nope Dump the USAF and ANG designation

[jonsky7]

It is my wish that ED dump the USAF and ANG designation and just make an F-16C that is "circa 2007" or whatever. 

I don't really understand the need to be THAT specific about the aircraft. Just give me an F-16C from around 2007, capable of carrying everything it could possibly carry in 2007, from every country. Then I can decide what country's F-16C I'm flying.

 

It would be up to the player and/or mission designer to then create missions that allow, or not, things like smart weapons to be loaded onto 4 and 6.

I'm all for more options, I'll fly it how I want to fly it, and you can fly it how you see fit too.

Cheers

[Exorcet]

We don't need a vague aircraft. Modeling an extremely specific model is fine and pretty sensible from a sim standpoint since as a pilot you would be flying one specific aircraft.

 

However, this does not mean we can't have options for "lightly" simulating over variants.

 

The DCS F-16 can remain a specific USAF/ANG variant and have a checkbox in the mission editor for "expanded armament" or whatever that would remove some weapon restrictions.

[Gierasimov]

You have got some valid points there, but you see, ED being that much specific isn't about their willingness.

Specific aircraft is smaller in development scope and easier to do given the constraints and limitations both, on the ED capability and available documentation sides.  

Our specific Viper is not done yet, and far from it too. 

Look how much is still there to code, create for other DCS modules.

[ST0RM]

A couple of things wrong with what you're asking. First, ED had modelled a US F-16C Block 50. Even by dropping the USAF and ANG titles, you wouldnt have an International jet. The 50/52+ or Advanced differ externally from the US jets. For one, the extended parabrake housing on the tail for ECM and/or a parachute. Second, most Euro Vipers are MLU F-16As that again are internall the same as the later Block, but externally are different. Plus the weapons aren't all compatible. Some countries weren't cleared for purchase of certain weapons, despite the better airframe. 

 

I do see your point though. The same could be said for the Hornet and F-5E. They specifically built US airframes, albeit with some International systems and skins. 

[Dawgboy]

By having a specific development target, there is an advertised end-state, which should remain relatively stable.  I know folks can argue changes occurred after ED "solidified" the advertised baseline.  Any project manager and software development team would desire the same approach, regardless of being a sim or whatever.  They should write the press release, agree that's the objective, then decompose the requirements for the roadmap.  

 

I've seen others saying the following, and I agree with it:  Deliver to ED's promises.  Once we get that done, and done right (working reliably and accurately), then build paid add-on modules in some prioritized fashion, hopefully after a survey of what users want, caveated by the best way to get there.  [I.E., maybe it makes sense to build one capability first, because that's needed to get to the next.]  

 

For me, I love the Viper.  I bought the module at a discount, before release.  I understood it would be early access, thus full of holes, bugs/capabilities.  I have my frustrations, but I didn't have the expectations I would if Viper was advertised as complete and at full price.  I'd happily buy add-on modules, if/when available and I desired that for my realism scenarios.

 

If folks want more Viper options, go to the other sim...and while they have a different go-to-market model, you will find happiness and frustrations there, also.  That's life.

 

 

[Northstar98]

20 hours ago, Dawgboy said:

By having a specific development target, there is an advertised end-state, which should remain relatively stable.  I know folks can argue changes occurred after ED "solidified" the advertised baseline.  Any project manager and software development team would desire the same approach, regardless of being a sim or whatever.  They should write the press release, agree that's the objective, then decompose the requirements for the roadmap.  

 

I've seen others saying the following, and I agree with it:  Deliver to ED's promises.  Once we get that done, and done right (working reliably and accurately), then build paid add-on modules in some prioritized fashion, hopefully after a survey of what users want, caveated by the best way to get there.  [I.E., maybe it makes sense to build one capability first, because that's needed to get to the next.]  

 

For me, I love the Viper.  I bought the module at a discount, before release.  I understood it would be early access, thus full of holes, bugs/capabilities.  I have my frustrations, but I didn't have the expectations I would if Viper was advertised as complete and at full price.  I'd happily buy add-on modules, if/when available and I desired that for my realism scenarios.

 

If folks want more Viper options, go to the other sim...and while they have a different go-to-market model, you will find happiness and frustrations there, also.  That's life.

 

Absolutely this!

[BIGNEWY]

We are specific when we choose an aircraft as we do not want feature creep. 

 

We are happy with our choice and wont be changing, but thank you for the feedback.

[QuiGon]

15 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

We are specific when we choose an aircraft as we do not want feature creep. 

 

We are happy with our choice and wont be changing, but thank you for the feedback.

 

I'm very happy with that as well, as I want to see aircraft being simulated as they exist IRL and not some weird fantasy frankenplanes.

[Bunny Clark]

On 7/23/2021 at 7:40 AM, jonsky7 said:

I don't really understand the need to be THAT specific about the aircraft. Just give me an F-16C from around 2007, capable of carrying everything it could possibly carry in 2007, from every country. Then I can decide what country's F-16C I'm flying.

You're asking for literally hundreds of feature additions. It would double the size of the DCS F-16 project and add years of development.

 

Different engines, different flight models, different radars, avionics, HUDs, HMDs, RWRs, built-in ECM systems, MWS, MFDs, Towed Decoys, Conformal Fuel Tanks, TGPs, a dozen of new weapons...

[Steel Jaw]

On 7/24/2021 at 7:15 AM, QuiGon said:

 

I'm very happy with that as well, as I want to see aircraft being simulated as they exist IRL and not some weird fantasy frankenplanes.

 

Same.  This is supposed to be a SIM as opposed jets in Arma 3.

[jonsky7]

On 7/24/2021 at 11:59 AM, BIGNEWY said:

We are specific when we choose an aircraft as we do not want feature creep. 

 

We are happy with our choice and wont be changing, but thank you for the feedback.

 

Maybe that needs to be more clear on the product page, rather than

"The F-16C is a single seat, single engine multirole fighter that was developed in the 1970s. More than 4,500 units were manufactured and are operated today by 26 countries where the aircraft performs numerous missions that include air superiority, close air support, precision bombing, air defense suppression, reconnaissance and more. Few other aircraft can match its versatility, maneuverability, firepower, and huge production numbers."

Edited July 26, 2021 by jonsky7

[Steel Jaw]

1 minute ago, jonsky7 said:

 

Maybe you should say that on the product page.

 

Oh I don't know, I think its logical and fair to assume that would already be so.

[jonsky7]

3 minutes ago, Mower said:

 

Oh I don't know, I think its logical and fair to assume that would already be so.

 

You think it's logical from the product page that the F-16 for sale is the USAF one? How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

[QuiGon]

5 hours ago, jonsky7 said:

Maybe that needs to be more clear on the product page, rather than

"The F-16C is a single seat, single engine multirole fighter that was developed in the 1970s. More than 4,500 units were manufactured and are operated today by 26 countries where the aircraft performs numerous missions that include air superiority, close air support, precision bombing, air defense suppression, reconnaissance and more. Few other aircraft can match its versatility, maneuverability, firepower, and huge production numbers."

 

Did you really think we get a 1970s variant of the F-16?!

It's a general description of the plattform that is the Viper.

[Northstar98]

I actually agree with @jonsky7 here, it would've been better to include what aircraft the F-16 module is specifically supposed to represent (i.e a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 circa 2007 (actually more 2008/2009 as we're getting the M5.1 spec), it's more clear to potential customers exactly what they're buying, as the e-shop is ambiguous.

 

The only place where it says what the aircraft is specifically supposed to be is the planned features and payloads thread, which is more easy to miss.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Northstar98

[jonsky7]

2 hours ago, QuiGon said:

 

Did you really think we get a 1970s variant of the F-16?!

It's a general description of the plattform that is the Viper.

 

Well no because the product page says

"The Viper is armed for air-to-air combat with Sidewinders, AMRAAMs, and an internal 20mm 6-barrel Gatling gun. It can also be loaded with a wide range of air-to-ground weapons that include general purpose bombs, rockets, canister munition, Mavericks, laser- and GPS-guided bombs, and more. The F-16 provides endless gameplay in DCS World!"

and
 

"Dozens of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons and sensors. From simple rockets to high-tech GPS and laser-guided bombs, "

 

and GPS wasn't operational until 1993.

[QuiGon]

4 minutes ago, jonsky7 said:

Well no because the product page says

"The Viper is armed for air-to-air combat with Sidewinders, AMRAAMs, and an internal 20mm 6-barrel Gatling gun. It can also be loaded with a wide range of air-to-ground weapons that include general purpose bombs, rockets, canister munition, Mavericks, laser- and GPS-guided bombs, and more. The F-16 provides endless gameplay in DCS World!"

and
 

"Dozens of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons and sensors. From simple rockets to high-tech GPS and laser-guided bombs, "

 

and GPS wasn't operational until 1993.

 

Everything you're quoting there from the product page is true for the DCS Viper. Not sure what's supposed to be wrong there?

[jonsky7]

There's nothing wrong there, you specifically asked if 

2 hours ago, QuiGon said:

Did you really think we get a 1970s variant of the F-16?!

and I answered you.

[QuiGon]

17 minutes ago, jonsky7 said:

There's nothing wrong there, you specifically asked if 

and I answered you.

 

Yeah, now I'm just trying to figure out what about the product description is not clear enough in your opinion as everything that it says there is true for our DCS Viper.

Edited July 26, 2021 by QuiGon

[Falconeer]

Why can't you just be grateful that we are getting a Viper in the first place? 

 

It seems to be very hard to please someone nowadays... sheesh.... 

[jonsky7]

LOOK, all of you against my wish, that's fine. I get it, you want serial number xxx-xxxx-xxx-xx

I'd just prefer a little poetic licence with weapons, I'm not expecting ED to model
 

11 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

Different engines, different flight models, different radars, avionics, HUDs, HMDs, RWRs, built-in ECM systems, MWS, MFDs, Towed Decoys, Conformal Fuel Tanks, TGPs, a dozen of new weapons...

 

I'm not even wishing for weapons that aren't in game, just that if an F16C could carry 4 HARMS  and launch them, then go ahead, same with GBU31 etc.

 

 

16 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

Yeah thanks, now I'm just trying to figure out what about the product description is not clear enough in your opinion as everything that it says there is true for our DCS Viper.

 

It's not clear from product page that the DCS Viper is specifically a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 circa 2007.

The first place one can come across that information is the "Subject to Change - Desired F-16C Systems and Payloads" thread.

 

Quote

Why can't you just be grateful that we are getting a Viper in the first place? 

 

It seems to be very hard to please someone nowadays... sheesh.... 

 

I am, I was super happy with carrying an employing 4 Harms, it was already in and done, then the community made ED do MORE work to stop them firing.
 

 

 

I asked, they said no, end of. I'll be sure to do more research into the specific variant being modelled before any future purchases.

Thanks for participating...

Edited July 26, 2021 by jonsky7

[QuiGon]

17 minutes ago, jonsky7 said:

It's not clear from product page that the DCS Viper is specifically a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 circa 2007

 

Gotcha, that's a reasonable request indeed and it would be helpful if ED would make this clear in the product description

  

17 minutes ago, jonsky7 said:

I'm not even wishing for weapons that aren't in game, just that if an F16C could carry 4 HARMS  and launch them

 

But it can't do so IRL, so it shouldn't be able to do so in DCS.

  

17 minutes ago, jonsky7 said:

I am, I was super happy with carrying an employing 4 Harms, it was already in and done, then the community made ED do MORE work to stop them firing.

 

You seem to forget (or don't know in the first place), that when the DCS Viper recieved the HARM last year, it was not even able to carry HARMs on the inner pylons and was only able to carry/employ 2 HARMs at max. Then the casual faction of the community demanded 4 HARMs and showed pictures of USAF test birds carrying 4 HARMs as "proof", so ED included the 4 HARM capability for the Viper. That in turn lead the realism faction of the community to demand from ED to make the HARMs on the inner pylons not launchable as the inner pylons are not able to interface with the HARM IRL.

Edited July 26, 2021 by QuiGon

[Bunny Clark]

6 hours ago, jonsky7 said:

LOOK, all of you against my wish, that's fine. I get it, you want serial number xxx-xxxx-xxx-xx

No, we want a US F-16CM Block 52 CCIP, specific serial number and rivet count is unimportant. I'd just prefer not to have a frakenplane that's a USAF F-16CM with wing pylons from an Israeli F-16I and weapons from a Turkish F-16CJ, and so forth.

 

If ED or a third party are willing and able to make an F-16I module at some point which includes all the Israeli specific modifications, that would be fantastic. Until then, I think it'd be weird and unrealistic to have a USAF F-16 with the ability to mount weapons from other countries, just as it'd be weird and unrealistic to have a USAF F-16 with a built-in jammer because some other countries have it. 

[QuiGon]

31 minutes ago, Bunny Clark said:

No, we want a US F-16CM Block 52 CCIP, specific serial number and rivet count is unimportant. I'd just prefer not to have a frakenplane that's a USAF F-16CM with wing pylons from an Israeli F-16I and weapons from a Turkish F-16CJ, and so forth.

 

If ED or a third party are willing and able to make an F-16I module at some point which includes all the Israeli specific modifications, that would be fantastic. Until then, I think it'd be weird and unrealistic to have a USAF F-16 with the ability to mount weapons from other countries, just as it'd be weird and unrealistic to have a USAF F-16 with a built-in jammer because some other countries have it. 

 

This!

[Dawgboy]

37 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

This!

And I'd be willing to pay for the F-16I/Sufa...

Edited July 26, 2021 by Dawgboy