Jump to content

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


Silvern

Recommended Posts

Teaching people through the interface is a bad trend. The briefing already calls them something like AGM-88C HARM High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile. It's silly. Some of the switch tooltips are bordering on paragraphs of instruction. An infinite amount of effort can be expended trying to design which requires no prepared knowledge on the part of the user but it will always be insufficient and be an inelegant mess in the attempt. I don't envy ED receiving demands not only to accurately simulate a complex vehicle but also to supplant normal brain functions of the user.

 

At some point the user is expected to know or learn something which is not Post-It'd to their forehead by reading manuals and following lessons. If I see a Mark 85 bomb which I don't know I will look it up. I don't want a detailed blurb to pop up forever more during use.

 

Fighter pilotage is an academic pursuit. There should be teaching materials surely but when the user has learned those they get put aside.

 

As to "well I don't want this exact variant. I want an amalgam of several models." I don't know what to say. ED have been pretty clear about their focus from the start. Many words were had pro and con about it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Frederf said:

Teaching people through the interface is a bad trend. The briefing already calls them something like AGM-88C HARM High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile. It's silly. Some of the switch tooltips are bordering on paragraphs of instruction. An infinite amount of effort can be expended trying to design which requires no prepared knowledge on the part of the user but it will always be insufficient and be an inelegant mess in the attempt. I don't envy ED receiving demands not only to accurately simulate a complex vehicle but also to supplant normal brain functions of the user.

 

At some point the user is expected to know or learn something which is not Post-It'd to their forehead by reading manuals and following lessons. If I see a Mark 85 bomb which I don't know I will look it up. I don't want a detailed blurb to pop up forever more during use.

 

Fighter pilotage is an academic pursuit. There should be teaching materials surely but when the user has learned those they get put aside.

 

As to "well I don't want this exact variant. I want an amalgam of several models." I don't know what to say. ED have been pretty clear about their focus from the start. Many words were had pro and con about it.

 

Absolutely agreed.

 

I get that people have their favourite F-16 variant that isn't the one we got, I'm no different. However, if our F-16CM being a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 is a show-stopping problem (which seems to be the case) for some people, then isn't it bad optics buying it?

 

The planned features and payloads thread was up for a week before the pre-order went live, which was months before the thing released into EA, said thread clearly states:

 

"We will be taking 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.

 

For this project, we are striving to create a very authentic simulation of this particular aircraft at a specific point in time. We have no desire to create a Frankenstein's Monster that combines multiple F-16C versions from different time periods."

 

Admittedly though, the eshop product page doesn't mention this.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2021 at 1:43 PM, Munkwolf said:

I've read in other threads that at least the Israeli Air Force runs harms and guided bombs off 4 & 6?

That's where you open Pandora's Box. Israeli F-16s have a lot of differences from the DCS F-16. If data is added to the inboard pylons like Israeli jets have, how about conformal fuel tanks too? Moving map display? Elbit HMD? Or the different ICP? Python 5? Where do you draw the line? 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

That's where you open Pandora's Box. Israeli F-16s have a lot of differences from the DCS F-16. If data is added to the inboard pylons like Israeli jets have, how about conformal fuel tanks too? Moving map display? Elbit HMD? Or the different ICP? Python 5? Where do you draw the line? 

 

Allowing for weapons that are already in the game is a reasonable request: AGM-88, GBU-31 JDAM, JSOW C.

 

When you already have an F-18 for country SPAIN that can be loaded up with with a LITENENING pod on the cheek station this goes a long way for the immersion of the customer. This has no impact on Marine purists that load the pod on the centerline or USN purists who load the ATFLIR instead.

 

The same appreciation for enthusiasts looking for non USAF ANG loadouts of weapons that are already modelled in the game would be very welcoming for the customers of the F-16.

 

Cheers!


Edited by ViFF
  • Like 2

IAF.ViFF

 

http://www.preflight.us

Israel's Combat Flight Sim Community Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

"We will be taking 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.

 

I don't think you noticed how many times the goal post moved on this one post, edited quite a few times. The original list included JSOW C  which I was very happy to see because that covers the loadouts for F-16s operated by Turkey. When the decision was made that stations 4 and 6 to include weapons requiring MIL-STD 1760 I was very happy because it also covers the typical loadouts of Israeli and Hellenic F-16s (JDAM & AGM-88 respectively).

 

Cheers!

  • Like 5

IAF.ViFF

 

http://www.preflight.us

Israel's Combat Flight Sim Community Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ViFF said:

 

I don't think you noticed how many times the goal post moved on this one post, edited quite a few times. The original list included JSOW C  which I was very happy to see because that covers the loadouts for F-16s operated by Turkey. When the decision was made that stations 4 and 6 to include weapons requiring MIL-STD 1760 I was very happy because it also covers the typical loadouts of Israeli and Hellenic F-16s (JDAM & AGM-88 respectively).

 

Cheers!

 

One thing i have to add here that irritated me was the initial Sniper XR targetting pod that was initially written on that list too, than months later, if not a year after release, it was edited and removed because "We don't have documents for it" (But never told to us until very recently), why put it on the list in the first place than if you never even did the research to be sure you'd be able to model it down the line ?

 

(I know, there is a thread about it on the forum already, but this was a good time to remind people about what i consider shady methods/moves)

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ViFF said:

I don't think you noticed how many times the goal post moved on this one post, edited quite a few times. The original list included JSOW C  which I was very happy to see because that covers the loadouts for F-16s operated by Turkey. When the decision was made that stations 4 and 6 to include weapons requiring MIL-STD 1760 I was very happy because it also covers the typical loadouts of Israeli and Hellenic F-16s (JDAM & AGM-88 respectively).

 

But having a USAF/ANG F-16CM was always the plan, the payloads were just corrected as time went on, I don't think that's moving the goalpost, I think that's ED throwing together a list prematurely, before they've done the necessary research.

 

I'm well aware of things being on the list and then being dropped (I'm pretty sure JASSM was also initially on the list at one point, but that's an M6.5 thing, which would also include AIM-9X Block II, AIM-120D and GBU-39 though none of those were ever mentioned). 

 

7 hours ago, SparxOne said:

One thing i have to add here that irritated me was the initial Sniper XR targetting pod that was initially written on that list too, than months later, if not a year after release, it was edited and removed because "We don't have documents for it" (But never told to us until very recently), why put it on the list in the first place than if you never even did the research to be sure you'd be able to model it down the line ?

 

(I know, there is a thread about it on the forum already, but this was a good time to remind people about what i consider shady methods/moves)

 

Yeah, this was annoying, and I absolutely agree. Though the Sniper has been on and off the planned list so many times, and yes it would be better to do all the research before putting the list together.

 

What was more annoying for me personally, is to see things on the F/A-18C's planned features and payloads list get silently removed, some of them being things the Hornet is actually supposed to have, sure you can argue that they aren't all that important, though some of the models are already in the files. There wasn't any explanation, and all I got was "the list is subject to change".

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing to keep in mind is that we do not know what the licensing agreement was between ED and Lockheed for example.  They might have initially "thought" the sniper was going to be "good to go" only to find out that they are not allowed to replicate it.  When money is involve a company is going to be on a pretty strict contract in regards to what they can and cannot do with that product.   Or simply they didn't have enough data to actually put it in the sim at a level that was going to be playable.   

 

I am sure ED would put as much as they could out there on the F-16 based on the year, make, model, etc.. because it makes the end product much more appealing.   if they are locked into a certain block and tape with only certain loads and weapons, then that is the way it is....    

 

I agree its frustrating to see things taken away like that, it is the reality of it though...  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Appreciate you are all passionate about this, please keep to the topic.

 

We are happy with the current implementation, it is correct for our viper and block. 

 

thanks

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Appreciate you are all passionate about this, please keep to the topic.

 

We are happy with the current implementation, it is correct for our viper and block. 

 

thanks

 

Well, passionate is very diplomatic. This thread is a  zoo.


Edited by twistking
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but let's do it once more with reason:

 

i think it would be beneficial to the "debate" that everyone accepted that ED had reasons for their decisions to handle the HARMs and MAVs the way that they did. You may not like it, but you cannot argue that it's non-sensical. The problem is a bit of a slippery slope issue and there is no definite answer, but allowing what's technical possible (even if not operationally cleared) and removing what's not technical possible, are two distinct situations.

Limiting the simulation to one specific version and block is a decision that makes sense from different angles, not only scope wise, but also marketing-wise etc.

 

Again, this may not be your preferred situation, but i think you should first accept the reasoning behind these decisions, because only then you can make proposals to change the situation in a productive manner.

You could discuss how the UI could help players to intuitively understand "carry-only" capabilities, or how UI could incourage players to stick to loadouts that are actually tested and cleared. One could discuss settings in the ME that enforce different playstyles (i think that's a weird idea, but i never even touched public MP because i anticipate to hate everything about it regarding playstyle. so what do i know).

Most importantly you could try to get ED to create an export version of the F-16 that would be set-up differently. Could be payed addon, or a free addition, like we have different versions of the american warbirds and spitfire. Maybe this export version could take some more liberties in not being tied to a specific version.

This would all be sensible things to discuss. Throwing around with hyperbole and generally being mean to each other will get you nowhere, i'm afraid.


Edited by twistking
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2021 at 12:19 PM, Frederf said:

Teaching people through the interface is a bad trend. The briefing already calls them something like AGM-88C HARM High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile. It's silly. Some of the switch tooltips are bordering on paragraphs of instruction...


Why does it not surprise me in the least that the same sort of person who criticizes and belittles the game's interface trying to help it's users also thinks the DCS: Viper shouldn't have HARMs shooting from 4/6 because specifically the USAF removed some wiring? I'm guessing this poster also thinks ED should remove the Greek, Israeli, and other service liveries, because they are not accurate for a USAF/ANG Viper circa 2007? Or should we be able to have HARMs on 4/6 if we just use a non-USAF/ANG livery? That the Hornet should be unable to carry Litening on the cheek, and unable to carry ATFLIR on the centerline (technically it should be unable to carry the Litening we have at all, since it's not a USN Litening and we're repeatedly told it's a USN Hornet)? That the F:15C should not carry the AIM-120C? That the Blackshark should basically be removed entirely? That the...

It's not the desire to exactly mimic a real thing that annoys me in this move by ED. It's the inconsistency. It's that this extreme level of rivet-counting only occurs in certain places, to certain modules. DCS is not a very accurate game. It is riddled with technical errors and inaccuracies. That rivet-counters choose to die on the hill of removing HARMs from 4/6 is confusing and slightly amusing to me. Really? That's what's wrong with DCS?


Edited by Jester2138
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

Why does it not surprise me in the least that the same sort of person who criticizes and belittles the game's interface trying to help it's users also thinks the DCS: Viper shouldn't have HARMs shooting from 4/6 because specifically the USAF removed some wiring?

 

Is it "the USAF removed some wiring" or was the wiring never there?

 

4 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

I'm guessing this poster also thinks ED should remove the Greek, Israeli, and other service liveries, because they are not accurate for a USAF/ANG Viper circa 2007? Or should we be able to have HARMs on 4/6 if we just use a non-USAF/ANG livery?

 

Something that would mandate locking out the livery files, and stopping them from being able to be modded, which sounds like a great idea (not).

 

Look, if I fly our F-16CM for Greece, and give it a Greek livery, it does magically become a Greek Peace Xenia II F-16CJ Block 50 or Peace Xenia IV F-16CJ Block 52+, it's still an M5.1 USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, just with a Greek livery, flying for Greece, absolutely nothing has changed about the aircraft itself, apart from the livery it's got.

 

If I fly it for Israel, with an Israeli livery, it doesn't magically become an F-16C Block 30 Barak or an F-16CG Block 40 Barak or an F-16I Sufa, again still an M5.1 USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, just with an Israeli livery.

 

And there's a lot more to mimicking these aircraft from other countries than just 4 and 6 being compatible for JDAMs and HARMs...

 

4 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

That the Hornet should be unable to carry Litening on the cheek, and unable to carry ATFLIR on the centerline (technically it should be unable to carry the Litening we have at all, since it's not a USN Litening and we're repeatedly told it's a USN Hornet)?

 

The cheek station LITENING shouldn't really be a thing, and if the only difference between a USMC and USN mid 2000s F/A-18C lot 20s is ATFLIR on the cheek station for the USN, and LITENING on the centreline for shore based USMC aircraft, then it can stay, just amend the description.

 

We don't need to remove ATFLIR from the centreline, because we can't mount ATFLIR on anywhere other than the left cheek station - it's accurate already.

 

Though the targetting pod that'smore appropriate is probably the Nite Hawk AFAIK.

 

4 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

That the F:15C should not carry the AIM-120C?

 

Why?

 

Plus it's an FC3 aircraft, with simplified systems modelling, they are nowhere near up to the same standard as other modules apart from flight model and graphics (though that latter one less and less with each new release).

 

4 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

That the Blackshark should basically be removed entirely?

 

I'm okay with more or less hypothetical or what is essentially prototype aircraft, but if you're going to go down this route, stick to what was actually planned IRL.

 

Of course I would much prefer to get production aircraft any day of the week.

 

4 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

It's not the desire to exactly mimic a real thing that annoys me in this move by ED. It's the inconsistency. It's that this extreme level of rivet-counting only occurs in certain places, to certain modules.

 

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

 

I don't particularly care what the rules are, just pick something and commit where possible, if you're going to advertise your module or asset or blah blah blah, whatever, as specifically x, then it should be specfically x.

 

4 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

DCS is not a very accurate game. It is riddled with technical errors and inaccuracies.

 

Which is fine, the goal should be as accurate as possible, even if it ends up not being a 1:1 recreation (which almost always due to feasibility).

 

4 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

That rivet-counters choose to die on the hill of removing HARMs from 4/6 is confusing and slightly amusing to me. Really? That's what's wrong with DCS?

 

And the others choose to die on hill for putting HARMs and JDAMs on stations 4 and 6 is confusing and slightly amusing to me. Really? That's what wrong with DCS?

 

Or is it only a problem when the rivet counters do it?

 

That aside, you do realise that being passionate about this in no way means we think it's the only or even the most significant problem with DCS, I mean, come on...

 

I can name all of the problems that I think are way more important than this, this is barely a fart on Jupiter by comparison, but that doesn't mean people can't have strong opinions on this.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Give it a rest chum. A line has been drawn in the sand because it has to be. If you don’t like it, tough. Dealing with situations that don’t always go your way is called being an adult. I suggest you start trying.


If being an adult means calling other people on the internet children because they disagree with you... I'm good, chum 🙂 

 

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Something that would mandate locking out the livery files, and stopping them from being able to be modded, which sounds like a great idea (not).


That is not how it works. ED could just not include inaccurate liveries in their module. Which is, btw, what some other developers do.
 

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Look, if I fly our F-16CM for Greece, and give it a Greek livery, it does magically become a Greek Peace Xenia II F-16CJ Block 50 or Peace Xenia IV F-16CJ Block 52+, it's still an M5.1 USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, just with a Greek livery, flying for Greece, absolutely nothing has changed about the aircraft itself, apart from the livery it's got.


Exactly my point. The inclusion of those liveries is entirely unrealistic to a USAF/ANG Viper circa 2007 and makes a fictional airplane should the user choose to use them. Why are they included?

 

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

if you're going to advertise your module or asset or blah blah blah, whatever, as specifically x, then it should be specfically x.


I agree that they should stick with what was advertised. The Viper was originally advertised and sold as having 4x HARMs. They changed that feature after my money changed hands. However, if they want to reserve the right to change features after the sale, don't forget that nothing is necessarily stopping them from changing their obsession with only representing USAF/ANG loadouts, except their own word.


Edited by Jester2138
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Jester2138 said:

The Viper was originally advertised and sold as having 4x HARMs.

No it wasn't.

 

You were specifically told it was going to have 2 HARM. In the very first video. Nowhere where you told it would have 4.

 

You complained.

 

It only had 4 HARM because users like you complained and posted images of a flight test jet, some promotional paragraph on some random air base website written by nobody, and documents which list it as being approved to be hung on those stations. Okay, that's why you can hang it on those stations.

The gaslighting and crying about liveries is embarrassing. The complaining continues.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys... I don't have that big of a brain to understand all the super-in-depth-technical-quirks as you DCS veterans do, but as far as I understand the discussion, the main argument is that some think the F-16 should carry 4 Harms, and be able to use them. And officially the Viper is able to carry 2 and use two HARMS and this is what we get in DCS, right?

 

So... just to use common sense, without all that technical mumbo jumbo.

 

1. Isn't having 2 HARMS still better than having none of them? 

2. Why would you need to carry 4 HARMS mission wise? Just to kill radars and ground vehicles using radars against aircraft? What about the rest of ground targets?

 

With point 2 I mean, is it not better to carry bombs/mavericks etc. next to HARMS? (if such a configuration is possible) and use the HARMS to disable major air defence threats? The Viper is a very capable striker too i think, so after firing the HARMS, why not get balls into grass at mach speed and drop cluster bombs on some fat target, then get out.

 

Its just my 2 cents, but what I basically want to say is that I like to have my loadouts as clean and versatile as possible, without getting into "frankenloadouts". Also, when possible, I limit the amount of carried ordnance for fuel conservation purposes. Meaning, as an example, the A-10C can carry an outrageous amount of ordnance, but honestly I never pack it full of bombs, since I want to stay relatively quick on my feet.

 

So simply put, my way of thinking when enjoying DCS is that in this case 2 HARMS are more than enough to do the job. But this is just my personal opinion, from a guy that mostly flies solo ground pounding missions, and in SP. I rarely do MP, and If i do, its in a Huey. Like mentioned I am not an expert and need to learn the F-16 from the beggining, once I decide to jump into it, but that is just my perspective as an "outside" guy that does mud moving/Helo ops most of the time. 

 


Edited by Mr.Scar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2021 at 11:56 AM, Jester2138 said:

 That rivet-counters choose to die on the hill of removing HARMs from 4/6 is confusing and slightly amusing to me. Really? That's what's wrong with DCS?

 

I'm with you man. The thing is there are some people who apparently hates HARMs on 4/6 and called it unrealistic loadout. They think being able to carry HAMRs on 4/6 ruins their immersion in DCS because they want to do realistic sorties with realistic loadouts. And they kept crying about this in the forum and then they had some mechanics saying 4/6 isn't wired on USAF jets in real life. So ED removed the HARMs... 

 

 

 


Edited by SCPanda
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr.Scar said:

Guys... I don't have that big of a brain to understand all the super-in-depth-technical-quirks as you DCS veterans do, but as far as I understand the discussion, the main argument is that some think the F-16 should carry 4 Harms, and be able to use them. And officially the Viper is able to carry 2 and use two HARMS and this is what we get in DCS, right?

 

So... just to use common sense, without all that technical mumbo jumbo.

 

1. Isn't having 2 HARMS still better than having none of them? 

2. Why would you need to carry 4 HARMS mission wise? Just to kill radars and ground vehicles using radars against aircraft? What about the rest of ground targets?

 

With point 2 I mean, is it not better to carry bombs/mavericks etc. next to HARMS? (if such a configuration is possible) and use the HARMS to disable major air defence threats? The Viper is a very capable striker too i think, so after firing the HARMS, why not get balls into grass at mach speed and drop cluster bombs on some fat target, then get out.

 

Its just my 2 cents, but what I basically want to say is that I like to have my loadouts as clean and versatile as possible, without getting into "frankenloadouts". Also, when possible, I limit the amount of carried ordnance for fuel conservation purposes. Meaning, as an example, the A-10C can carry an outrageous amount of ordnance, but honestly I never pack it full of bombs, since I want to stay relatively quick on my feet.

 

So simply put, my way of thinking when enjoying DCS is that in this case 2 HARMS are more than enough to do the job. But this is just my personal opinion, from a guy that mostly flies solo ground pounding missions, and in SP. I rarely do MP, and If i do, its in a Huey. Like mentioned I am not an expert and need to learn the F-16 from the beggining, once I decide to jump into it, but that is just my perspective as an "outside" guy that does mud moving/Helo ops most of the time. 

 

 

The sad thing is you can't carry mavericks and JDAMs while carrying HARMs now, because you cannot load mavericks and JDAMS on stations 4 and 6 in DCS. So what ED did was basically taking away a lot of loadout options for us and really limits the versatility of the F-16. 

 

So let's go with the realistic loadout some people apparently are SO obsessed with: 2 or 3 Aim-120s, 1 or 2 Aim-9s, 2 Harms, 2 Wing tanks, no jammer pod yet so centerline station would be empty. How the gameplay well end up: Take off, climb, fire 2 HARMs, go home with still 9000 lbs of fuel and rearm... REAL exciting mission... 


Edited by SCPanda
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, SCPanda said:

The sad thing is you can't carry mavericks and JDAMs while carrying HARMs now, because you cannot load mavericks and JDAMS on stations 4 and 6 in DCS. So what ED did was basically taking away a lot of loadout options for us and really limits the versatility of the F-16. 

 

So let's go with the realistic loadout some people apparently are SO obsessed with: 2 or 3 Aim-120s, 1 or 2 Aim-9s, 2 Harms, 2 Wing tanks, no jammer pod yet so centerline station would be empty. How the gameplay well end up: Take off, climb, fire 2 HARMs, go home with still 9000 lbs of fuel and rearm... REAL exciting mission... 

 

 

Allright, I think I get it now... Thank you for the explanation. I need to digest what to think about it honestly, but it seems that when one wants to fly the Viper he has to really think what type of mission he has to perform. So the loadout example you have given, basically forces you to do SEAD and than potentialy CAP? And If you want to do pure A2G, then sorry, no Harms?

 

I dont want to sound bad, but... I have better SEAD and A2G combo with the Harrier in this case. Sidearms were not used historically I think, but they can be really potent in DCS. So yeah, so much for realism. To explain, i love realism, but I am definitely not some hardcore realism guy. I spend a lot of time on DCS, but its definetly not my second life.

 

On the other hand, I avoid Air Quake... I prefer sitting with my crotch on the fence, and people from both sides usually hate me hahaha

 

But anyway, sorry fot the offtop and thanks for the explanation one more time.


Edited by Mr.Scar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mr.Scar said:

 

Allright, I think I get it now... Thank you for the explanation. I need to digest what to think about it honestly, but it seems that when one wants to fly the Viper he has to really think what type of mission he has to perform. So the loadout example you have given, basically forces you to do SEAD and than potentialy CAP? And If you want to do pure A2G, then sorry, no Harms?

 

I dont want to sound bad, but... I have better SEAD and A2G combo with the Harrier in this case. Sidearms were not used historically I think, but they can be really potent in DCS. So yeah, so much for realism. To explain, i love realism, but I am definitely not some hardcore realism guy. I spend a lot of time on DCS, but its definetly not my second life.

 

On the other hand, I avoid Air Quake... I prefer sitting with my crotch on the fence, and people from both sides usually hate me hahaha

 

But anyway, sorry fot the offtop and thanks for the explanation one more time.

 

No problem man. I also want to point out I don't particularly hate the realistic loadouts lol. It's just how DCS missions (MP espeically) work. DCS is more like a sandbox with jets to fly and things to shoot at (I mean in MP we can instantly respawn and get a new jet whenever we want). Meanwhile realistic AA and AG missions would be much more complicated, things like flight plan, briefing, coordination with command and other units like AWACS, ROE, etc., Maybe realistic loadouts would be actually fun to use in missions like that, because the pilot will not just be a simple weapon delivery guy, and missions like that would be much more immersive. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SCPanda said:

No problem man. I also want to point out I don't particularly hate the realistic loadouts lol. It's just how DCS missions (MP espeically) work. DCS is more like a sandbox with jets to fly and things to shoot at (I mean in MP we can instantly respawn and get a new jet whenever we want). Meanwhile realistic AA and AG missions would be much more complicated, things like flight plan, briefing, coordination with command and other units like AWACS, ROE, etc., Maybe realistic loadouts would be actually fun to use in missions like that, because the pilot will not just be a simple weapon delivery guy, and missions like that would be much more immersive. 

 

Oh yeah, definitely. By saying what you said, you also moved a very important topic, so i have to go off top again, but the reasons you stated above is why I would love to see a official dynamic campaign. Because in the end, historical accuracy or not, the real problem are not aircraft modules. We have good modules although some are more advanced in development and others are not, the problem lies in the environment we fly in. When we would get a DC with advanced ground and air  units AI behaviour, and the battlefield management AI would be generating dynamic missions depending on changing circumstances, it would all boil down to: Not what you want to do, but what the mission that has been issued to you, requires you to do. In my opinion it completely changes the perspective. You are no longer the saviour hero pilot, but you are part of a big war machine.

 

I think it would solve a lot of problems, and the realistic loadouts argument would be somewhat pushed on the second place. Since it would simply force people to be effective in executing a mission, and not preforming rag tag random killing with as much type of weapons possible. 

 

That is just my feeling, but i might be wrong of course.


Edited by Mr.Scar
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr.Scar said:

 

Oh yeah, definitely. By saying what you said, you also moved a very important topic, so i have to go off top again, but the reasons you stated above is why I would love to see a official dynamic campaign. Because in the end, historical accuracy or not, the real problem are not aircraft modules. We have good modules although some are more advanced in development and others are not, the problem lies in the environment we fly in. When we would get a DC with advanced ground and air  units AI behaviour, and the battlefield management AI would be generating dynamic missions depending on changing circumstances, it would all boil down to: Not what you want to do, but what the mission that has been issued to you, requires you to do. In my opinion it completely changes the perspective. You are no longer the saviour hero pilot, but you are part of a big war machine.

 

I think it would solve a lot of problems, and the realistic loadouts argument would be somewhat pushed on the second place. Since it would simply force people to be effective in executing a mission, and not preforming rag tag random killing with as much type of weapons possible. 

 

That is just my feeling, but i might be wrong of course.

 

Exactly, like F-16s doing SEAD and DEAD, F-15s doing CAP, A-10s doing CAS, F-18s doing fleet defense and etc. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

That is not how it works. ED could just not include inaccurate liveries in their module. Which is, btw, what some other developers do.

 

Then what's the point?

 

If they're not enforcing realistic liveries, then someone would just mod a fictional livery from whatever country that isn't the US and we get to exactly the same place, 2 different ways. It's just that having ED do it is quicker.

 

If you don't think ED should enforce realistic liveries (as do I, and in general I think people should be able to mod their games as they see fit, including modding weapons - we already have systems in MP to enforce pure clients), then what's the problem with ED doing the liveries and not a modder?

 

And just so were on the same page here, the livery the aircraft has, has no bearing whatsoever on the variant ED are making, and if you think about it it's perfectly possible to paint the RL aircraft in any way you wish, with no modifications at all to the aircraft.

 

And liveries are small potatoes compared to modelling US specific weapons and systems.

 

8 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

Exactly my point. The inclusion of those liveries is entirely unrealistic to a USAF/ANG Viper circa 2007 and makes a fictional airplane should the user choose to use them. Why are they included?

 

Again, what do you want here?

 

Do you think users should be able to have whatever livery they want, or do you think ED should enforce the liveries, if it's the former, what would be the point of removing them? And if it's the latter, then they'll have to lock the livery files out and you'll only have the USAF/ANG livery files ED provides available and you won't be able to make your own liveries, whether they're US or not.

 

8 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

I agree that they should stick with what was advertised. The Viper was originally advertised and sold as having 4x HARMs.

 

Actually, no it wasn't, it was never advertised as having 4 HARMs, it was only over ever advertised as having HARM being a weapon it can use, they never advertised what stations can or cannot fire it.

 

And it actually started off having HARMs on 3 and 7 only, people complained, found images of test aircraft carrying 4  and found a stores loading diagram with 4, so they changed it so they can be employed on 4 and 6. Afterwards, some SMEs came forward and said that this actually wasn't proof of what stations could fire what, and even provided detailed posts of what the wiring is like, and what it would take to modify the aircraft to fire HARMs from 4 and 6, and after that it went back to 3 and 7 having the capability to fire, but then adding 4 and 6 for carry only, which is the most accurate represention of the RL aircraft, so perfectly in line with what was advertised and the goal's of DCS itself.

 

8 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

They changed that feature after my money changed hands. However, if they want to reserve the right to change features after the sale, don't forget that nothing is necessarily stopping them from changing their obsession with only representing USAF/ANG loadouts, except their own word.

 

Yep, but developing an aircraft which they presumably have access to, and documentation on, to then develop a different aircraft down the line *cough* *cough* RAZBAM, would be exceedingly bad optics, increase development scope, and would mean that current USAF/ANG specific stuff for this aircraft would've been a waste of time.

 

I don't particularly care what variant gets developed, though I do have my preferences (for instance, what was most produced, I tend to prefer aircraft that come from the country of origin, I also prefer aircraft from certain eras etc).


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldnt call it excellent patch tbh. ED broke RWS SAM with the update and AIM-120 goes ballistic (not tracking) if it launched in RWS SAM with hotfix and we should wait only ED know when we can get the fix.
Other than that its ok patch.

  • Like 1

Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...