Single AIM-120C-5 on station without draggy weighty multi-missile mount.

[Swift.]

16 minutes ago, razo+r said:

US Hornet, not a swiss one

Nope, thats definitely a swiss hornet. US Hornets don't have numbers like that Notice the J-5011 on the tail and the 011 on the nose. A US hornet will always have either two digits like the marines and USN squadrons not assigned to a CVW or 3 digits starting with 1 2 3 or 4. Additionally that hornet has those pylons I was speaking about earlier, the same ones the SuperHornets have on their outboard stations.

Heres a picture of the same hornet J-5011 in a different livery, visible are the Swiss roundals 

[razo+r]

6 minutes ago, Swiftwin9s said:

Nope, thats definitely a swiss hornet. US Hornets don't have numbers like that Notice the J-5011 on the tail and the 011 on the nose. A US hornet will always have either two digits like the marines and USN squadrons not assigned to a CVW or 3 digits starting with 1 2 3 or 4. Additionally that hornet has those pylons I was speaking about earlier, the same ones the SuperHornets have on their outboard stations.

Heres a picture of the same hornet J-5011 in a different livery, visible are the Swiss roundals 

I know it's a swiss one, thats why I said not a swiss one. 

You should have read the quote in the quoted post 

[Durnt]

It doesn't matter it's Swiss. It's a C model with an AA pylon. And no, The Swiss don't have a super duper upgraded 9G Hornet, It's the same one the US has. Why have a Swiss livery if we can't have a Swiss payload? The Tomcat has a targeting pod, that's not realistic, but ED still allows it. Saying it's unrealistic because the US never did it isn't an argument. 

[Northstar98]

30 minutes ago, Durnt said:

It doesn't matter it's Swiss.

Yes it does, because our one is supposed to be representative of USN/USMC Hornet.

30 minutes ago, Durnt said:

It's a C model with an AA pylon. And no, The Swiss don't have a super duper upgraded 9G Hornet, It's the same one the US has. Why have a Swiss livery if we can't have a Swiss payload?

For the exact same reason the Russian livery doesn't give you a Russian payload. It's a fictional livery and it has no bearing on the aircraft fit or variant or whatever, they change exactly nothing apart from the livery itself.

And if you think liveries should only be forwhatever specific aircraft variant, then good luck convincing us that ED should do to the liveries what they did to those .lua files. Sounds like a great idea (not).

If there wasn't an included Swiss livery, someone would just make one, and we'd end up in exactly the same place, just by 2 different paths.

As another example, I can slap a Norwegian livery onto our USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, it doesn't change it into a Norwegian F-16AM Block 20.

30 minutes ago, Durnt said:

The Tomcat has a targeting pod, that's not realistic, but ED still allows it.

Erm, no, the Tomcat, in the variants we have did have a targetting pod, the exact targetting pod it's modelled with...

Here's a picture, and another one, and another one, and another one.

And even if it wasn't realistic (which it isn't), how does x being unrealistic, justify why y should be unrealistic too?

30 minutes ago, Durnt said:

Saying it's unrealistic because the US never did it isn't an argument. 

Yes it is, you might not like that argument, but it is an argument, and worse it's true, and even worse, it's exactly in line with the scope and goals of the module, and DCS.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Northstar98

[Durnt]

14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Yes it does, because our one is supposed to be representative of USN/USMC Hornet.

For the exact same reason the Russian livery doesn't give you a Russian payload. It's a fictional livery and it has no bearing on the aircraft fit or variant or whatever, they change exactly nothing apart from the livery itself.

And if you think liveries should only be forwhatever specific aircraft variant, then good luck convincing us that ED should do to the liveries what they did to those .lua files. Sounds like a great idea (not).

If there wasn't an included Swiss livery, someone would just make one, and we'd end up in exactly the same place, just by 2 different paths.

As another example, I can slap a Norwegian livery onto our USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50, it doesn't change it into a Norwegian F-16AM Block 20.

Erm, no, the Tomcat, in the variants we have did have a targetting pod, the exact targetting pod its got...

And even if it wasn't realistic (which it isn't), how does x being unrealistic, justify why y should be realistic too?

Yes it is, you might not like that argument, but it is an argument, and worse it's true, and even worse, it's exactly in line with the scope and goals of the module, and DCS.

 

The targeting pod used in DCS for the Tomcat IS unrealistic. The current A/B module doesn't have the PTID or right side controller for the pod.  

 

30 seconds of googling I fount this.

The LANTIRN pod did not require changes to the F-14's own system software, but the pod was designed to operate on a MIL-STD-1553B bus not present on the F-14A or B. Consequently, Martin Marietta specially developed an interface card for LANTIRN. The Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) would receive pod imagery on a 10-inch Programmable Tactical Information Display (PTID) or another Multi-Function Display in the F-14^[31][32] rear cockpit and guided LGBs using a new hand controller installed on the right side console. Initially, the hand controller replaced the RIO's TARPS control panel, meaning a Tomcat configured for LANTIRN could not carry TARPS and the reverse, but eventually a workaround was later developed to allow a Tomcat to carry LANTIRN or TARPS as needed.^[30]

[Northstar98]

17 minutes ago, Durnt said:

The targeting pod used in DCS for the Tomcat IS unrealistic. The current A/B module doesn't have the PTID or right side controller for the pod. 

30 seconds of googling I fount this.

The LANTIRN pod did not require changes to the F-14's own system software, but the pod was designed to operate on a MIL-STD-1553B bus not present on the F-14A or B. Consequently, Martin Marietta specially developed an interface card for LANTIRN. The Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) would receive pod imagery on a 10-inch Programmable Tactical Information Display (PTID) or another Multi-Function Display in the F-14^[31][32] rear cockpit and guided LGBs using a new hand controller installed on the right side console. Initially, the hand controller replaced the RIO's TARPS control panel, meaning a Tomcat configured for LANTIRN could not carry TARPS and the reverse, but eventually a workaround was later developed to allow a Tomcat to carry LANTIRN or TARPS as needed.^[30]

So you looked up the wikipedia entry on it.

Source [31] doesn't mention the LANTIRN pod at all (seriously, the word LANTIRN isn't present in the text).

But source [32] does state that PTID is required when configured for LANTIRN (but Heatblur can't find information on it), no mention of the right side console though, so I'll concede I was wrong here.

And while I thank you for correcting me, how does x being unrealistic, justify why y should be too? Especially in the context of the goals of DCS World, and the F/A-18C module?

Edited January 26, 2022 by Northstar98

[Wizard_03]

27 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

So you looked up the wikipedia entry on it.

Only source [31] doesn't mention the LANTIRN pod at all (seriously, the word LANTIRN isn't present in the text). But source [32] does state that LANTIRN equipped aircraft were equipped with PTID (but Heatblur can't find information on it), so I'll concede that.

And so LANTIRN is realistic, but what it's displayed on isn't, so I'll concede that I was wrong here.

Still, and this is the main point here: how does x being unrealistic, justify why y should be too? Especially in the context of the goals of DCS World, and the F/A-18C module?

 

There is evidence that the config we have, Fishbowl + LANTIRN was actually used in at least one squadron and may have saw action in Bosnia. They for sure tested the pod that way on A birds (We know that), with the same Input switching method jacked in through the TCS feeds the exact way we see in game. But going forward All LANTIRN birds got PTID and a digital bus for GPS PGMs. So it may not be completely unrealistic per say. But its not really representative of how it was Ultimately implemented Fleetwide.

It may have been a quick sort of "Jerry Rig" to give the jet PGM capacity for that conflict, or it may have just been a testing config its unclear. So its kind of a case of yes and no.

 

So you don't need to concede anything. lol

Edited January 26, 2022 by Wizard_03

[Durnt]

6 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

So you looked up the wikipedia entry on it.

Only source [31] doesn't mention the LANTIRN pod at all (seriously, the word LANTIRN isn't present in the text). But source [32] does state that LANTIRN equipped aircraft were equipped with PTID (but Heatblur can't find information on it), so I'll concede that.

And so LANTIRN is realistic, but what it's displayed on isn't, so I'll concede that I was wrong here.

Still, and this is the main point here: how does x being unrealistic, justify why y should be too? Especially in the context of the goals of DCS World, and the F/A-18C module?

 

Because a single amraam on a C model Hornet is a REAL LIFE payload that's CURRENTLY being used, the pod on the Tomcat NEVER happened until the D model. If ED prides themselves on making the most accurate sim ever made, they should not allow the targeting pod on the Tomcat, not only because it's unrealistic, but it was NEVER used on A or B models. ED allowing something so blatantly unreal, but refuse to allow a single amraam because of "realism" is mind boggling. ED cherry picking what level of realism they allow means they can't use it as an excuse when they deny something.     

[Wizard_03]

6 minutes ago, Durnt said:

Because a single amraam on a C model Hornet is a REAL LIFE payload that's CURRENTLY being used, the pod on the Tomcat NEVER happened until the D model. If ED prides themselves on making the most accurate sim ever made, they should not allow the targeting pod on the Tomcat, not only because it's unrealistic, but it was NEVER used on A or B models. ED allowing something so blatantly unreal, but refuse to allow a single amraam because of "realism" is mind boggling. ED cherry picking what level of realism they allow means they can't use it as an excuse when they deny something.     

Not true, they Definitely had the pod before D, they even had it before sparrow hawk B(U) models.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Wizard_03

[Durnt]

19 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

There is evidence that the config we have, Fishbowl + LANTIRN was actually used in at least one squadron and may have saw action in Bosnia. They for sure tested the pod that way on A birds (We know that), with the same Input switching method jacked in through the TCS feeds the exact way we see in game. But going forward All LANTIRN birds got PTID and a digital bus for GPS PGMs. So it may not be completely unrealistic per say. But its not really representative of how it was Ultimately implemented Fleetwide.

It may have been a quick sort of "Jerry Rig" to give the jet PGM capacity for that conflict, or it may have just been a testing config its unclear. So its kind of a case of yes and no. lol

 

That Bosnian mission the F-14 did drop laser guided bombs, but they were buddy lased by an A-6, the targeting wasn't done by the tomcat.

[Wizard_03]

Just now, Durnt said:

That Bosnian mission the F-14 did drop laser guided bombs, but they were buddy lased by an A-6, the targeting wasn't done by the tomcat.

I said May have been used in Bosnia, they were tested with the pod and fishbowl for certain. It's not unrealistic, it flew with that Config.

[Northstar98]

30 minutes ago, Durnt said:

Because a single amraam on a C model Hornet is a REAL LIFE payload that's CURRENTLY being used, the pod on the Tomcat NEVER happened until the D model. If ED prides themselves on making the most accurate sim ever made, they should not allow the targeting pod on the Tomcat, not only because it's unrealistic, but it was NEVER used on A or B models.

Yes it was on A and B models, the images I provided and your own sources which I conceded to show that.

30 minutes ago, Durnt said:

ED allowing something so blatantly unreal, but refuse to allow a single amraam because of "realism" is mind boggling. ED cherry picking what level of realism they allow means they can't use it as an excuse when they deny something.

That isn't a justification for why "y should be made unrealistic, on the grounds that x is", you're just restating it.

You can say its hypocritical (and I agree), but in this case, y is already realistic, perfectly in-line with the goals of DCS and the module. But all you're doing there is making a tu quoque fallacy, without actually making a justification for why it should be so.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Northstar98

[Swift.]

2 hours ago, razo+r said:

I know it's a swiss one, thats why I said not a swiss one. 

You should have read the quote in the quoted post 

You literally said 'US Hornet, not a swiss one' and you want me to interpret that as completely the opposite literal meaning?

[Northstar98]

5 minutes ago, Swiftwin9s said:

You literally said 'US Hornet, not a swiss one' and you want me to interpret that as completely the opposite literal meaning?

FWIW I took it to mean "[show me a] US Hornet, not a Swiss one"

Edited January 26, 2022 by Northstar98

[Durnt]

7 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

I said May have been used in Bosnia, they were tested with the pod and fishbowl for certain. It's not unrealistic, it flew with that Config.

So using "test" aircraft means it's okay put whatever people want in DCS? Cool, so give me a single amraam mount.

[Northstar98]

Just now, Durnt said:

So using "test" aircraft means it's okay put whatever people want in DCS?

Wow, that's quite the leap...

[Durnt]

34 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Wow, that's quite the leap...

After digging around for pics, I found an F-14A with a targeting pod, but it has the PTID upgrade (visible by the large green square seen in the RIO's area), that is NOT present in the current module for DCS.

NO PTID = no targeting pod. It's unrealistic.

[Northstar98]

10 minutes ago, Durnt said:

After digging around for pics, I found an F-14A with a targeting pod, but it has the PTID upgrade (visible by the large green square seen in the RIO's area), that is NOT present in the current module for DCS.

NO PTID = no targeting pod. It's unrealistic.

Great! I already conceded this above.

How is what you said, not a leap?

And how is this still an argument for making our F/A-8C less like its real counterpart?

Edited January 27, 2022 by Northstar98

[Durnt]

14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Great! I already conceded this above.

How is what you said, not a leap?

And how is this still an argument for making our F/A-8C less like its real counterpart?

 

I think the real question is; why are okay with the tomcat being unrealistic, but so committed the hornet being absolutely USN correct?

 

ED's website also never says it's a US Navy only sim, it say's it's a Hornet simulator.

quote from their description.

"Operated by several nations, this multi-role fighter has been instrumental in conflicts from 1986 to today. "

From 1986 to today, well today, the hornet is carrying single mount amraams, so it would not be any less like it's real life counter part to do so.

[Swift.]

8 minutes ago, Durnt said:

I think the real question is; why are okay with the tomcat being unrealistic, but so committed the hornet being absolutely USN correct?

 

ED's website also never says it's a US Navy only sim, it say's it's a Hornet simulator.

quote from their description.

"Operated by several nations, this multi-role fighter has been instrumental in conflicts from 1986 to today. "

From 1986 to today, well today, the hornet is carrying single mount amraams, so it would not be any less like it's real life counter part to do so.

If you guys reeeally want the single amraams. Stop asking for single amraams and start asking for the pylons they mount on.

[Durnt]

5 minutes ago, Swiftwin9s said:

If you guys reeeally want the single amraams. Stop asking for single amraams and start asking for the pylons they mount on.

That's a 4D chess move I never even thought about.

 

However, I think ED has made up their mind. No amount of kicking  and screaming will give us our sweet AA amraam pylon.

[Northstar98]

8 hours ago, Durnt said:

I think the real question is; why are okay with the tomcat being unrealistic, but so committed the hornet being absolutely USN correct?

So, we're just straight up dodging?

I think the real question is, and this might shock you: how is x being an unrealistic, a reason why y should be made unrealistic too?

My second question is: how is the Tomcat relevant to the Hornet?

To answer your question, the first part is easy - it's a compromise between faithfully representing the capabilities of A and B models at the time and available data (there was ostensibly data on the LANTIRN, but not PTID AFAIK) the last part is because it's the goals of DCS and the module.

8 hours ago, Durnt said:

ED's website also never says it's a US Navy only sim, it say's it's a Hornet simulator.

quote from their description.

"Operated by several nations, this multi-role fighter has been instrumental in conflicts from 1986 to today. "

And is a very generic description, which is something that goes for everything.

The F-16C's product page states that it's operated by 26 countries and has had 4500 units built.

IRL CCIP upgraded F-16CM Block 50 (the variant we actually have) is only operated the USAF/ANG and Turkey, with our module being a representation of USAF/ANG aircraft.

If anything this is more an argument for ED to be more specific on their product page descriptions where applicable.

This was the plan for the Hornet.

And I quote: "our mid 2000s USN Hornet".

8 hours ago, Durnt said:

However, I think ED has made up their mind. No amount of kicking  and screaming will give us our sweet AA amraam pylon.

That's because evidence is the name of the game here...

Edited January 27, 2022 by Northstar98

[Durnt]

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

how is x being an unrealistic, a reason why y should be made unrealistic too?

Because in DCS all the modules can interact together in a combat environment. ED prides themselves on making the most realistic combat sim ever made. Therefor, if one module is allowed to be unrealistic, they all can be, and at that point it's no longer a sim, it's a fancy video game. 

 

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

how is the Tomcat relevant to the Hornet?

If the tomcat in DCS didn't have a targeting pod, I would have never mentioned it. I was only using it as an example of something not realistically possible, but used anyway. Since every excuse for the hornet was that the navy never used single amraams, so it's unrealistic. 

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

it's a compromise

And there we have it. It's okay to have a bonkers way of using a tpod without the PTID to make the module more fun. Then by that logic, the hornet should have single mounted amrrams to make it more fun.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Durnt said:

Because in DCS all the modules can interact together in a combat environment.

And? Explain.

1 hour ago, Durnt said:

ED prides themselves on making the most realistic combat sim ever made. Therefor, if one module is allowed to be unrealistic, they all can be, and at that point it's no longer a sim, it's a fancy video game.

So, once anything is allowed to be unrealistic, realism should be abandoned? Interesting take, seeing as nothing in DCS is 100% accurate to reality (nor will it be, for very good reasons), I guess we're screwed? 

And it was always a game, just a game trying to depict stuff realistically.

But once again, all you're doing is restating 'x is unrealistic, so y should be too', without justifying why, I'm starting to think you can't...

1 hour ago, Durnt said:

If the tomcat in DCS didn't have a targeting pod, I would have never mentioned it. I was only using it as an example of something not realistically possible, but used anyway. Since every excuse for the hornet was that the navy never used single amraams, so it's unrealistic. 

Yes, but for 50 millionth time, you need to justify why something being unrealistic means something else should be made to be unrealistic, when it already conforms to the goals and scope of the module, and the goals of the game.

Your whole argument rests on this, so you need to justify it if your argument is to have any weight.

1 hour ago, Durnt said:

And there we have it. It's okay to have a bonkers way of using a tpod without the PTID to make the module more fun.

*Better represent the modules capabilities for the timeframe of the current aircraft variants, PTID wasn't developed due to a lack of information and workload, something that doesn't apply here.

1 hour ago, Durnt said:

Then by that logic, the hornet should have single mounted amrrams to make it more fun.

Bit more nuance than that I'm afraid, as the single AMRAAM directly to the station is something US F/A-18C can't do at all. Whereas LANTIRN is something accurate for the operator and timeframe our F-14A/Bs are supposed to represent (the only unrealistic thing is the display, regardless of how you much you big it up).

Edited January 27, 2022 by Northstar98

[Bunny Clark]

21 hours ago, Durnt said:

It doesn't matter it's Swiss. It's a C model with an AA pylon. And no, The Swiss don't have a super duper upgraded 9G Hornet, It's the same one the US has. Why have a Swiss livery if we can't have a Swiss payload?

It's not the same F/A-18C the US has. They have different cockpit displays and a touchscreen UFC, similar to the Spanish EF-18s, and an air-to-air spotlight like the CF-18. They were delivered with no A/G capability at all (though the cockpit seems to have retained the A/G master mode button), though that capability has since been somewhat retrofitted. Does anyone even know if it's possible to mount the Swiss pylon to an American Hornet? I'm not sure it's the same pylon as the Super Hornet outer wing pylon, as the Super Hornet can mount HARMs, Mavericks, and Mk.82 class bombs on it while the Swiss can not. Putting a Swiss paintjob on a US Hornet doesn't turn it into a Swiss Hornet anymore than putting a Canadian paintjob on one makes a CF-18, or putting a Spanish paintjob on makes it an EF-18. The module won't sprout a new touchscreen UFC, spotlight on the side of the fuselage, or A/A only pylons. 

Quote

The Tomcat has a targeting pod, that's not realistic, but ED still allows it. Saying it's unrealistic because the US never did it isn't an argument. 

You keep moving the goalposts on this one. The only thing that's unrealistic with the Tomcat is carrying LANTIRN on a non-PTID upgraded aircraft. Heatblur have said they would have loved to have been able to model PTID, but could not find enough information on it. They considered making a cosmetic-only PTID that would swap in on any LANTRIN equipped aircraft, but decided against it. This is a clear concession to gameplay, as removing LANTRIN for want of more PTID info would have a removed a significant amount of capability from the module. Plus, this is a RIO-only issue, a human pilot flying the module would never know the difference, nor would anyone who isn't pixel peeping into the rear cockpit from the outside. It's a small sacrifice in realism for a significant gain in features.

Can you honestly say the single AMRAAM rail on the Hornet is an equivalent issue? The only "feature" you gain is a less draggy loadout when carrying a single missile on a station, in exchange for mounting a pylon that has never been used by a US Hornet, may not even be capable of mounting on a US Hornet, and is sitting on the outside of the aircraft for everyone in the game to see.