can offer a unicorn, universal variant that has the configuration options available to accurately depict xyz, then so be it, but I'd much rather have something authentic than be a fictional hybrid - yes BS3 included.

 

1 hour ago, Rubberduck85 said:

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".

 

Oh I'm frustrated am I? Well, thank-you for bringing that to my attention, I honestly didn't notice it myself.

 

But don't you think this statement is kinda ironic? Y'know pot calling the kettle black and all that? Just a thought.

 

1 hour ago, Rubberduck85 said:

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.

 

Yeah, you're doing it again...

 

1 hour ago, ViFF said:

First of all, yes, he is wrong. If you see an Israeli Block 40 Viper with JDAMS on 4 & 6 and you know that the end user agreements do not allow changes...

 

If that's indeed the case, then fine, I'll concede my point.

 

1 hour ago, ViFF said:

Again, as I posted in another thread, I have no problem with this limitation to that a circa 2007 ANG F-16 Block 50 is being accurately simulated. The amount of work that went into researching what is a valid loadout for the circa 2007 F-16 Block 50 Tape 7 that served in the ANG is very impressive and commendable.

 

However, the larger part of the customer base does not care about the details such as "removal or lack of of umbilicals" or restrictions of loadouts at the squadron level.

 

DCS claims to be a "sandbox simulation", there are loadout compromises with other ED modules such as the F-18 and A-10, and the F-16 is far more ubiquitous, serving in many Air Forces all over the world.

 

I disagree, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point.

 

I would like to bring up though, that I didn't get the F-16 variant I wanted either, I just think the better solution, which will please everyon without compromise, is to just have that variant, which is why I love the fact that Heatblur are giving us multiple variants of the Tomcat.

 

Otherwise, I'm usually happy to make compromises - I mean, what choice have I got? Though this is more an issue concerning this thread.

 

However, for the most part I'm happy to work with what I've got, I'll accept the compromises I have to make, though it isn't ideal for anyone really, apart from those who wanted the specific version we got.

 

As for sandbox, my impression from the get go was that DCS was that the sandbox element was more to do with a free reign when it comes to making scenarios and how you fly them. the assets and maps however should be IMO, as realistic to their real life counterparts where possible to do so.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Northstar98

[Smoked]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

It's really simple:

 

If you advertise your product as being specifically x, and you want it to be as authentic to x as you can make it and you have no desire to make anything other than x, on a platform whose aim is to provide realistic building blocks for sandbox missions, then why should it be anything other than exactly that?

 

 

100% THIS THIS THIS.... Demanding anything beyond this is pointless... (my opinion).   I have my thoughts on "why" ED has limited themselves to the era and block they did... That said, asking..dare I say DEMANDING anything "other" than this and being pissed when it is not delivered or granted is waisting time.. 

Edited July 23, 2021 by Smoked

[durka-durka]

I'm going to design a mission where the pilot has to ferry inoperable HARMs from base to base for points.  Kind of like Ice Road Truckers, but with jets.

 

And I'm going to carry AIM-9s on my wing tips.

 

 

In all seriousness, simply putting an "(inop.)" next to it in the loadout screen can fix this.

[Oban]

I don't get it, blokes cry " It's not a game, it's a simulator" then when DCS creates some realism for the sim it's "we want something that's only a game, and not realism"

It comes to those who immerse themselves with a particular module, if you only fly the F16 and know it's capabilities and limitations with weapons, then it's not an issue, but for the average guy who hops in just for shits and giggles, then it's going to be a "why they do this, it was so much cooler having 4 HARM's"

This discussion was thrashed out way back when they introduced them, and the die-hards who wanted realism over practicality were up in arms.

ED are in a catch 22.. you can please some of the people some of the time, you can't please all of the people all of the time.

[jppsx]

the block 50 came out of factory whit those connection it why people have problem whit this.
the people complain because the removal of pilon 4 and 6 connection is a USAF specific modification made to save money an the block 50 dint came out of the factory whit those connection removed ,
we should not be limited because of PERSONNAL preference of the USAF to save some money . if you fell to follow USAF regulation  you where perfectly free to do it before the patch and have no valuable reason to imposes this on other who don't care at all about the USAF regulation and budget . 
Disconnecting pilon 4 and 6 because USAF did it is the equivalent of starting to remove plane from the games because the USAF don't use them anymore should we remove f14 , f86 and other plane that are not used today ?
YES it a simulator but it not a usaf budget simulator .

[jppsx]

wen the f16 block 50 came out of the factory they where able to use agm-88 and gps/ins bomb on pilon 4 an6 later usaf removed the connector to save money and that in no way a good reason to do the same in games  just like usaf not using f86 anymore is not a reason for removing it from the games .

as for people who cry ho it a simulator i like to remember  it a plane simulator not a USAF regulation to save money simulator. 
if you fell to use payload that are used to reduce cost you are perfectly free to do it but don't go around impose it on other .

i would not mind if pilon 4 and 6 where not able to use agm-88 and ins/gps because it was built this way but i clear that it was purely a usaf modification made later .

Edited July 23, 2021 by jppsx

[Digitalvole]

I know nothing about this stuff, so please don’t shout at me

 

Did they not use them because they couldn’t or because they didn’t need to? I’m curious because what we use the F16 for in DCS seems a long way from what they were being used for IRL in 2007. I play Liberation and that’s more like WW3 than a counter insurgency operation.

Again, genuine question as I have no idea

 

[ron533]

ED could simply solve this by just adding a simple checkbox as already suggested,

and implemented in other planes via the "SPECIAL" menu, and enforced in MP :

 

[V]  Realistic loadout for "F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007"

[  ]   Non U.S. / Other countries implementation. 

 

After all, if ED allows fictional skins (defaults, not mods) on countries that do not own the Viper (and other planes) - then surly

ED can allow some realistic play room in that spirit.

Otherwise it will come down to community MODS, and that path should be avoided as much as possible.

It's in ED's interest I believe.

 

And last but not least - Thank you ED for this amazing project called DCS!!

 

Cheers,

Ron
 

Edited July 23, 2021 by ron533

[Bananabrai]

11 hours ago, Xavven said:

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.

 

That's the way I see it. 

 

The discussion will go on for years now, we know that already (like the one HB should do the F-14D^^)

I can understand both sides to be honest. When there was the debate to remove HARM shooting capability on 4/6 I brought up the example with the Tornado fuel pylons.

The shoulder pylons need replumbing to be able to carry fuel tanks, like if you want to fly with 4 fuel tanks or Bosnia-Config.

It's doable and the GAF does it, they also could decide to not do it and then a DCS Tornado would have no 4 tanks, or even better, just fly around 4 tanks if the real refernce model is a fuel plumbed one.

 

I am getting the idea of having a US conform version, it's great for the guys who want to fly exactly that.
And where do you stop, should we then get a Harpoon because turkish F-16C Block 50 had that. I honestly don't know, I just have my opinion.

But I think a lot more customers could be pleased if the simulation is still as good or as right as possible, but without omitting the term 'sandbox' so other countries can simulate their combat also digitaly (hence: digital combat simulator: world)

 

In my eyes it would be solvable if there would be more tick boxes in the ME where you can set LASER codes, radio channels etc., say for example a tickbox "Frankenviper".
And in that ED can experiment with what info they have and the Mission builder and Host can allow for that or not. 

I just don't know if ED are such guys. HB seems to be more like that (see adding NVG for the Viggen, having a general F-14A/B thats LANTIRN capable and rearmable,...
Maybe they are more a kind of hardliners, which is great for the hardliner faction and a bummer for the sandbox guys...

Edited July 23, 2021 by Bananabrai

[SCPanda]

  

10 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

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?

Well, should ED disallow other nations in game to fly the Viper then? In other words, red force should not be allowed to have F-16. Also remove all the skins from other nations since we are representing a USAF/ANG variant. Also, make the F-16 cannot spawn in airbases like Ramat David, since USAF and ANG don't have forces there. I'm just saying. 

 

IMO, the statement made by ED of only modeling F-16 block 50 operated only by USAF and ANG only in 2007 is stupid. It seems they just don't want to make extra weapon systems since F-16 is operated by so many nations worldwide and nations like Greece uses Harpoon on their Vipers. This statement looks like ED's excuse for being lazy and saving resources for the development of F-16. 

 

But, this is just my opinion. If ED thinks it's OK to do things with double standards, there is nothing I could do I guess. 

Edited July 23, 2021 by SCPanda

[SCPanda]

49 minutes ago, ron533 said:

ED could simply solve this by just adding a simple checkbox as already suggested,

and implemented in other planes via the "SPECIAL" menu, and enforced in MP :

 

[V]  Realistic loadout for "F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007"

[  ]   Non U.S. / Other countries implementation. 

 

After all, if ED allows fictional skins (defaults, not mods) on countries that do not own the Viper (and other planes) - then surly

ED can allow some realistic play room in that spirit.

Otherwise it will come down to community MODS, and that path should be avoided as much as possible.

It's in ED's interest I believe.

 

And last but not least - Thank you ED for this amazing project called DCS!!

 

Cheers,

Ron
 

 

I like your idea, and I am sure many people do. But I doubt ED would, because ED would have to make more weapon systems for F-16s operated by other nations. Harpoons for Greek F-16s for example. 

 

For us players tho, I mean who doesn't want to have more weapon systems for the Viper? It would also be really interesting in MP severs, seeing USAF Vipers carrying their certified loadouts and seeing Vipers from other nations carrying their unique loadouts. 

Edited July 23, 2021 by SCPanda

[Smoked]

23 minutes ago, SCPanda said:

  

Well, should ED disallow other nations in game to fly the Viper then? In other words, red force should not be allowed to have F-16. Also remove all the skins from other nations since we are representing a USAF/ANG variant. Also, make the F-16 cannot spawn in airbases like Ramat David, since USAF and ANG don't have forces there. I'm just saying. 

 

 

 

How you chose to fly their finished product is on you... They just explained what the finished product would be.... (Circa 2007 ANG USAF Viper).   I think this part escapes a lot of people.   They decide what airframe they are going to model... You decide how you are going to use it based on the limitations of that airframe.   Skins, what side of the equation you want to fly on, etc..

 

You can think this ploy is stupid... It might be marketing genius if you think about it and they go this route.... Make the base template now for the Jet... Future add on's, blocks, etc... down the road (at a cost of course)

 

[Smoked]

I think it also has to do with the 88 was never certified for firing off of 4&6... I could be wrong... It was flight tested to carry it, but never certified/granted to deploy it... Hence why there are no photos of operational squadrons running those stations with 88's on there... None that I have seen at least... 

[Smoked]

I pointed this out in another thread... ED builds the base model and perhaps down the road they open up different blocks, tapes, weapons. (at a cost)... 

[jppsx]

it not just the 88 it also the gps/ins bomb who cannot be used if that connection get removed 

[darkman222]

Technical discussion aside. The only problem is a thing called user experience. Something that used to work before is not working anymore costs the user time to investigate and to evaluate if he is doing something wrong or if something was changed or even if something is bugged now.

I am totally fine with it being changed for realism. As the manual says "The HARM may be loaded on stations 3, 4, 6, or 7, but is only flight-certified for stations 3 and 7." Could be a little more clearer if it said something like "therefore it cant be employed".

I dont know if I missed it, but mentioning it in the changelog would be nice too.

Edited July 23, 2021 by darkman222

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, Digitalvole said:

I know nothing about this stuff, so please don’t shout at me

 

Did they not use them because they couldn’t or because they didn’t need to? I’m curious because what we use the F16 for in DCS seems a long way from what they were being used for IRL in 2007. I play Liberation and that’s more like WW3 than a counter insurgency operation.

Again, genuine question as I have no idea

 

Me neither, but I think limiting ordnance to what was actually used is a bad idea, as this will depend on real life operations at the time, which may only mandate the use of certain weapons and sensors.

 

Given that we've got a mission editor, and we've got completely free reign, this shouldn't apply and as such I think the best course of action is to stick to the following:

• Is the store compatible with the aircraft on x station, as is without modification? In the case of LAU-88 this seems to be the case.
• Is it appropriate for the operator, if specified? Well, I'm fairly sure LAU-88 is appropriate, but I don't know if it's still in the inventory.
• Is it appropriate for the timeframe? Again no idea.

If those 3 are satisfied then by all means go ahead, regardless of what was actually used. If it's compatible with the aircraft as is and is still integrated on the aircraft for the timeframe and operator, it should be present, even if it was seldomly used.

 

2 hours ago, SCPanda said:

 Well, should ED disallow other nations in game to fly the Viper then? In other words, red force should not be allowed to have F-16.

 

No, because the scenario you make is up to you, adding the F-16CM to other nations is more of a compromise - the aircraft still represents a USAF/ANG aircraft regardless of what nation it's flying for - it's a compromise due to not having nation specific variants.

 

For instance, if I fly for Norway, with a Norwegian skin, I've still got a USAF/ANG aircraft, just with a Norwegian skin, flying for Norway, what I haven't done is turn our aircraft into a Norwegian F-16AM, with the modifications it has.

 

But given that all of the missions we make are in some way fictional, and we've got free reign over what they are, I think this is an okay compromise.

 

As for red force, there is also the USAF aggressor squadron, and we have

 

2 hours ago, SCPanda said:

Also remove all the skins from other nations since we are representing a USAF/ANG variant.

 

No, firstly because this will mandate locking out the liveries, so people won't be able to make custom USAF/ANG liveries either.

 

And ultimately the livery changes nothing about the aircraft variant, it's done more as an approximation, and I think that's fine.

 

But I believe you should be able to mod liveries if you want to, even if they're fictional - it's no business of mine to tell anyone what livery they fly with, and ultimately it changes nothing from a development perspective.

 

2 hours ago, SCPanda said:

Also, make the F-16 cannot spawn in airbases like Ramat David, since USAF and ANG don't have forces there. I'm just saying.

 

No, again, the scenarios should be up to you, you decide where you spawn, where you land, where the AO is, what the time is, what the weather is, what your route is, how you fly the aircraft, etc etc etc, I could go on.

 

And if you wanted to go down this route, the only place you could spawn is Nellis AFB, using only liveries of the 64th Aggressor Squadron, as I think that's the only airbase and squadron where this is satisfied.

 

2 hours ago, SCPanda said:

IMO, the statement made by ED of only modeling F-16 block 50 operated only by USAF and ANG only in 2007 is stupid. It seems they just don't want to make extra weapon systems since F-16 is operated by so many nations worldwide and nations like Greece uses Harpoon on their Vipers. This statement looks like ED's excuse for being lazy and saving resources for the development of F-16.

 

I mean, it's not the variant I wanted either, but I think it was a good way of limiting scope and managing goals, we're already struggling as is in terms of getting the F-16CM feature complete and having the stuff it should have working properly, without adding lots of more.

 

I just think that if you're going to deliver x, and you want said x to be something specific, as accurately as you can, where the goal is realism, then it shouldn't be anything other than exactly x.

 

And again, I don't care what variant it is, just pick something and commit, if I want another variant, then I'd rather ask for that variant, rather than do a hybrid.

 

I agree that doing solely a USAF/ANG F-16CM of a very specific timeframe is limited, but I think the better solution is to deliver more variants, hopefully recycling as much as physically possible.

 

2 hours ago, SCPanda said:

But, this is just my opinion. If ED thinks it's OK to do things with double standards, there is nothing I could do I guess.

 

I don't think its a double standard in this case, I've always taken DCS' design goal as meaning: the missions and scenarios you create (and basically everything along with them) should be completely up to you, as hardcore or as casual, as realistic or fictional etc etc, should be totally up to you. But the building blocks of said scenarios, i.e the modules, the assets, the maps and the systems and weapons etc of said modules and assets, should be as realistic where feasibly possible.

 

But what you make out of the building blocks and how you use the building blocks should be completely up to you, it's only the building blocks themselves, essentially taken in a vacuum, that should be made as realistic as possible.

 

And I don't think this is a double standard, I just think this is the best way of going about it, it doesn't have to be all or nothing, and its a philosphy shared with other games with a focus on realism.

 

Ultimately if the scenarios where also limited to what is strictly realistic, i.e only correct nation allowed, only allowed to spawn at x airbase, and going further, and this time to do this specific mission, it would probably get very boring very quickly.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Northstar98

[Bananabrai]

14 hours 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.

 

Your options already suggest a position there. I corrected that question for you: Is DCSW a simulation or a sandbox

 

You guessed right, it's both. A sandbox other players also can play, players that praise their Air Forces jets and not USAF and ANG.

I know, some people couln't care less. I guess that's a societey problem. Me, myself and I...

DCS:W - Digitaly simulating combat, worldwide, thats also somewhere else than US territory then...

 

It's the checkbox that should become a thing.

 

On 7/22/2021 at 12:35 PM, BIGNEWY said:

As we all know this topic has been done to death now. 

 

Our Viper is a F-16C Block 50 operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007

 

The recent HARM changes are correct to real world. 

We have no plans to change the Maverick loadout as it is possible even if not a standard mission loadout. 

 

Thanks

Well it was discussed to death, but as a customer I have to say, if there is more need to talk about you maybe should listen to the guys who buy your products.

A clear position is fine but listening to suggestions by your community would give us obviosly a better feeling.
 

[Digitalvole]

It’s an interesting topic.

 

I am currently reading Tornado by John Nichols (jolly good book, and I got a signed copy ) and it’s really interesting how that aircrafts role and capabilities changed in a very short period of time. From strictly low level JP233 usage to mid level gbu drops in a matter of a couple of weeks, for which the aircraft wasn’t even capable of doing at the outbreak of hostilities, because of the high losses of aircraft and air crew in the low level role.

Necessity is the mother of invention and all that.

 

How does that fit into this picture? By which I mean, would the Tornado that started the war be seen as a different version to the one that it was by the end of the war? In DCS terms would we be stuck with JP233s for example?
 

And of course things for the USAF are different from that of the RAF (and probably every other AF in the world) as for those guys if one type of aircraft doesn’t fit the bill there are probably some others they have that do so modifications are less likely to be necessary. That being said if they did feel the need, how much work\money be involved to make it happen? Is it a major overhaul or can the ground crew do it in a hanger with some screwdrivers and a hammer?
 

Why I personally think this is an important question is because if the USAF were fighting a near-peer adversary in 2007, hordes of T90s rushing across Georgia for example, the approach would be very different to that we saw in OIF and OEF I would assume. And maybe, if it could be done with minimal fuss, we would have seen very different load outs on aircraft that were still called F16c blk 50. What do you think?
 

And just to be clear, these are just my musings. I don’t for one second think it should necessarily be one way or the other, but I do think it would be silly to look at what was carried in an asymmetrical war and apply it to a near peer war. Wouldn’t that be like trying to dogfight a fw 190 in a mk1 spitfire?

Then again, as I said above, the USAF has many different tools in its tool box so maybe they wouldn’t. One could argue doing what we do in missions with load outs intended for counter insurgency operations in unrealistic I suppose.

 I Know very little about what constitutes different blocks and versions, so I hope none of what I said sounds like I’m saying it should be one way or the other, just curious. I don’t get to have these kind of conversations with my wife and kids, or anyone I know for that matter. 

Edited July 23, 2021 by Digitalvole

[Northstar98]

17 minutes ago, Bananabrai said:

Well it was discussed to death, but as a customer I have to say, if there is more need to talk about you maybe should listen to the guys who buy your products.

A clear position is fine but listening to suggestions by your community would give us obviosly a better feeling.

 

The thing is, the planned features and systems thread was up for months before the F-16CM launched into early access, and it was posted a week before the module went into preorder, now I realise not everybody or even a majority read it before buying it, but personally, if you have a problem with what our F-16C is (which is absolutely fine - like I said it's not the variant I wanted either), then perhaps you'd do well to make your purchases accordingly, if it's going to be a problem.

 

For instance, I knew before the F-14 entered pre-order that it was going to initially be a late 90s B, with a late 90s A to follow (though if you don't take LANTIRN the difference between a late 90s model and mid 90s aircraft are negligible) and then an earlier pre 90s A was to follow (essentially suitable for the late 70s up to the late 80s with weapons restricting AFAIK), as well as an Iranian variant. Now let's say I'm only interested in the F-14D, with the newer avionics, JDAMs etc, and I had an issue with getting specifically the A/B, to point that it's an issue for me. Wouldn't the better thing for me to do, if it is going to be a problem, to carefully consider whether or not I buy the Tomcat?

 

In any case, I think that doing variants is the best course of action, especially in cases where the variant should recycle a good fraction of the aircraft is.

 

Though the specifics about the LAU-88 and how this applies? I'm afraid I just don't know. ED has said that it is a valid loadout, just one that isn't used. I don't have information supporting or contradicting that, so I'll have to take their word for it for the time being, and given that I say, keep the LAU-88, and 3 AGM-65s but model the issues associated with doing so (like the stabiliators getting burned).

 

13 minutes ago, Digitalvole said:

How does that fit into this picture? By which I mean, would the Tornado that started the war be seen as a different version to the one that it was by the end of the war? In DCS terms would we be stuck with JP233s for example?

 

And of course things for the USAF are different from that of the RAF (and probably every other AF in the world) as for those guys if one type of aircraft doesn’t fit the bill there are probably some others they have that do so modifications are less likely to be necessary. That being said if they did feel the need, how much work\money be involved to make it happen? Is it a major overhaul or can the ground crew do it in a hanger with some screwdrivers and a hammer?
 

Why I personally think this is an important question is because if the USAF were fighting a near-peer adversary in 2007, hordes of T90s rushing across Georgia for example, the approach would be very different to that we saw in OIF and OEF I would assume. And maybe, if it could be done with minimal fuss, we would have seen very different load outs on aircraft that were still called F16c blk 50. What do you think?
 

And just to be clear, these are just my musings. I don’t for one second think it should necessarily be one way or the other, but I do think it would be silly to look at what was carried in an asymmetrical war and apply it to a near peer war. Wouldn’t that be like trying to dogfight a fw 190 in a mk1 spitfire?

Then again, as I said above, the USAF has many different tools in its tool box so maybe they wouldn’t. One could argue doing what we do in missions with load outs intended for counter insurgency operations in unrealistic I suppose.

 I Know very little about what constitutes different blocks and versions, so I hope none of what I said sounds like I’m saying it should be one way or the other, just curious. 

 

I think this brings back to the criteria, which IMO should be used to judge what weapons and sensors etc get included.

 

Say we pick aircraft x, and we intend it to represent a specific variant, as used by a specific operator, circa whatever time (personally, I don't care what it is precisely, but if you're going to be specific about it, I'd rather you commit to that), then the deciding factors should be as follows:

• Is it operated on the aircraft as is, without modifications?
• Is it a valid loadout for the operator? Note that this doesn't mean what the operator actually uses, but whether or not its certified for use on the operator's aircraft and is it still in the inventory and still integrated with it.
• Is it a valid loadout for the timeframe specified? Again tracing back to inventory but also whether or not an aircraft is still integrated with it.

If you satisfy all 3, then yes, it should be included.

 

Going off of what was actually used is a bad idea personally, as this is very much dependent on what missions historically took place, which will influence what weapons were used. However, given that DCS gives you a free reign over the scenarios, this shouldn't apply.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Northstar98

[Digitalvole]

31 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

• Is it operated on the aircraft as is, without modifications?
• Is it a valid loadout for the operator? Note that this doesn't mean what the operator actually uses, but whether or not its certified for use on the operator's aircraft and is it still in the inventory and still integrated with it.
• Is it a valid loadout for the timeframe specified? Again tracing back to inventory but also whether or not an aircraft is still integrated with it.

If you satisfy all 3, then yes, it should be included.

 

Going off of what was actually used is a bad idea personally, as this is very much dependent on what missions historically took place, which will influence what weapons were used. However, given that DCS gives you a free reign over the scenarios, this shouldn't apply.

 

Makes good sense, though regarding integration I’m still wondering how much work it is to, for example allow our f16 fire 4 harms? And if in an emergency this would be done as needs must. I mean most of the scenarios\campaigns we play would be considered a pretty dire situation if they were happening for real.
 

But then this opens a whole can of worms doesn’t it? If WW3 kicked off, apart from the fact the northern hemisphere would be a burning wasteland in very short order, all sorts of things might be happening that we thought weren’t possible. And trying to include all that is rightly not in the remit for the DCS F16.

 

I think if I were asked to chose the right approach for us simmers, I would go with the checkbox idea but still needing to meet the criteria you listed. Simply because that way everyone can fly the missions how they want, where as the other way is only pleasing for whatever percentage of people are not happy with it now. Seems fair, but life is never that simple eh? 
 

Id still like to know if in the virtual world of DCS something was to happen like in the example I gave with the Tornados in Desert Storm, whether that would constitute a different version of aircraft.