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

[Vakarian]

1 hour ago, Oceandar said:

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.

[Oceandar]

I was simply respond to the "excellent patch" which I little bit disagree. So not really OT.
Carry on...

[Smoked]

11 hours ago, SCPanda said:

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... 

 

Huh.... We flew a deep SEAD/DEAD profile the other night in my group.   Several jets with what you described, others with JDAMS.   Encountered hostile air, SA-11's, SA-8's...   Everyone had a purpose, everyone landed with less than 3k fuel...    Perhaps your are simming wrong??  My point is, do not let a "realistic" load out ruin your game play.   There is plenty you can do with it.   

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, Smoked said:

Huh.... We flew a deep SEAD/DEAD profile the other night in my group.   Several jets with what you described, others with JDAMS.   Encountered hostile air, SA-11's, SA-8's...   Everyone had a purpose, everyone landed with less than 3k fuel...    Perhaps your are simming wrong??  My point is, do not let a "realistic" load out ruin your game play.   There is plenty you can do with it.   

 

The problem is a lot of people (through no inherent fault of their own) think a SEAD mission is simply flying to the objective area, firing HARMs at emitters, and then flying home.  My virtual squad was doing Wild Weasel missions effectively in the DCS F-16 long before the HARM was even available as an option for the Viper.  There are a lot of various tools in the SEAD toolbox; the HARM is just one of those tools.  Tactics and teamwork are what really matters, and it sounds like you have a pretty effective group assembled for it.

[Smoked]

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

 

The problem is a lot of people (through no inherent fault of their own) think a SEAD mission is simply flying to the objective area, firing HARMs at emitters, and then flying home.  My virtual squad was doing Wild Weasel missions effectively in the DCS F-16 long before the HARM was even available as an option for the Viper.  There are a lot of various tools in the SEAD toolbox; the HARM is just one of those tools.  Tactics and teamwork are what really matters, and it sounds like you have a pretty effective group assembled for it.

I appreciate that and I feel that we do.   The best part of DCS hands down is the ability to work together with like minded individuals and to run complex scenarios/missions.  The training leading up to it, the planning, stepping together, flying the mission, and finally cracking a beer and watching the tacview file.   I understand the single player aspect to it and we encourage self based learning.  That said, DCS multiplayer in a team environment is where this sim really shines... 

[SCPanda]

7 hours ago, Smoked said:

Huh.... We flew a deep SEAD/DEAD profile the other night in my group.   Several jets with what you described, others with JDAMS.   Encountered hostile air, SA-11's, SA-8's...   Everyone had a purpose, everyone landed with less than 3k fuel...    Perhaps your are simming wrong??  My point is, do not let a "realistic" load out ruin your game play.   There is plenty you can do with it.   

Hey, if you got a group playing on your private severs doing your own PvE missions, good for you. But remember 90% of players playing on public MP severs do not get the same experience as you guys get. Not to mention it's not a easy thing to setup your own MP sever in DCS. There's no such thing as simming right or wrong. There are also plenty of people who enjoy doing public PvP but the gameplay is basically taking off and find things to shoot at. Like I said, DCS currently is simply a sandbox that currently lacks features for majority of players to get a dynamic/realistic mission experience in MP. Imagine a MP FPS game with all the nice guns and nice maps but no game modes...

 

If you have flown the other F-16 sim, you would know what DCS is currently lacking. I used to fly that sim as well, a lot of fun, much more realistic, but it just doesn't have the same level of graphics as DCS. That's why I switched. 

[Falconeer]

23 hours ago, SCPanda said:

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... 

 

 

Well... that's how it goes in RL too. Never heard any pilot complain about it

[Digitalvole]

Probably worth remembering that most of us play SP. 

 

If our AI Wingmen were capable of, well anything other than running out of fuel and ejecting mid mission, then the lack of ordinance on our own wing stations would be less of an issue.

 

Im not saying that therefore we should get more HARMS/MAVs etc, but might explain why some people are more miffed than others about it.

 

Fix the AI and possibly problem solved, easy-peasy! (if only it was.)

 

I for one would much rather have a competent wing man than two more missiles. After all as Dan Hampton says, HARMS are a waste of a wing station  

 

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Digitalvole

[Mr.Scar]

54 minutes ago, Digitalvole said:

I for one would much rather have a competent wing man than two more missiles. After all as Dan Hampton says, HARMS are a waste of a wing station  

 

+ You can also  do it like a boss, and just do a low level strike bombing the crap out of the target area

 

Its just personal preference, but like I mentioned in other posts, i like hands on flying experience more than systems management. I also am more fond of SP missions/campaigns, than MP. 

 

But anyway, there are some good arguments here. To sum up, a better battlefield environment would be desired.

[Jester2138]

 

21 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

 

The problem is a lot of people (through no inherent fault of their own) think a SEAD mission is simply flying to the objective area, firing HARMs at emitters, and then flying home.

That is a SEAD mission.

"Suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) is defined by the Department of Defense (DOD) as “That activity that neutralizes, destroys, or temporarily degrades surface-based enemy air defenses by destructive and/or disruptive means.” https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS21141.pdf
 

21 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

 

My virtual squad was doing Wild Weasel missions effectively in the DCS F-16 long before the HARM was even available as an option for the Viper. 

If you didn't have the ability to home-in on emitters, you weren't really doing Wild Weasel missions. You were doing DEAD.

"A counter had to be found, and that counter was the Wild Weasel, a specially configured F-100 F aircraft with electronics for detecting and then homing on radar emissions from SAM sites. The Weasel proved to be an effective weapon for suppressing enemy radar and SAM threats... The first Weasels employed rockets to mark the target for following attack aircraft who would destroy the SAM sites with bombs or cluster munitions... The introduction of Shrike anti-radiation missile (ARM) negated the requirement to overfly the site, but its short range required further improvement. The improvement came in the Standard ARM, a missile that was followed by development of the High-Speed Anti- Radiation Missile, or HARM, the weapon of choice for today's Weasel." https://media.defense.gov/2017/Dec/29/2001861994/-1/-1/0/T_HEWITT_PLANTING_SEEDS.PDF

On 7/28/2021 at 3:19 AM, Northstar98 said:

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.

Seems you don't understand. If ED includes the unrealistic liveries, they're available by default in the game and in MP. If ED does not include unrealistic liveries, then you have to mod them in. Right? Now what happens if you mod the game? You fail the integrity check, and server owners who want to restrict against unrealistic liveries can easily do so.

Nobody has suggested removing the ability to mod liveries. No idea why you guys keep locking back on that weird idea.

On 7/28/2021 at 3:19 AM, Northstar98 said:

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.

Read the other word. SOLD. It was SOLD as having 4 HARMs. When many users (like myself) bought it, it was indeed advertised and sold as having 4 HARMs.

I don't want to stray too far from a key point here, though. 4 HARMs is not unrealistic to the F-16C. It is only unrealistic to the USAF/ANG F-16C. Many of you are unable to separate these two ideas in your responses. The only valid point made so far is that ED wants to do a USAF/ANG Viper only, an intention I highly dislike. Make all the points about ED's intentions you want, but don't falsely claim points on realism - especially when you also betray that you don't actually know what SEAD, DEAD, or Wild Weasel mean.

A truly service-specific module would be a first for DCS. I'd hate to see it go in that direction. Especially odd to choose one of the most widely-exported fighters ever made for the approach. Counterintuitively, continuing that approach in future modules would ultimately limit available realism in scenarios.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Jester2138

[Northstar98]

5 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

Seems you don't understand. If ED includes the unrealistic liveries, they're available by default in the game and in MP. If ED does not include unrealistic liveries, then you have to mod them in. Right? Now what happens if you mod the game? You fail the integrity check, and server owners who want to restrict against unrealistic liveries can easily do so.

 

No you don't, modded liveries don't (or shouldn't) fail the integrity check, they just don't load properly for people without the custom livery.

 

Your modded liveries go in your saved games folder, and the integrity checker does not (or shouldn't) check there.

 

5 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

Nobody has suggested removing the ability to mod liveries. No idea why you guys keep locking back on that weird idea.

 

Because that is what it implies, and that is what you'd have to do to enforce it.

 

So I swing back to my question, what do you want exactly?

 

5 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

Read the other word. SOLD. It was SOLD as having 4 HARMs. When many users (like myself) bought it, it was indeed advertised and sold as having 4 HARMs.

 

I did, maybe someone needs to read the things they're responding too.

 

And why are you telling me porkies?

 

It was NEVER advertised has having 4 HARMs, ever. Cite me anything that backs that up. It was only advertised as having HARMs in its list of payloads - that's it.

 

When the F-16C was initially sold, there were only 2 HARMs, you just happened to buy it when it had 4, now you get 2 HARMs functional, and 2 carry only - the most realistic representation of the aircraft ED are aiming for.

 

5 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

I don't want to stray too far from a key point here, though. 4 HARMs is not unrealistic to the F-16C. It is only unrealistic to the USAF/ANG F-16C.

 

So it's unrealistic for our F-16 module then? Y'know, the only thing that's relevant here?

 

5 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

Many of you are unable to separate these two ideas in your responses.

 

Because anything that isn't specific to our F-16CM is wholly irrelevant.

 

5 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

The only valid point made so far is that ED wants to do a USAF/ANG Viper only, an intention I highly dislike.

 

Why do you buy a module, if the developer's intentions for it (which has been constant from the very start), is something you 'highly dislike'?

 

Now they should put the items contained in the planned payloads and systems thread on the store page, I'll give you that.

 

5 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

Make all the points about ED's intentions you want, but don't falsely claim points on realism.

 

It isn't a false claim, what the hell are you talking about?

 

Is having 4 HARMs on our F-16C realistic or not?

 

The answer? No it isn't - the end. So is the current implementation realistic? Yes it is.

 

So has the argument got a claim to realism? Yes it absolutely has.

 

Just because you personally don't like it, doesn't mean that I'm falsely claiming anything.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Northstar98

[ColinM9991]

On 7/22/2021 at 9:27 AM, Silvern said:

 

These players would very likely still fly their singleplayer missions with 6 Mavericks

 

 

Yeah, god forbid somebody wants to have fun in a singleplayer mission.

[Digitalvole]

14 hours ago, Mr.Scar said:

 

+ You can also  do it like a boss, and just do a low level strike bombing the crap out of the target area

 

Its just personal preference, but like I mentioned in other posts, i like hands on flying experience more than systems management. I also am more fond of SP missions/campaigns, than MP. 

 

But anyway, there are some good arguments here. To sum up, a better battlefield environment would be desired.

When I last played a Liberation campaign my favourite thing was taking out SA 10 tracking radars with either mavs or jdams in the Hornet. Flying super low and terrain masking when possible, then popping up. Bloody fantastic!

The AI wingman stayed back at base for those sorties.

 

It’s a shame things get so heated so quickly. If you bumped into a stranger in a pub or at a party and you ended up having this conversation it’d probably be one of the highlights of your evening.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Digitalvole

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

That is a SEAD mission.

"Suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) is defined by the Department of Defense (DOD) as “That activity that neutralizes, destroys, or temporarily degrades surface-based enemy air defenses by destructive and/or disruptive means.” https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS21141.pdf

 

You missed the point, which was explained in the entire context of my post, not that singular first sentence.  My point was that most people think a SEAD mission in the F-16 is exclusively firing HARM's at an emitter and then flying away; therefore losing the ability to carry 4x HARMs is often seen as a blanket reduction in the F-16's SEAD capabilities.  SEAD comes in all forms and fashions, at times not even including the use of aircraft at all.

 

2 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

If you didn't have the ability to home-in on emitters, you weren't really doing Wild Weasel missions. You were doing DEAD.

"A counter had to be found, and that counter was the Wild Weasel, a specially configured F-100 F aircraft with electronics for detecting and then homing on radar emissions from SAM sites. The Weasel proved to be an effective weapon for suppressing enemy radar and SAM threats... The first Weasels employed rockets to mark the target for following attack aircraft who would destroy the SAM sites with bombs or cluster munitions... The introduction of Shrike anti-radiation missile (ARM) negated the requirement to overfly the site, but its short range required further improvement. The improvement came in the Standard ARM, a missile that was followed by development of the High-Speed Anti- Radiation Missile, or HARM, the weapon of choice for today's Weasel." https://media.defense.gov/2017/Dec/29/2001861994/-1/-1/0/T_HEWITT_PLANTING_SEEDS.PDF

 

-snip-

 

 Make all the points about ED's intentions you want, but don't falsely claim points on realism - especially when you also betray that you don't actually know what SEAD, DEAD, or Wild Weasel mean.

 

First of all, the quote that you placed in your response was referring to early years of the Vietnam war, when Radar Warning Receivers weren't universally installed on all aircraft, and their level of sophistication for those that did have it was rather crude.  Second, the F-16 (even without the HTS) does have the means to home in on radar emitters, via its RWR, which is relatively sophisticated compared to the equipment used on the early Wild Weasel aircraft of the mid to late 60s.  Third, just as a SEAD mission doesn't equate to a requirement to carry an anti-radiation missile on board an aircraft, a "Wild Weasel" mission does not equate to having a specially-configured electronic homing device on board the aircraft to perform the mission.

 

Fourth, SEAD and DEAD are not mutually exclusive doctrinal mission sets.  In lieu of re-typing a previous response from another thread, I'll just link to this previous post of mine that explains the differences.  Fifth, some people (including myself) DO in fact know what SEAD, DEAD, and Wild Weasel actually mean, despite your claims to the contrary.  Some of us might actually have real-world experience in that field; and I can tell you that while fas.org or globalsecurity are reasonable sites to find additional threads to research, the accuracy of the information on those sites themselves are often wildly inaccurate and derivative from the same inaccurate sources that other community "google search" sites use.

[PunchOut]

I think ED made a poor decision to remove the functionality for the plane to deploy smart weapons from stations 4/6.

 I completely understand the desire to be “as real as possible” and ED making a specific version of a specific Block of F-16. But at the same time, we are paying customers, and this is a game at the end of the day.
We have users from all over the globe who wish to emulate what their countries Viper use
 

If ED wants to strive for maximum realism then they need to disable the “game modes” and labels. And since this is a USAF ANG Block 50 Viper, might as well remove custom liveries as an option too right? 
 

We should be free to dictate how real we make our missions and how we fly them. 
 

[monacoBMW]

k

[Xavven]

I voted "no" but only because the question is so broad I don't know where you intended to draw the line. Could I suggest a new poll but state specifically which weapons you want allowed on 4/6?

[randomTOTEN]

1 hour ago, PunchOut said:

But at the same time, we are paying customers, and this is a game at the end of the day.

You're here because you wanted a realistic F-16C aircraft. That's the game. That's what you paid for.

 

1 hour ago, PunchOut said:

We have users from all over the globe who wish to emulate what their countries Viper use

They can't. That's not how the game works.

 

1 hour ago, PunchOut said:

And since this is a USAF ANG Block 50 Viper, might as well remove custom liveries as an option too right? 

No. Again, that's not how the game works. Nobody had any problem with how the game worked (in this respect) until viper users decided to use this as a bargaining tool. It's not a bargaining tool. It's well established across all the modules.

Edited July 30, 2021 by randomTOTEN

[Xavven]

7 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

 

Fourth, SEAD and DEAD are not mutually exclusive doctrinal mission sets.  In lieu of re-typing a previous response from another thread, I'll just link to this previous post of mine that explains the differences.  Fifth, some people (including myself) DO in fact know what SEAD, DEAD, and Wild Weasel actually mean, despite your claims to the contrary.  Some of us might actually have real-world experience in that field; and I can tell you that while fas.org or globalsecurity are reasonable sites to find additional threads to research, the accuracy of the information on those sites themselves are often wildly inaccurate and derivative from the same inaccurate sources that other community "google search" sites use.

 

Thanks for the info on your previous post link. I definitely learned something today. You could suppress a SAM site by tossing 4 JSOWs at it, or 4 (or hell, 6) mavericks, and for systems that have the ability to shoot incoming missiles, they would use up ammunition on them that would otherwise be used on other mission aircraft. No HARMs needed necessarily. And if they don't shoot your JSOWs or mavericks down, well then they die

 

  

On 7/28/2021 at 12:40 AM, SCPanda said:

 Take off, climb, fire 2 HARMs, go home with still 9000 lbs of fuel and rearm... REAL exciting mission... 

 

 

I honestly have to agree here, but not because I think HARMs on 4/6 would be the only solution to the boredom equation here. I think it could still be exciting if we had competent AI wingmen who could use their HARMs in a more coordinated way with the player leading the flight, and then if you still think having fuel tanks on 4/6 instead of additional HARMs is boring for lack of action in a single sortie, I would suggest you take some Mk-82s or CBUs on 4/6 for DEAD followup after the HARMs take out the engagement radars.  Unfortunately as it stands I think the wingman AI is really lacking, so adding more F-16s to your flight with more HARMs doesn't help enough.

 

It is pretty clear at this point that ED is not changing their mind on 4/6 HARMs, so personally my message to ED would be 1) improve F-16 AI HARM employment (and F-16 AI in general) 2) remove HARM from the dropdown for stations 4/6 or add an "inoperable" label to it.

 

On 7/28/2021 at 12:43 PM, Smoked said:

Huh.... We flew a deep SEAD/DEAD profile the other night in my group.   Several jets with what you described, others with JDAMS.   Encountered hostile air, SA-11's, SA-8's...   Everyone had a purpose, everyone landed with less than 3k fuel...    Perhaps your are simming wrong??  My point is, do not let a "realistic" load out ruin your game play.   There is plenty you can do with it.   

 

That sounds really fun. My multiplayer experience has come up really short of that, so honestly I prefer singleplayer for a variety of reasons. If the AI was any good then a lot of the need for unrealistically heavy ordnance loadouts could be mitigated by having more F-16s in your flight, at least for singleplayer folks like me.

 

As a side note, I also tried using the alt-J keys to jump into my other AI F-16s in my flight. I figured it's like getting an "instant reload" of ordnance every time I do it. This would be a workaround to the AI being lacking, but unfortunately I get strange behavior from the F-16 I left behind (jumped out of). Like, it'll fly off in a straight line until it runs out of fuel and crashes. So, no dice there either *sigh*

 

23 hours ago, Falconeer said:

 

Well... that's how it goes in RL too. Never heard any pilot complain about it

 

Surely you've heard of the JDAM Blues? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ0EVXaaXug Seems to me pilots complain about the boredom plenty!

 

We all want different things from DCS. The fact that I'm not flying a real F-16 means that I make up for it in getting near constant action in DCS. I have no desire to in DCS fly a 6 hour mission crossing the Adriatic sea, doing AAR a bunch of times, being in the AO for 45 minutes, and then flying home without firing a single missile, and then waking up the next day and doing that again and again. Of course there are DCS players who do enjoy that and will gladly tell me it's about the systems, following correct procedures and radio comms, etc. I like all that too but I want to blow shit up at the end of the day.

 

 

23 hours ago, Digitalvole said:

Probably worth remembering that most of us play SP. 

 

If our AI Wingmen were capable of, well anything other than running out of fuel and ejecting mid mission, then the lack of ordinance on our own wing stations would be less of an issue.

 

Im not saying that therefore we should get more HARMS/MAVs etc, but might explain why some people are more miffed than others about it.

 

Fix the AI and possibly problem solved, easy-peasy! (if only it was.)

 

I for one would much rather have a competent wing man than two more missiles. After all as Dan Hampton says, HARMS are a waste of a wing station  

 

 

 

 

What can I say other than I totally agree.

[PunchOut]

9 hours ago, randomTOTEN said:

You're here because you wanted a realistic F-16C aircraft. That's the game. That's what you paid for.

 

No, I'm here to blow up as much stuff as possible in an F-16 that LOOKS real.... yuge difference

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, PunchOut said:

No, I'm here to blow up as much stuff as possible in an F-16 that LOOKS real.... yuge difference

 

Well, if that's want you want to do that's what infinite ammo is for.

 

Also if you're only interesting in something that looks real, then isn't DCS kinda a poor choice?

Edited July 30, 2021 by Northstar98

[Astronaut]

In part I agree with Punchout, if ED is making it available to load on stations 4/6 they should make them operational. I know the argument is they don't maintain the wiring necessary for data but since there's pictures of it loaded they let us for the screenshots. But those pictures are likely from USAF verifying it's a valid loadout, just one they'll never need to use, so they don't maintain or install the supporting systems in the plane. But in DCS our needs by nature of this being a VIDEO GAME do not perfectly match IRL. I mean if you tried to mimic IRL ops there would be so many planes in the air it would set your computer on fire. If the USAF ever did have a need for the use of 4 HARMs they absolutely would maintain that ability as we've seen it's possible from other nations AF. ED needs to get off the fence, either simulate it's full capabilities in which case we should be able to use them on 4/6, or simulate realistic operational loads as per USAF and/or USNG and take the option of loading on 4/6 at all away, as well as all the other completely unrealistic loads, like caring 10 CBU-97s, or 6 mavricks.... The airframe is capable, if Punchout wants to use 4 HARMs in the sim he can imagine that for his mission his squadron decided to have his maintenance depot retrofit the wiring/software/whatever to 4/6 to support his mission needs. If it's shown the jet can technically support it, why not, just because US doesn't use it doesn't mean if they wanted to they couldn't. We can't simulate 200 fighters thousands of ground units at a time, we're often doing sead with a 2 or 4 ship in the game because that's what our computers and our patience with the mission editor can handle, if that's all the USAF had to throw at SEAD and they actually thought HARMs were useful they'd probably maintain the ability to load and fire 4 of them. But that's just my opinion on the matter. Pick one, either let us fire 4, or only let us load the 2. Anything else is just kinda dum.

[Northstar98]

39 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

In part I agree with Punchout, if ED is making it available to load on stations 4/6 they should make them operational.

 

Why? In its current state, it's the most accurate representation, of the real aircraft that ED are trying to represent.

 

39 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

I know the argument is they don't maintain the wiring necessary for data but since there's pictures of it loaded they let us for the screenshots. But those pictures are likely from USAF verifying it's a valid loadout, just one they'll never need to use, so they don't maintain or install the supporting systems in the plane.

 

The only thing that's relevant here is what was the real aircraf actually capable of?

 

39 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

But in DCS our needs by nature of this being a VIDEO GAME do not perfectly match IRL.

 

Yes... Everyone knows (or should know), that we won't ever get 100% the way there to a 1:1 recreation of the real aircraft. That's why the goal is realism where possible to do so.

 

And before anybody gets any ideas, DCS is a video game whose explicit goal is to provide realistic modules and assets, just because its a video game, doesn't mean that goal is invalid.

 

39 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

I mean if you tried to mimic IRL ops there would be so many planes in the air it would set your computer on fire.

 

What have IRL ops got do with it?

 

The modules, assets and maps are supposed to be as realistic as possible, what you do with them, and what scenarios you build out of them and how you fly them.

 

39 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

If the USAF ever did have a need for the use of 4 HARMs they absolutely would maintain that ability as we've seen it's possible from other nations AF.

 

But we're simulating an aircraft as it was, not a hypothetical aircraft.

 

I mean, you could say this about literally any weapon ever integrated onto any F-16C, hell you could even apply it to basically anything that'll fit, isn't too heavy or ortherwise doesn't compromise the safety of the aircraft.

 

39 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

ED needs to get off the fence, either simulate it's full capabilities in which case we should be able to use them on 4/6, or simulate realistic operational loads as per USAF and/or USNG and take the option of loading on 4/6 at all away, as well as all the other completely unrealistic loads, like caring 10 CBU-97s, or 6 mavricks...

 

ED are off of the fence, and the intentions have been clear from before the F-16 went into preorder - they want to make a module that accurately represents a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, circa 2007 (though actually 2008/2009 as we're getting M5.1 spec).

 

The actual capability of the real aircraft is that it accnot fire HARMs from stations 4 and 6 - fact. It is a physical limitation of the real aircraft, as it was, that ED are simulating.

 

Personally, we should consider physical compatibility, as it was, not simply what is or isn't used, as this is scenario based.

 

39 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

The airframe is capable, if Punchout wants to use 4 HARMs in the sim he can imagine that for his mission his squadron decided to have his maintenance depot retrofit the wiring/software/whatever to 4/6 to support his mission needs. If it's shown the jet can technically support it, why not, just because US doesn't use it doesn't mean if they wanted to they couldn't.

 

I'm sure the US could've integrated anything that will fit and isn't too heavy, or otherwise doesn't negatively affect the aircraft to a sufficient enough degree. If the criteria is what could conceivably be integrated, what isn't off the table?

 

And going down this line of reasoning, then basically any weapon ever used by any F-16 ever is on the table, which leaves us to a fictional hybrid, combining multiple F-16 variants into one aircraft - something that ED has expressly stated they have "no desire" for.

 

39 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

We can't simulate 200 fighters thousands of ground units at a time, we're often doing sead with a 2 or 4 ship in the game because that's what our computers and our patience with the mission editor can handle, if that's all the USAF had to throw at SEAD and they actually thought HARMs were useful they'd probably maintain the ability to load and fire 4 of them. But that's just my opinion on the matter.

 

But that's not what the USAF has to throw at SEAD, so the point is kinda moot.

 

Ultimately what you've just described to me is a mission editing problem.

 

39 minutes ago, Astronaut said:

Pick one, either let us fire 4, or only let us load the 2. Anything else is just kinda dum.

 

Or, how about we let our USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, actually accurately represent a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50...

[naizarak]

this "discussion" will never end as long as those stupid dummy harms are available.  talk about the worst possible compromise

[Astronaut]

16 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Or, how about we let our USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, actually accurately represent a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50...

Maybe you missed my point, or I wasn't clear, or we're on different pages, I dunno. Yes, that's absolutely fine with me, that's why I said I only partially agree. The USAF F-16C doesn't have the capability to fire the HARM on 4/6, so why include them as an option because someone showed them a picture of a test flight?

 

So if we're stimulating USAF or USANG block 50 I shouldn't be able to load them on 4/6 at all is my first point.

 

If you wanna tell me I'm simulating a block 50 that may also be a test plane then why wouldn't it be conceivable that they might install the needed things to also fire it. If I can fly test loads why can't I test 3 gbu-12 on a TER on station 3? Fins interfere with the wing tanks but what if I'm not running wing tanks.

 

My point or more so my opinion on the matter is that if we're given the option to load them on 4/6 then we're saying it's a gameplay compromise because in reality it can't any more than it can load 6 gbu-12 on stations 3/7. And in such a case I think we should be able to fire them. And I'm fine with that too, I feel as if you're one of the people that prioritize gameplay then I am fine with that being an option, if you prioritize reality and revit counting then no one will force you to load and fire HARMs from stations 4/6 if you don't want to do that.