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

[Hawkeye91]

7 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Oh, so now what is realistic or not, is subjective now?

 

It doesn't matter what reality is, if it's something we like, then it's realistic, and if reality is something we don't like, then implementing it shouldn't be considered realistic.

 

And again, what's patently obvious here, is that you don't want realism and have a problem with it, when it's something you don't like. How is that not the case here? I mean, you have a problem with it to the extent that you don't even consider it to be realistic, as if reality is dependent on what opinions you and I hold - spoiler alert: they don't.

 

I mean seriously, this is literally flat Earth levels of reasoning here. What's true or not depends on what our opinions of it are, if we don't like it, it's false and if we do like it it's true.

 

 

Then we should be consistent with the rules then, shouldn't we?

 

 

How difficult is it exactly?

 

We have a video game, whose goals is realistic modules and assets where feasibly possible to do so and we have a module that is explicitly stated to be specifically x. If we 2 and 2 together, why should our module be anything other than x?

 

This is the 3rd time I've asked this and no-one seems to be able to answer it...

 

And if you have a problem with a module being x, then isn't the obvious solution to not purchase x? I mean, it was pretty up front what ED intentions were, and DCS has had the same description up on the front page for as long as I can remember.

 

Let's take an example, I'm not really interested in RAZBAM's Harrier II, because it isn't the variant I'm interested in - solely my subjective opinion. What I'd rather do is just get the variant I'm interested in, not try and morph the existing Harrier II into something it's not.

 

 

It isn't unrealistic to me. It's unrealistic full stop, what is or isn't realistic, isn't dependent on how I feel about it or what I think about it.

 

There are plenty of things I want our F-16 to have, like LANTIRN for instance and an autopilot coupled TFR. But that (at least AFAIK) isn't realistic for the module we've got, so it's perfectly reasonable that those things aren't included.

 

If I want LANTIRN for instance, I'd rather ask for the variant that has it, rather than try and combine multiple versions into one, something ED has no intention of doing. Hey! That's what I did!

 

 

Again, I couldn't care less, please read the things you're responding to instead of making up what you think the thoughts I have in my head are and arguing against that.

 

I couldn't care less how you play with your aircraft, I don't fly them realistically either.

 

I don't care what missions you fly, or how you fly them, or what difficulty settings you use, blah blah blah, I've said this twice already only to be ignored, I'm guessing because it doesn't fit your narrative about me.

 

You’re actions say more than words, if you didn’t care how we want to spend our time with our module, you wouldn’t be so zealous in your defense of ED in this situation, and let us argue our point without trying to undermine us. Mind you’re own business. 

 

We’ve had many more crew chiefs/SMEs argue that it’s realistic to have 4 HARMs than either you or ED had made statements to the contrary or provided evidence for.
 

Yours and EDs argument has boiled down to “nuh uh”. Great argument, very convincing.

Edited July 24, 2021 by Hawkeye91

[Northstar98]

12 minutes ago, Hawkeye91 said:

You’re actions say more than words, if you didn’t care how we want to spend our time with our module, you wouldn’t be so zealous in your defense of ED in this situation, and let us argue our point without trying to undermine us. Mind you’re own business. 

 

What actions?

 

So far I've said that if DCS is supposed to be realistic as possible, and this module is supposed to be specifically x, then it should be x, as realistic as possible.

 

I really do not understand what is so difficult or offensive to you about that, I mean, if that's the goal, why should it be anything else?

 

All you're doing is projecting, and projecting hard. Because it's easier to make the case that I'm such an authoritarian control freak, and you must fly the modules this specific way OR ELSE!  Regardless of whether or not it's actually the case. I guess your comment that basically boils down to what's accurate to reality or not depends on what our opinion of it is, regardless of what actually is the case, is starting to make sense now.

 

12 minutes ago, Hawkeye91 said:

We’ve had many more crew chiefs/SMEs argue that it’s realistic to have 4 HARMs than either you or ED had said to the contrary.

 

[citation needed]

 

Here's what a weapons specialist, working with the F-16 had to say about it:

 

Quote

Outside of the factory and depo maintenance only one career field will wire a weapons harness for a wing on an F-16 when on station. Wing changes are completed on station. The only, not avionics, not crew chiefs, not anyone but 2W1 Weapons Troops will wire the wing of an F-16 for all weapon stations. When it comes to which wires and buses are present there is no greater SME on the flightline. Why? Because the wing harness comes as one piece and must be dissembled and then reassembled when installed on the wing with wires ran to their specific stations. I'm a Weapons Troop, and have spent 13 of my 20 years working F-16s in 4 units, 3 of which happened to be SEAD units.

 

I'm posting not to make controversy, but to set the record straight. It is not an operational limitation to not carry HARMs on sta 4&6. There is no 1553 bus for 4&6. The 1553 bus is for 3&7 and sits near to the JRIU. No 1553 bus, means no 1760 capability for 4&6. No smart weapons, no JDAM, etc. That means only conventional stores can be reliably employed there. There's no "double braid" bundle for those who might know a thing or two. There is also no video line for sta 4&6. This means no AGM-65s either. I saw it mentioned that the AGM-65 and AGM-88 use different video lines. This is false. It's the same line. No video, no 1760 capability on 4&6 for any US F-16 unit. No variations.

 

What this means is not only is it not possible to use 65s or 88s from 4&6 it would take a herculean effort to reconfigure an aircraft to do so. It's not feasible in terms of cost or man hours. It's not something that could be done in days. Each jet would take weeks of maintenance to convert, not to mention the cost of a redesigned harness.

 

How can it be so confusing? If what I'm saying is true then how is there conflicting data? This is an easy mistake looking from the outside in. If one were to look at a wiring diagram, then they might come upon a T connector at the wing disconnect. This connector has three ports. A single on one side, and two on the other. This T connector, one on each side of the F-16 at the wing disconnect is a video line junction. The single plug goes forward toward the SMS, and there is a plug for sta 3&4 on the left side and correspondingly 6&7 on the right. They are labelled in the wire diagram. The 4&6 plugs of that T connector are capped. Without intimate knowledge of the system, it would be easy to make a mistake.

 

The F-16 is approved to fly with 88s on 4&6? Yes it is. However any reference to an SCL does not tell nor should it be interpreted that the missile was fired or employed from a particular station. There is no firing of munitions during SCL testing. All the SCL can tell you, it's one and only job, is to confirm that the aircraft is aerodynamically sound in flight and can be operated in the air without undue stress to the pilot or airframe with a particular loadout.

 

Source

 

12 minutes ago, Hawkeye91 said:

Yours and EDs argument has boiled down to “nuh uh”. Great argument, very convincing.

 

Oh is that so?

 

In any case I think we're done here.

Edited July 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[Hawkeye91]

2 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

What actions?

 

So far I've said that if DCS is supposed to be realistic as possible, and this module is supposed to be specifically x, then it should be x, as realistic as possible.

 

I really do not understand what is so difficult or offensive to you about that, I mean, if that's the goal, why should it be anything else?

 

All you're doing is projecting, and projecting hard. Because it's easier to make the case that I'm such an authoritarian control freak, and you must fly the modules this specific way OR ELSE!  Regardless of whether or not it's actually the case. I guess your comment that basically boils down to what's accurate to reality or not depends on what our opinion of it is, regardless of what actually is the case, is starting to make sense now.

 

 

[citation needed]

 

Here's what a weapons specialist, working with the F-16 had to say about it:

 

 

Oh is that so?

 

In any case I think we're done here.

 

You are exactly being an authoritarian,  you just lack any awareness of it. Stop white knighting for ED and let them defend themselves instead of trying do it for them. You’re literally in trying to undermine our argument. Mind you’re own business.

[TheBigTatanka]

Hawkeye is correct here.

As for that "SME" that was quoted above on the T connectors; he said this week that the wiring of 4/6 is possible, he just hasn't seen it, and the USAF has no plans for it. To me, given the other evidence, it sounds like at one point it was connected -- kind of like how our DCS Viper once had that capability. :(

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[DuncanXP311]

42 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

So far I've said that if DCS is supposed to be realistic as possible, and this module is supposed to be specifically x, then it should be x, as realistic as possible.

Then if this is a 2007 National guard viper it shouldn't be available to any other country beside the US, it shouldn't be deployable in maps in which the national guard doesn't operate (or hasn't). 

[Smoked]

 

14 minutes ago, DuncanXP311 said:

Then if this is a 2007 National guard viper it shouldn't be available to any other country beside the US, it shouldn't be deployable in maps in which the national guard doesn't operate (or hasn't). 

Feel free to fly it that way if you wish.. Still.  88's have NEVER been operational on a ANG viper... 2007 or anytime (on 4&6)

[Dragon1-1]

47 minutes ago, TheBigTatanka said:

As for that "SME" that was quoted above on the T connectors; he said this week that the wiring of 4/6 is possible, he just hasn't seen it, and the USAF has no plans for it. 

He said it pretty plainly in the post quoted. It's not something you can do in the field. It would take weeks to do and require redesigning the wiring. Could it be done? Sure, and I wouldn't be surprised if one of the countries Viper was exported to did just that. The point, however, was that for the Viper we have modeled, it's not as easy as uncapping a plug and sticking an extension cord inside the wing.

 

TBH, a realistic mission will have bags in there. Distances available in DCS are rather short, but try taking off without bags in Falcon 4.0 and see how far you get. This is why USAF doesn't care for wiring those stations. Anything without bags on these stations is not a very practical configuration.

[TheBigTatanka]

Oh, for sure. Lots of practical reasons to not do it. But being practical is not the test of whether it can work or not.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, TheBigTatanka said:

Hawkeye is correct here.

 

Right...

 

What's true or not depends on what our opinion of it is, having to make up what your opponent thinks, because what they actually think doesn't jive with Hawkey's narrative, even going as far as to say that they're unaware of what they actually think (which ).

 

1 hour ago, TheBigTatanka said:

As for that "SME" that was quoted above on the T connectors; he said this week that the wiring of 4/6 is possible, he just hasn't seen it, and the USAF has no plans for it. To me, given the other evidence, it sounds like at one point it was connected -- kind of like how our DCS Viper once had that capability.

 

He also said that it would be a "herculean effort" and that it would take "weaks" to reconfigure the aircraft to do it.

 

1 hour ago, DuncanXP311 said:

Then if this is a 2007 National guard viper it shouldn't be available to any other country beside the US, it shouldn't be deployable in maps in which the national guard doesn't operate (or hasn't). 

 

I knew this was coming up.

 

Regarding countries - it doesn't matter what country you pick in the ME, it's still a USAF/ANG F-16CM. If I fly for Norway and put a Norwegian livery on it, I've still got a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, not a Norwegian F-16AM.

 

Secondly, the missions you make are completely up to you, you're free to create them how you see fit, and how you fly them is completely up to you too (just don't tell Hawkeye I think that).

 

If you wanted to enforce realistic locations, you might as well delete the mission editor, because that's what you'd have to do here. It doesn't fit with DCS' goals at all (where the building blocks are as realistic as possible, but how you use them and what you make out of the building blocks is completely up to you - as it should be).

Edited July 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[Bikerguy302000]

I'm guessing we need to ban all the warbirds, not one of them is currently used as a front line fighter thse days, way to inaccurate for a sim. 9H and ho using a warthog stick if you flying anything other than a hog.

[Northstar98]

3 minutes ago, Bikerguy302000 said:

I'm guessing we need to ban all the warbirds, not one of them is currently used as a front line fighter thse days, way to inaccurate for a sim. 9H and ho using a warthog stick if you flying anything other than a hog.

 

I... What?

[randomTOTEN]

Seems the viper draws in it's own unique crowd. These people were outraged when the realistic limitations were first explained. Now they're outraged again that reality doesn't match their expectations.

 

I own the viper. The chosen subject aircraft has been identified. We get the features it gets. We deal with the limitations it has. That's the strength of DCS. If there are deviations in the simulation, they are unfortunate and can hopefully be minimized. I'm glad to see this deviation corrected. I look forward to the next deviation being corrected if it can.

 

The vocal crowd here doesn't have control of the narrative, and they do not represent all of the community.

 

The argument over liveries and countries are just disappointing. How long have we had a RU A-10C?

Edited July 24, 2021 by randomTOTEN

[Bikerguy302000]

6 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

I... What?

Exactly, daft isn't it, where do we draw the line between reality and game play ? 

[Northstar98]

54 minutes ago, Bikerguy302000 said:

Exactly, daft isn't it, where do we draw the line between reality and game play ? 

 

Very easily, and I've explained several times now...

 

Fortunately, excerpts DCS' own product description makes that pretty clear:

 

"Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

 

But DCS also advertises itself as a sandbox, that is also "designed to cover multiple time periods of interest such as WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War and others. Current regions to battle include the Caucasus, Nevada Test and Training Range, and Normandy 1944. New maps in development include the Persian gulf, Syria and others."

 

So, putting 2 and 2 together, and this is just my interpretation here, that DCS should provide realistic 'building blocks' if you will (the assets, the modules and the maps), but it's up to you to decide what you build out of them and how you use them.

 

So the line between reality and gameplay is the modules, assets and maps and what you do with them.

 

The modules, assets and maps should represent their real counterparts as accurately as feasibly possible, but what missions you build out of them is completely up to you, and how you fly them in said mission is up to you too (i.e if you're a hardcore player and you want to use proper procedures and comms, you can, if you don't want to do that, and you prefer a more casual experience or maybe you're learning and want to keep it more simple, well you can do that too).

Edited July 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[Steel Jaw]

Ridiculous that some try to reject realism in favour of their gameplay, rather than SIM play.  Same flawed thought process that restricts realistic weapon loads on servers in the name of “balanced” GAME play.  Plenty of shoot em ups out there for the Quakers.

Edited July 24, 2021 by Mower

[Dragon1-1]

Restricting loadouts on servers is fine, that's what the feature is for. That's where you simulate doctrine. However, the module itself should not do this, it should allow everything that's technically possible to fly with. Server owners can restrict things however they like.

[ebabil]

Dear ED please remove harms from 4/6 completeyl if you are not gonna let us use them. it creates confusion. if other modules make the same, then it will be total chaos.

at least you can label these weapons as "NOT USABLE" 

[DuncanXP311]

11 hours ago, Mower said:

Ridiculous that some try to reject realism in favour of their gameplay, rather than SIM play.  Same flawed thought process that restricts realistic weapon loads on servers in the name of “balanced” GAME play.  Plenty of shoot em ups out there for the Quakers.

 

Where's do you draw the line between realism and sandbox, how do you rate "unrealistic" things, why is having 4 AGM-88s bad but having russian (fictional) F-18s is okay, why do the greeks have a circa 2007 National Guard's F-16? Restricting everyone's gameplay just because you want to "enjoy the most realistic F16 possible" while playing in a sandbox is counterintuitive. In no way a person flying his F16 in SP will affect your experience anyway and if you feel it to be unrealistic just don't carry 4 AGM-88, don't carry 6 Mavericks and enjoy this game.

DCS is a sandbox and if someone wants to roleplay as an israeli F16 pilot carrying JDAMS on all pylons let him be even if this is a circa 2007 National Guard F-16, then let like-minded admins on MP servers make their own restrictions.

TLDR: DCS is a sandbox

[Northstar98]

7 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Restricting loadouts on servers is fine, that's what the feature is for. That's where you simulate doctrine. However, the module itself should not do this, it should allow everything that's technically possible to fly with. Server owners can restrict things however they like.

 

If the aircraft is supposed to be specifically x, and the whole point of the platform is to provide assets and assets that are supposed to be as accurate a representation of their RL counterparts, then why should the aircraft be anything other than a represention of x, as accurately as possible.

 

The thing about 'technically possible' is basically anything that will fit and isn't too heavy is 'technically possible', according to Scrape, rewiring the F-16 to employ HARMs on station 4 and 6 would apparently be a "herculean effort" that would take "weeks" to reconifure the aircraft. And at that point, what isn't off the table?

 

Personally, if you want to represent a specific aircraft (what that specific aircraft is, I don't care), then stick to it - you've got yourself a clear feature set, with clear goals to work towards - there's a well defined end-state.

[Northstar98]

19 minutes ago, DuncanXP311 said:

Where's do you draw the line between realism and sandbox, how do you rate "unrealistic" things,

 

I go by DCS' mission goals, clearly defined on the main product page.

 

Where essentially, the building blocks should be as realistic to their RL counterparts as feasibly possible, but what you build out of them, and how you use them is completely up to you.

 

19 minutes ago, DuncanXP311 said:

why is having 4 AGM-88s bad but having russian (fictional) F-18s is okay, why do the greeks have a circa 2007 National Guard's F-16?

 

Having 4 AGM-88s is 'bad' (it's not 'bad', it's not something the RL aircraft can do).

 

For other nations, it's more to approximate other equipment, though personally, I'd change the whole countries and coalition thing to be more like C:MO, which would offer more flexibility, while avoiding this problem.

 

If you're concerned about why we have xxxx livery, its because enforcing that would mandate locking out the livery files such that you can't make your own - something I'm vehemently against.

 

If you want to mod your game in anyway you see fit, go for it.

 

19 minutes ago, DuncanXP311 said:

Restricting everyone's gameplay just because you want to "enjoy the most realistic F16 possible" while playing in a sandbox is counterintuitive.

 

It isn't what anybody wants - it is what the product is objectively supposed to be.

 

Having an issue with playing the most realistic F-16 possible, when the module is expressly stated to be exactly that, on a platform that's supposed to facilitate precisely that, is counterintuitive.

 

19 minutes ago, DuncanXP311 said:

In no way a person flying his F16 in SP will affect your experience anyway and if you feel it to be unrealistic just don't carry 4 AGM-88, don't carry 6 Mavericks and enjoy this game.

 

And if you feel it's unrealistic to have hypersonic F-16s, carrying Russian missiles, then in no way will a person doing tht in SP will affect your experience in any way. If you feel it's unrealistic, just don't fly that fast and don't carry the Russian missiles and enjoy the game.

 

You might think this is absurd, but why is one okay but not the other, when this exact same reasoning applies just as well.

 

34 minutes ago, DuncanXP311 said:

DCS is a sandbox and if someone wants to roleplay as an israeli F16 pilot carrying JDAMS on all pylons let him be even if this is a circa 2007 National Guard F-16, then let like-minded admins on MP servers make their own restrictions.

TLDR: DCS is a sandbox

 

And if it is an M5.1 USAF/ANG F-16CM, then why should it represent anything other than that?

 

If I take our F-16CM, and fly it for Israel, and stick an Israeli livery on it, what I haven't done is turn it into an Israeli F-16C Barak, or an F-16I Sufa, it's still a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, just with an Israeli livery, flying for Israel.

 

[Dragon1-1]

Wiring up another station is not "technically possible" without making, effectively, another variant of the jet. It's also not possible to rewrite software in the field. It is, however, quite possible to hook up 3x Mavs on the "smart" stations, despite USAF not doing it. 

 

Your understanding of "technically possible" is on the level of people who tell actual programmers that something is "a simple matter of programming". It seems like it should be easy, and it might be easy to think up the logic that would do it, but actually implementing this logic can be a massive drudgery. Same here. A lot of things seem "possible" to a layman, and in the strictest sense they are, but someone who's soldered a few wires will tell you it's never that easy.

 

People need really need to recalibrate their idea of what "technically possible" really means. It's a lot more limited than it first seems.

Edited July 25, 2021 by Dragon1-1

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Wiring up another station is not "technically possible" without making, effectively, another variant of the jet.

 

Yes and that is something that's "technically possible" to do, unless you're using a different definition of the phrase, but not telling us what it is. I'm not in favour of it, because I think using the criteria of "technically possible" is bad optics, with no clear line. That's why I think it's better to stick to the capabilities and limitations of the real aircraft, as it was, where possible to do so.

 

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It's also not possible to rewrite software in the field. It is, however, quite possible to hook up 3x Mavs on the "smart" stations, despite USAF not doing it. 

 

I agree, and as far as I'm concerned it seems like it is a valid loadout, that's compatible with the aircraft as is, just is unused, and as such the LAU-88 can stay, until proven otherwise.

 

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Your understanding of "technically possible" is on the level of people who tell actual programmers that something is "a simple matter of programming". It seems like it should be easy, and it might be easy to think up the logic that would do it, but actually implementing this logic can be a massive drudgery. Same here. A lot of things seem "possible" to a layman, and in the strictest sense they are, but someone who's soldered a few wires will tell you it's never that easy.

 

I never once said, nor did I imply that "technically possible" meant "easy to do" or even "feasible to do", where are you getting this from? In fact, the fact that it doesn't necessarily mean these things at all, and what might be technically possible, might not be viable or feasible to do, is a part of what I was getting at.

 

It might be "technically possible" to do something (as in it's conceivable than it could be done), even if it's very difficult to do or unfeasible to do so from a workload, time or cost perspective, even if it could 'technically' be done. This is the problem when saying things like "technically possible", as it kinda opens up the floodgates, and it isn't clear what the limitations should or shouldn't be. That's why IMO, if your going to pick something specific, as ED has done so, it's better to just stick with what specific thing the module is supposed to be a representation of, as it is - you've got a clear, manegable scope, and a clear goal to work towards. When going down the route of what could conceivably be done, it's much more hazy.

 

I've dabbled with programming, I've dabbled with 3D modelling, I've bult computers and put together an RC aircraft - I'm not the most experienced with this by any means (far from it), at all, but I'm not a complete layman either.

Edited July 25, 2021 by Northstar98

[Dragon1-1]

To make it clear, I meant "technically possible" as in, "possible from a technician's point of view" not "possible in the broadest sense of the word" that you seem to understand it as. I guarantee you that a technician wouldn't be the least bit interested in turning the jet into another block on the ramp. As a somewhat technical person, I loathe the latter usage. 

[Simpit]

Shoot! That means - missions with combined Harms and Mavericks no longer possible!

Edited July 25, 2021 by Simpit

[twistking]

7 hours ago, ebabil said:

Dear ED please remove harms from 4/6 completeyl if you are not gonna let us use them. it creates confusion. if other modules make the same, then it will be total chaos.

at least you can label these weapons as "NOT USABLE" 

That's the point. ED should definitely find a way to mark them as inoperable in the loadout screen. Otherwise it will be confusing for many.