Jump to content

Weapon systems: Operationally used VS Plattform capable?


FalcoGer

Recommended Posts

I'm a bit confused by ED's loadout choices. Some platforms have had testing done successfully with some weapon systems and are fully capable of using them, some where even designed to use them from the very start but never used them operationally. And for that reason we don't get them in DCS.

 

The reasons cited are such as "It adds too much workload to implement the weapon systems / future weapon systems that are being added in the future to existing platforms..", "Not accurate for platform in era."

Such reasoning is nonsense though. The weapons are already implemented. All you have to do is allow their use on the relevant pylons in the config files. In the case for APKWS for example they were developed to be fully backwards compatible with anything that can mount the M151 launchers without ANY other updates. Since the APKWS already exists, no programming, modelling or texturing effort is required other than allowing their mounting, which is a 2 liner as far as I understood from mods that do that very thing.

I agree that it adds, possibly unreasonable, workload to implement totally new weapon systems, especially if a weapon already exists that fills the role. But really, how many come out in a year or two? A new upgrade to an existing weapon already takes ages. The AIM-120D is still not the standard missile. Mostly you get bigger boom, longer range or faster flight, maybe a smokeless motor if you are indeed so lucky, software updates for new flight profiles, better sensors. Most of the specifics are of course classified, some of them not relevant to DCS at all. As such approximations can be made or such new weapons or upgrades can be ignored or put in as low priority.

 

The second argument is also nonsense. We fly F18s from 2000s, A10s from 1980s, A10Cs from 2010s and if the mission designer is being ridiculous they can just as well put in the Bismark and a BF-109 in the same scenario. That's of course nonsense. You have a date in your mission. And anything that was put in service before that date and still exists is valid to use. Anything that was added to the capabilities of a platform after it's design should be available to that platform.

Some may argue software updates to the aircraft need to be made to launch such weapons. That may be true, but we're not dealing with an aircraft. We're dealing with a simulation. Paste a new text to be displayed on the MFDs and add a ballistics table for CCIP/CCRP (which already exists for that weapon of course) to the aircraft and you're good.

If such software updates were available, then even a 1980s aircraft would've gotten them in a mission set in 2020, allowing them to use them.

 

Then there is the other issue. Some platforms were designed, from the very start, to use certain weapon systems. They were flown and tested  successfully with those munitions, used them on the training range. But they were never fired or carried in any operation. ED decided not to include that capability because it's not a common loadout. I think that's nonsense. If you were a commander and you would have need of that weapon, you would use it.

 

I believe if it can carry it, it should be able to. Anything with a MK82 capable pylon should also be able to mount a GBU12 just the same, even if it never carried it, or were possibly designed to carry it. After all it's the same bomb, with a guidance kit strapped to it.

 

In other words, what is realistic? Is it 'possible in real life' or is it 'was done in real life'?

 

I believe it should be be the former. Because if it wasn't done till to day someone might do it tomorrow. And suddenly 'not realistic' became 'realistic', which is of course nonsense. As such the only sensible thing to say is realistic is 'possible to do'.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its possible to do in real life then it should be possible in game. We've become accustomed to low-intensity warfare (especially regarding air combat). Warfare with a near-peer opponent would be very different. DCS can, and should, be used to simulate all types of combat.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not this again.

 

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I'm a bit confused by ED's loadout choices. Some platforms have had testing done successfully with some weapon systems and are fully capable of using them, some where even designed to use them from the very start but never used them operationally. And for that reason we don't get them in DCS.

 

Personally, if you're intendng to make an aircraft that's specifically supposed to be x, then why should it be anything other than precisely x?

 

The whole design philosophy of DCS is that we're supposed to get building blocks (the modules, the assets and the maps) that are as realistic as possible to their IRL counterparts, but what we build out of the building blocks, and how we use the building blocks is completely up to us, and personally I think that's the perfect balance of realism and sanbox.

 

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

The reasons cited are such as "It adds too much workload to implement the weapon systems / future weapon systems that are being added in the future to existing platforms..", "Not accurate for platform in era."

Such reasoning is nonsense though.

 

How? If what I described is the goal then it is absolutely not nonsense, and doing otherwise would mean doing a 180 on the goal. Now can you say that they should pick a rule and stick with it? Yes, absolutely. But the solution to that should be to make everything consistent with the rules, not go "well x is unrealistic, so y should be too".

 

For instance, our F-16CM, explictly stated to be a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, circa 2007 (though more like 2008/2009 as AFAIK we're getting M5.1 spec), and the plan for that module is to be as accurate to that as possible, (completely in line with the goals of the platform, which is there to see on the DCS home page), so why should it be anything other than exactly that? A USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, as it was for that timeframe.

 

Now if that variant is something you don't want, and it's a deal breaker, fine! The easy solution is don't buy it then. It's not the variant I wanted either, but it's not too much of a deal breaker for me, and if I want the capabilities of some other variant, I'll ask for that variant, not try and kitbash modules into being something they're objectively not.

 

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

The weapons are already implemented. All you have to do is allow their use on the relevant pylons in the config files.

 

Then, if possible, mod them in, by all means.

 

I'm a big fan of allowing people to mod their game as they see fit, in whatever way they like and if I'm uncomfortable with modded stuff, I've already got all the tools I need to enforce pure clients.

 

What I'm not a fan of, is ED going out of their way to do this stuff, when we're still missing a tonne of stuff our aircraft are actually supposed to have.

 

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

In the case for APKWS for example they were developed to be fully backwards compatible with anything that can mount the M151 launchers without ANY other updates. Since the APKWS already exists, no programming, modelling or texturing effort is required other than allowing their mounting, which is a 2 liner as far as I understood from mods that do that very thing.

 

Except by the time APKWS was actually fielded on these platforms, they were different aircraft than what we have as modules, in some cases with significantly different capabilities - and you can see that clear as day when you compare our original A-10C (which is circa 2005 AFAIK), and the later A-10C (which is circa 2017).

 

In the case of the F-16CM, it had almost certainly have been upgraded to M6.1 standard or later by the time APKWS was fielded on it (which was almost a decade after the timeframe our module is supposed to represent), that means (AFAIK) ADM-160B/C, AIM-120D, GBU-39 SDB, GBU-54, AGM-158 JASSM, AGCAS, new L16 functionality etc, all but the GBU-54 are completely new weapons.

 

So if you take our F-16CM, and give it APKWS, without the rest of the capabilities and changes to the aircraft, then what you've got is objectively a fictional aircraft. Is it possible it could have been different? Sure, but the bar for what's technically possible can be argued so low, to which point the flood gates get opened, and suddenly anything any F-16 has ever been fitted with ever is on the table, and here you're not even necessarily stopping at that, here we're venturing into what stuff the platform could conceivably be made capable of being fitted with, at which point, unless it's physically too heavy or doesn't fit, what isn't off the table?

 

This why, if we're going to make a module that's supposed to realistic depict specifically x, as it was, where possible to do so, then it should do exactly that - be a realistic depiction of x, as it was, where possible.

 

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I agree that it adds, possibly unreasonable, workload to implement totally new weapon systems, especially if a weapon already exists that fills the role. But really, how many come out in a year or two? A new upgrade to an existing weapon already takes ages. The AIM-120D is still not the standard missile.

 

But even if the AIM-120D isn't the standard, there's still the AIM-120C-7, which we also don't have (FWIW, the AIM-120C-5 we have is from 2003). And for the F-16C, you're not talking a year or 2, you're talking about nearly a decade between our variant and an F-16CM with APKWS, more than a decade for the F/A-18C, and several decades for the UH-1H (APKWS coming after the Huey had been retired).

 

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

Mostly you get bigger boom, longer range or faster flight, maybe a smokeless motor if you are indeed so lucky, software updates for new flight profiles, better sensors. Most of the specifics are of course classified, some of them not relevant to DCS at all. As such approximations can be made or such new weapons or upgrades can be ignored or put in as low priority.

 

Do you know how long it's taken to get our AIM-120B and AIM-120C-5 accurate? So far 8 years! 16 counting LOMAC FC2. The latter is damn near 3/4 of my age. Fortunately, it looks to be soon that it will finally be fully implemented and complete. But then even so, every other weapon is supposed to receive reworks, to bring them up to the same standard, in terms of guidance logic and flight modelling, but progress is very slow.

 

It was years between getting JDAMs on the Hornet, and getting them fully implemented (well, I say that, they're still not fully implemented even to this day), same with the HARM.

 

I think you're vastly underestimating the workload involved here.

 

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

The second argument is also nonsense. We fly F18s from 2000s, A10s from 1980s, A10Cs from 2010s and if the mission designer is being ridiculous they can just as well put in the Bismark and a BF-109 in the same scenario. That's of course nonsense. You have a date in your mission.

 

And outside of historical mode, and unrestricted SATNAV, the year has no functional difference whatsoever, it's a number in the briefing, or a phase of the moon - that's it.

 

If I make a mission set in 2017 with the later A-10C and the JF-17, leave historical mode off and unrestricted SATNAV on, and change the year to 2100 I've changed basically nothing, same happens if I wind the clock back before the first manned, powered aircraft ever flew - it changes nothing significant at all.

 

And personally, you make what scenario you want, be it as casual or hardcore, as realistic or fictional, as sensible or as ridiculous as you want.

 

But even so, the date doesn't change a thing about the actual capabilities of the aircraft, let alone the variant, it only changes what is/isn't available, you can achieve the same thing by restricting weapons at warehouses. At best it's an approximation, though a bad one.

 

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

And anything that was put in service before that date and still exists is valid to use. Anything that was added to the capabilities of a platform after it's design should be available to that platform.

 

Sounds like a fantastic way of just squaring the workload, when we're doing well as is to just get the things our aircraft are actually supposed to have fully implemented, and that's even after axing stuff that was originally in the plans.

 

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

Some may argue software updates to the aircraft need to be made to launch such weapons.

 

And sometimes new wiring, sometimes adaptors for the pylons.

 

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

That may be true, but we're not dealing with an aircraft. We're dealing with a simulation.

 

A simulation that is supposed to depict said aircraft, as accurately as possible... I've no idea why literally one of the core principles of DCS has suddenly become offensive or something to people all of a sudden.

 

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

If such software updates were available, then even a 1980s aircraft would've gotten them in a mission set in 2020, allowing them to use them.

 

Well in that case you're talking hardware updates not just software.

 

I mean an F-16A Block 15 with a software update isn't a 2020 F-16AM... Completely different cockpit, different RADAR etc.

 

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

Then there is the other issue. Some platforms were designed, from the very start, to use certain weapon systems. They were flown and tested  successfully with those munitions, used them on the training range. But they were never fired or carried in any operation. ED decided not to include that capability because it's not a common loadout. I think that's nonsense. If you were a commander and you would have need of that weapon, you would use it.

 

Examples?
 

And if you were a commander and your choice is between an aircraft without the capability, but could be upgraded with it, or an aircraft that has the capability as is, wouldn't the sensible option be to pick the latter?

 

This was brought up with the HARMs, on the F-16CM, that in a hypothetical situation aircraft would be modified to have HARMs on stations 3 and 7 (something a weapons engineer said would take a 'herculean effort' taking 'weeks' to do, per aircraft) instead of y'know, taking another aircraft.

 

And no the 4 HARM thing isn't something that "wasn't common" or "wasn't actually used" the aircraft as is, is physically incapable of employing HARMs from those stations.

 

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I believe if it can carry it, it should be able to. Anything with a MK82 capable pylon should also be able to mount a GBU12 just the same, even if it never carried it, or were possibly designed to carry it. After all it's the same bomb, with a guidance kit strapped to it.

 

Said guidance kit may cause clearance issues, there may be aerodynamic considerations also, it's not just about hardpoint compatibility.

 

Which is why we should stick to what payloads are valid and cleared for the real aircraft, for the operator and timeframe being depicted, rather than making up capabilities.

 

But with the Mk82 and GBU-12s, isn't this in DCS already? Everything with Mk82s is equipped with GBU-12s, apart from maybe the C-101CC.

 

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

In other words, what is realistic? Is it 'possible in real life' or is it 'was done in real life'?

 

Was done in real life, because that's what we're simulating in a lot of cases.

 

For instance, the F-16CM, again supposed to be a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 circa mid-to-late 2000s (I'll wait for the arguments about liveries or dates in the mission editor). We know what the capabilities are, ED likely has the documentation and SMEs for it, so we've got a very clear goal to work towards, we have a well defined 'end state' where the module is feature complete. This is a good thing, because at some point we want the aircraft to be complete, with no outstanding items, and having a clear goal clearly defines what that end state should be. If we go just by what could conceivably be done or what's possible, then we've arguably got a completely ambiguous end state, with a goal that's less clear, that's ripe for scope creep and keeping stuff perpetually in development. And when you start going outside of mid-to-late 2000s USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, then it's no longer that aircraft anymore - so we've gone in the opposite direction to the stated goals of not only the module, but the platform as a whole.

 

Bare in mind here, that again, getting the things our aircraft is supposed to have is already something that takes ages and years to complete, and that's even with axing weapons and functions the aircraft is actually supposed to have. We need stuff to be completed as is and magnifying the workload by adding anything under the sun that's conceivably possible is the complete opposite direction to achieve that, while being inaccurate.

 

This has already put me off completely from buying new modules, which should raise a red flag in the eyes of any developer, because I'm seeing lots and lots of modules, and it's taking years and years to complete them, some of them seem to be abandoned with plans that never seem to materialise. I mean at this stage I'm even concerned about whether or not things will actually get finished ever or that by the time they do, standards would've changed and it'll look outdated or something. I mean even things like the Yak-52, to date the simplest aircraft in DCS, which 3 years down the line is still the only aircraft in DCS (let alone module), to not have any LODs or a damage model, as well as a fair few other broken stuff that works fine in other modules, even stuff like basic flight instruments.

 

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I believe it should be be the former. Because if it wasn't done till to day someone might do it tomorrow. And suddenly 'not realistic' became 'realistic', which is of course nonsense. As such the only sensible thing to say is realistic is 'possible to do'.

 

I completely disagree.

 

For our aircraft, documentation and SMEs permitting, we know what they should have and they know what they shouldn't have, and again, if you're planning on delivering x, then deliver x. Leave adding fictional loadouts to modders.

 

My advice to people where the goal of DCS World, the goal of its projects and what they're supposed to be, is a deal breaker? Don't buy it, simple as.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

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

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Except by the time APKWS was actually fielded on these platforms, they were different aircraft than what we have as modules, in some cases with significantly different capabilities - and you can see that clear as day when you compare our original A-10C (which is circa 2005 AFAIK), and the later A-10C (which is circa 2017).

 

That A10C from 2005 would be perfectly capable of mounting and shooting APKWS with no modifications whatsoever. Heck, you could shoot the stuff from the 1980s one as long as you got someone on the ground lasing for you.

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Then, if possible, mod them in, by all means.

 

And there is the problem. All clients would need that modification to play together, where it should be default. It's hard enough as it is to get everyone to have the A4-E mod.

 

  

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

So if you take our F-16CM, and give it APKWS, without the rest of the capabilities and changes to the aircraft, then what you've got is objectively a fictional aircraft

 

How does giving a new weapon system to the aircraft but not another, completely different one, make it a fictional aircraft? The most modern version of the F16 can mount all the weapons the previous versions can. Heck you can mount AGM-45s on the F16 still, no one ever does it. We won't ever get the AGM-45 for the F16, nor is it needed. Does that make it fictional? That's not valid reasoning. Modern F16 will not fly with AIM120D very often. They want to use up the old stuff first. The Ds will go on F22 and F35 first because they want those platforms to have the best possible survivability.

  

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

A simulation that is supposed to depict said aircraft, as accurately as possible... I've no idea why literally one of the core principles of DCS has suddenly become offensive or something to people all of a sudden.


What I mean to say is there is no need need to write new software for an aircraft, which will take years.

The need is to write an approximation and simplify. It's not like DCS simulates air molecules going over the wing, or simulating radio waves with quantum mechanics to get an accurate representation of radar. Heck it doesn't even simulate the cables in the aircraft. Either something is working or it isn't. The rest is a complex, but not nearly realistic logic circuit that determines what happens when something fails. There is no need to simulate the oxidation of fuel in a rocket motor. You have 2 numbers. Fuel remaining, fuel flow rate and thrust produced and that's all that's needed for a rocket motor. 3 numbers and a more or less simple equation that takes 15 minutes of research and 2 minutes to implement. The hard part is getting the correct figures.

 

Software updates for an airframe are basically free (as in 10 minutes of work) for ED in terms of allowing existing (in DCS) weapons to be usable with platforms that got them later.

 

It's not offensive to me that DCS is a simulation. It's merely a fact that it's much simpler code than actual software for an aircraft. And not everything is simulated. It's mostly an emphasis on flight models, avionics and logic, not actual physics, electronics and systems. There is no electric current running to your MFD to turn on the LEDs, It's just a texture. There is no processor in your FCS system, it's just a black box that just works as long as the logic dictates that it does (ie. no damage, power, hydraulics available). As such it's easier to write code and details on real world systems are not necessary. You need only to know what it does, not how it does it to implement it in the simulation.

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I mean an F-16A Block 15 with a software update isn't a 2020 F-16AM... Completely different cockpit, different RADAR etc.

And it still would be able to fire APKWS just as well as anything else that can mount an M151, even with an old radar. I'm not saying, change the systems around willy nilly. I'm saying allow the weapons to be mounted that CAN be mounted and that we ALREADY HAVE. When new modules are released with new weapons that may be deployed on other, existing modules or maybe even new weapon systems individually, then phase them into existing modules as they can be used in the real world. For example the JSOW was developed for the hornet. The F16 can use them. Allow their use. APKWS was developed for the A10C2, allow their use on the F18, F16, A10C, A10A and UH1, as it is possible to do in real life.

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Examples?

 

I think the harrier had something it could use, was designed and tested with IRL but was never deployed with. I don't have that module and I didn't look into it anymore and I forgot. Kinda bummed me out though.

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

And no the 4 HARM thing isn't something that "wasn't common" or "wasn't actually used" the aircraft as is, is physically incapable of employing HARMs from those stations

I'm fine with the 16 unable to fire 4 HARMS, so long as that's what the real thing is like.

As I said I want things to be as the real world is. And that includes allowing weapons that can be mounted to be mounted.

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Was done in real life, because that's what we're simulating in a lot of cases.

As I said that makes no sense. If someone sticks an APKWS on an A10A IRL tomorrow suddenly that becomes realistic while before it was fiction.

The lovely thing about DCS is that you can make your own scenarios. The stock standard campaigns are, as far as I know, all fictional. 90% of the missions in user files are fictional. We can do stupid stuff, like simulating what happens if the Yamato goes up against a Burke. We can do anything we want. And if the aircraft can carry something, then it should be able to in the simulation, even if in the real world it never happened.

 

Also... I don't care about liveries. If someone wants to fly their jet with Rainbow Dash and "EQUESTRIA DEFENSE FORCE" written beneath on the stabs, by all means, be my guest. Personally if it's night I pick something dark. If it's day I pick something blue beneath and browning green topside if I'm over land, and over the sea I pick something blueish all around. I don't understand why people want all the different liveries, I prefer function over graphics, and terrain graphics over textures on my jet, which I don't see that much of anyway. Just takes away precious development time to draw logos on the same old gray that's everywhere that could be spent on something functional. We get an F16, USAF. 1 Livery is enough. Why we need the 120th Seosan livery on it? I have no idea. If people want that, but not get all the KF16 avionics with it, some of which are actually pretty cool? Whatever.

 

Also just because the mission time doesn't affect anything right now, doesn't mean that's the way it should be.

 

And last and again. I'm not asking for every conceivable weapon system to be implemented. I'm asking that if a new system comes to DCS that can be used on other platforms that don't yet have it, it should be added to them as well. Because the WORK IS ALREADY DONE.


Edited by FalcoGer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2021 at 2:25 AM, FalcoGer said:

That A10C from 2005 would be perfectly capable of mounting and shooting APKWS with no modifications whatsoever. Heck, you could shoot the stuff from the 1980s one as long as you got someone on the ground lasing for you.

 

Except IRL, that's not what happened, and no 2005 A-10C (let alone a 1980s version) was ever equipped with APKWS, the later suites were, and that's what we have, which is why it makes perfect sense for our 2017 A-10C to have it, but not for the 2005 A-10C.

 

On 8/20/2021 at 2:25 AM, FalcoGer said:

How does giving a new weapon system to the aircraft but not another, completely different one, make it a fictional aircraft?

 

Because it didn't exist - plain and simple.

 

Look think of it like this: our F-16CM is ABCDEF and APKWS equipped F-16s are all EFGHIJ, giving our F-16CM APKWS would be doing an aircraft that is ABCDEF...J - an aircraft that didn't exist, ergo a fictional aircraft, one that less accurately depicts the aircraft that our module is supposed to represent.

 

On 8/20/2021 at 2:25 AM, FalcoGer said:

The most modern version of the F16 can mount all the weapons the previous versions can. Heck you can mount AGM-45s on the F16 still, no one ever does it. We won't ever get the AGM-45 for the F16, nor is it needed. Does that make it fictional? That's not valid reasoning.

 

Yes it does make it fictional, and no it's not invalid reasoning - just because you personally disagree with it (which is fine by the way) doesn't make it invalid reasoning.

 

It's a question of, are we making a module that's supposed to specifically represent an aircraft as used by xxxx operator as it was at yyyy specific point in time, or aren't we?

 

If APKWS predates the latter, and we give it APKWS, then the aircraft no-longer represents one as it was circa yyyy, seeing as it now features weapons only found in circa zzzz aircraft.

 

So we're making a fictional hybrid, combining yyyy aircraft with zzzz aircraft

 

On 8/20/2021 at 2:25 AM, FalcoGer said:

Modern F16 will not fly with AIM120D very often. They want to use up the old stuff first. The Ds will go on F22 and F35 first because they want those platforms to have the best possible survivability.

 

Again, the AIM-120C-5 is from 2003, for our F-16CM there's also the AIM-120C-7, which is circa 2007, and the AIM-120D being circa 2016.

 

On 8/20/2021 at 2:25 AM, FalcoGer said:

 What I mean to say is there is no need need to write new software for an aircraft, which will take years.

The need is to write an approximation and simplify. It's not like DCS simulates air molecules going over the wing, or simulating radio waves with quantum mechanics to get an accurate representation of radar. Heck it doesn't even simulate the cables in the aircraft. Either something is working or it isn't. The rest is a complex, but not nearly realistic logic circuit that determines what happens when something fails. There is no need to simulate the oxidation of fuel in a rocket motor. You have 2 numbers. Fuel remaining, fuel flow rate and thrust produced and that's all that's needed for a rocket motor. 3 numbers and a more or less simple equation that takes 15 minutes of research and 2 minutes to implement. The hard part is getting the correct figures.

 

Well again, please explain to me why the AIM-120C-5 took 16 years to get to the state it's in today.

 

On 8/20/2021 at 2:25 AM, FalcoGer said:

And it still would be able to fire APKWS just as well as anything else that can mount an M151, even with an old radar. I'm not saying, change the systems around willy nilly. I'm saying allow the weapons to be mounted that CAN be mounted and that we ALREADY HAVE. When new modules are released with new weapons that may be deployed on other, existing modules or maybe even new weapon systems individually, then phase them into existing modules as they can be used in the real world. For example the JSOW was developed for the hornet. The F16 can use them. Allow their use.

 

We have the AGM-154A for the F-16C...

 

The USAF/ANG doesn't operate the AGM-154A-1 and the AGM-154C is navy only in US service - it makes perfect sense for our F-16CM (supposed to be a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50) to not get AGM-154A-1 or AGM-154C.

 

If we give our F-16CM AGM-154C, then it's less accurate to what our aircraft is actually supposed to be, it'll instead be more accurate to a Turkish Peace Onyx IV F-16CJ Block 50 circa 2012.

 

On 8/20/2021 at 2:25 AM, FalcoGer said:

APKWS was developed for the A10C2, allow their use on the F18, F16, A10C, A10A and UH1, as it is possible to do in real life.

 

And it makes sense for the APKWS to be present on the later A-10C as that aircraft is circa 2016, with the other upgrades that make sense for a 2016 A-10C.

 

It doesn't make sense for the F-16CM, as it had been substuantially upgraded by the time APKWS came around. The Hornet got expanded capability too; AN/ALQ-214(V)5, AGM-88E AARGM, such as the AIM-120C-7, AIM-120D, GBU-12F/B and GBU-24E/B.

 

As for the UH-1H, it had been out of service with the only operator who operates both it and APKWS, by the time APKWS came around.

 

On 8/20/2021 at 2:25 AM, FalcoGer said:

I think the harrier had something it could use, was designed and tested with IRL but was never deployed with. I don't have that module and I didn't look into it anymore and I forgot. Kinda bummed me out though.

I'm fine with the 16 unable to fire 4 HARMS, so long as that's what the real thing is like.

As I said I want things to be as the real world is. And that includes allowing weapons that can be mounted to be mounted.

 

You want things to be as the real world is, but then you say that having it as it actually was in the real world "makes no sense", I don't get it, which is it?

 

A real mid 2000s USN/USMC Hornet never had APKWS, it didn't even exist, and didn't came to any F/A-18C Hornet until like 2018, over a decade after the timeframe our Hornet is supposed to represent.

 

Now the Hornet does have it's other inconsistencies, such as AGM-62 and AGM-84E, but the thing is these were both pathfinder weapons for what we actually should have, the AGM-84H/K.

 

On 8/20/2021 at 2:25 AM, FalcoGer said:

As I said that makes no sense. If someone sticks an APKWS on an A10A IRL tomorrow suddenly that becomes realistic while before it was fiction.

 

How does it make no sense? How does depicting an aircraft with the payloads it actually had, for the operator and timeframe the aircraft is intended to represent, make no sense?

 

It is perfectly in line with the goals of the module, it's perfectly in line with the goals of the platform, and it accurately depicts what the real aircraft was. Not some fictional hybrid combining an aircraft of era xxxx with an aircraft of era yyyy. It's inconsistent.

 

And speaking of inconsistency, DCS already suffers with enough inconsistency as is, be that asset/map pool, graphics, fidelity etc, we don't need to make modules inconsistent too.

 

And as for sticking APKWS onto an A-10A tomorrow, what A-10A are they going to stick it to? Why would they when they've already got properly configured A-10Cs that have APKWS, as well as numerous other upgrades as is?

 

More to the point we don't have a 2021 A-10A - nothing like it, we don't even have an early-to-mid 2000s A-10A, our fit is more of a 90s era A-10A by my reckoning. But starting from 2005, they were all upgraded to A-10Cs, so what 90s A-10A are you going to stick APKWS to?

 

I mean, what you're doing is effectively saying "well if something fictional happens, it would be realistic", do you not see how that's kinda oxymoronic?

 

On 8/20/2021 at 2:25 AM, FalcoGer said:

The lovely thing about DCS is that you can make your own scenarios. The stock standard campaigns are, as far as I know, all fictional. 90% of the missions in user files are fictional. We can do stupid stuff, like simulating what happens if the Yamato goes up against a Burke. We can do anything we want. And if the aircraft can carry something, then it should be able to in the simulation, even if in the real world it never happened.

 

And again, the core design of DCS World is that the building blocks are as realistic as possible to their real life counterparts, but how you use them, and what scenarios you make out of them is entirely up to you - the best balance between realism and sandbox.

 

So that Yamato would still be a WW2 era Yamato, and the Arleigh-Burke would still be a post 2000s Arleigh-Burke, the fact that you've made a scenario where they're fighting each other changes nothing about the assets themselves. See what DCS doesn' facilitate is magically changing aircraft variants as time goes on, at best it only limits inventory and GPS availability, that's it.

 

Like I said, if we take our F-16C into the early 80s, it doesn't suddenly become an F-16A, it's still the aircraft it's supposed to represent, just the scenario date is fictional.

 

On 8/20/2021 at 2:25 AM, FalcoGer said:

Also... I don't care about liveries. If someone wants to fly their jet with Rainbow Dash and "EQUESTRIA DEFENSE FORCE" written beneath on the stabs, by all means, be my guest.

 

Good.

 

It's just that frequently the argument comes up that is along the lines of "if we have a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, why are there liveries of other countries?" when enforcing realistic liveries would mean doing to the liveries what they did to all of those .lua files, something I couldn't be less in favour of.

 

On 8/20/2021 at 2:25 AM, FalcoGer said:

Also just because the mission time doesn't affect anything right now, doesn't mean that's the way it should be.

 

Oh, ideally historical mode would change aircraft variants when you change the date, as well as the maps. The thing is, we're struggling as is to get just one variant complete with things it's actually supposed to have, let alone additional core functionality like a mission planner and DTC, as well as damage models.

 

Doing so would just be a good way of raising the workload to the nth power.

 

On 8/20/2021 at 2:25 AM, FalcoGer said:

And last and again. I'm not asking for every conceivable weapon system to be implemented. I'm asking that if a new system comes to DCS that can be used on other platforms that don't yet have it, it should be added to them as well. Because the WORK IS ALREADY DONE.

 

So, like I said above, an inconsistent, fictional aircraft, the complete polar opposite to the goal of the module and the platform as a whole?


Edited by Northstar98
  • Thanks 1

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

My own preference is that anything the aircraft can do, we should be able to do, regardless of whether it was used in that way or not. However, ED is correct in trying to model specific aircraft, and I don't expect them to go out of the way to add something hypothetical (as an example, 4 HARM on the F-16 is a reasonable "non historical" option because it doesn't really require any work, but Harpoons on the F-16 would be a different story as that requires coding the interfacing of the weapon with the aircraft).

 

Additionally any modeling beyond the exact configuration of a module should be behind clearly labeled options. This keeps players informed on what is realistic for what type of situation and gives us more variety, which I think fits perfectly well in a sandbox, especially one in which waiting for a specific variant of a plane might take years, if not decades.

  • Like 1

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point, I only care about consistency. They removed the ability to fire HARMs from four stations on the Viper, yet gave us dual Mav racks. Both were tested, neither were operational (debatable, 2005 PACAF SCL shows 4A88 as a combat load), yet ED's treatment of the two features is a complete 180 off. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

That is a pretty flippant comment.   Missiles aren't easy to get right, period.  It requires manpower and specific knowledge - ED has had a gap for filling that specific position for a while.  Now that they have someone focusing on it, it's still one person (maybe two) who have to focus on a whole bunch of different weapon systems.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2021 at 4:50 PM, FalcoGer said:

...I believe if it can carry it, it should be able to. Anything with a MK82 capable pylon should also be able to mount a GBU12 just the same, even if it never carried it, or were possibly designed to carry it. After all it's the same bomb, with a guidance kit strapped to it.

 

In other words, what is realistic? Is it 'possible in real life' or is it 'was done in real life'?

 

I believe it should be be the former. Because if it wasn't done till to day someone might do it tomorrow. And suddenly 'not realistic' became 'realistic', which is of course nonsense. As such the only sensible thing to say is realistic is 'possible to do'.


Shouldn't it be the case of: "Hey we have decided to model Z variant of X airplane from YYYY year. In that X plane's (no pun intended) manual it states that it can carry A,B,C... weapons."

  • Thanks 1

Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's that time again folks! In this corner, we have the purists, those rough and tumble, hardcore rivet counters! And in this corner, the casuals, they have no regard for realism and never RTFM! Who will win? Who comes out on top? Who even cares?

 

I'll see myself out.

  • Like 1

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 9/11/2021 at 4:34 PM, Mars Exulte said:

It's that time again folks! In this corner, we have the purists, those rough and tumble, hardcore rivet counters! And in this corner, the casuals, they have no regard for realism and never RTFM! Who will win? Who comes out on top? Who even cares?

 

I'll see myself out.

Excuse me, but I vote for realism too. It's far more realistic that airplane from year YYYY where the manual states that it can carry M151 rocket pods would be able to carry M151 rocket pods, just with a different thing in the tubes in a mission where the next plane over on the ramp can do just that. There is literally nothing stopping anyone from doing it. And it was designed to do so. The only thing that needs to be done is updating the manual, which by the way, I have read.


Edited by FalcoGer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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