not planned or correct for version APKWS laser guided rockets for AH-64D

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, Tippis said:

2) Most missions take place after 2015.

 

Well, if you want to stick to the reality of DCS, then the year set in the mission editor does not matter outside of historical mode or in the context of historical or at least alternate history missions.

 

There's nothing stopping me right now from setting all of my missions to before the wright flyer first flew, or to the year 2100 - it changes the square root of bugger all, it's only purpose is to provide a year in the briefing.

 

But it gets even better (which you ignored), the mission you make is entirely up to you, and if you take a 200 and whatever Apache into whatever mission, it's still an AH-64D of that particular year.

 

Quote

3) We're already getting what is commonly labelled a “frankenplane” so what the manual says doesn't really give a good indication of what capabilities there are in the platform, especially not in respect to a system that changes nothing about that platform.

 

Oh well doesn't that just open up the floodgates?

 

Let's give it JAGM-179 or Brimestone, because hey it's a frankenplane anyway. Both missiles look like hellfires anyway so let's just assume the capabilities are there - you said yourself that the manual doesn't really give a good indication.

 

What happens when I set the date to something really far in the future? The mission editor goes up to 2100, so, active camouflage? Lasers?  

 

Quote

4) …but again, the timeframe in which this supposed-2002-but-not-really-so-who-knows bird will be flying is 2016 and later (since that seems to be the new default date in the mission editor).

 

Again, basically an irrelevancy, is it supposed to be an AH-64D circa 2002 or isn't it?

 

Quote

What timeframe is that? The famous China-vs-US clash over the oil fields of Abkhazia in 2021?

 

Exactly! The missions you make are completely up to you and all of them are going to be fictional to an extent, only good luck with getting appropriate Chinese aircraft to fit your 2021 scenario.

 

But again, the mission is irrelevant because DCS gives you free reign here as a sandbox by design, the only place where realism should be concerned is in the assets and maps - they should be accurate to their real world counterparts where feasible to do so. Which is the exact mission statement of DCS on the homepage.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

That is the root for same argument as "The module can not be flown on missions that are dated outside of this specific year".

 

Except nobody is saying that, I've been saying from the get go that the mission is totally up to you. But hey, this whole counter is a straw man, so you're hardly going to stop now.

 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

Regardless of that.

The fact is that DCS is a simulator and we are not tied to real history or events.

Mission designers can place any unit, on any map and at any given year as the please. 

Be it a absurd "Final Countdown" campaign where a USN carrier appears in the Normandy map at year 1942 or so. 

Or be it a Soviet Union carrier appearing with Su-33 and KA-50 in a same way, as allies to Germany.

Fictional campaign based to a real movie, based to sci-fi.

If someone has problem, don't play it.

 

Which is all in complete agreement with what I've said, thank you for agreeing with me that the mission you make is independent to reality.

 

So I'll stick with what DCS is supposed to offer - a simulator that gives me realistic building blocks, but gives me free reign on whatever I build out of the building blocks.

 

Happy?

 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

This is how we get back to the root argument who oppose the APKWS anywhere.

As weapon is "plug and play" without modifications, and no modifications are required to aim it, to launch it and to operate it. It will be restricted only to a given years when it became operational for given airframes. If someone is so nitpicky about 1985 Flanker flying with 2005 Hornet, then they never have problems with it. As they never make missions for hornet outside 2005 and never missions outside 1985 and never fly Mi-24P outside 1982... (Even when Mi-24P flies as is today, after 39 years).

 

Bloody hell, the mission you make and the date you set does not matter, you even highlighted that for me in your preceding paragraph!

 

Are you okay Fri?

 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

Same is with Hornet, there are few units of it in example Finnish airforce in that 2005 condition even today as they didn't not build all of them with own modifications and mixtures between super hornets and own software and hardware (removed the hidden US kill switches in them). All compatible with APKWS II.

 

APKWS is not in the inventory of Finland they do not operate it, so why should a Finnish Hornet (that we don't have) get APKWS.

 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

The helicopters, drones and all are being evaluated for the APKWS II because militaries really love to test all.

 

Relevancy?

 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

Others can enjoy realism by making missions dated to example 2020 in Syria and enjoy with new weapons that came available later on.

 

Woohoo! Let's keep modules perpetually in development! 

[Tippis]

20 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Oh well doesn't that just open up the floodgates?

 

Let's give it JAGM-179 or Brimestone, because hey it's a frankenplane anyway. Both missiles look like hellfires anyway so let's just assume the capabilities are there - you said yourself that the manual doesn't really give a good indication.

No, but it does demonstrate that this obsession about being a specific version and, consequently, that only what it rolled off the factory floor with is “realistic” isn't a particularly sensible stance. It's just not how aircraft in DCS are built or represented.

 

So giving them a weapon system that they very clearly can be — and indeed have been — equipped with doesn't particularly stretch the imagination or make it any more of a “frankenplane” than it already is. It certainly doesn't make it unrealistic, fantastic, or even all that unreasonable. Oh, and let's not forget that the opportunity cost for this is effectively zero, unlike something like the JAGM.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Tippis

[Northstar98]

11 minutes ago, Tippis said:

No, but it does demonstrate that this obsession about being a specific version and, consequently, that only what it rolled off the factory floor with is “realistic” isn't a particularly sensible stance. It's just not how aircraft in DCS are built or represented.

 

How does it demonstrate it at all? The point is that it's as realistic as feasibly possible, my bet is there were some gaps in the documentation so they had to fudge something together. That doesn't mean we should be going out of our way to make them less consistent.

 

Again, the solution is to solve the inconsistency where we can, not further facilitate it. DCS already has a consistency problem as highlighted very well by this thread, it doesn't need to be extended.

 

11 minutes ago, Tippis said:

So giving them a weapon system that they very clearly can be — and indeed have been — equipped with doesn't particularly stretch the imagination or make it any more of a “frankenplane” than it already is. It certainly doesn't make it unrealistic, fantastic, or even all that unreasonable.

 

Well, only if you completely ignore what timeframe it's supposed to represent, which is a timeframe where APKWS doesn't exist.

 

11 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Oh, and let's not forget that the opportunity cost for this is effectively zero, unlike something like the JAGM.

 

I thought the point what you and Fri were making is that we should have new weapons become available as they are IRL? Or are we going to be inconsistent about that to?

 

So if we bring an Apache into a mission set in 2021 (not like the date matters at all, because as I've said before, DCS gives you free reign to do what you like, so the only place where the date makes sense is within the bounds of historical or alternate history missions that could have been, which clearly isn't the case here, but hey, it was completely ignored the first time, I'm sure it'll be ignored again), the only thing that makes it a 2021 Apache is APKWS and nothing else. I guess we're just going to assume that in the near 2 decades after what our Apache is supposed to have been, absolutely nothing else changed.

 

So not only are the maps, assets and modules inconsistent with each other, we're going to further make the modules inconsistent.

 

Y'know what I've just had a thought, if APKWS is 100% backwards compatible, and it already exits, why not just mod it in?

[Tippis]

Just now, Northstar98 said:

How does it demonstrate it at all? The point is that it's as realistic as feasibly possible, my bet is there were some gaps in the documentation so they had to fudge something together.

It demonstrates it by, quite simply, not actually being a specific version and by having things that it didn't roll off the factory floor with but rather being a mashup of what is described in one manual and things the platform received at a later date.

 

Just now, Northstar98 said:

Well, only if you completely ignore what timeframe it's supposed to represent, which is a timeframe where APKWS doesn't exist.

It doesn't particularly represent any timeframe, though. Nothing in DCS really does. And it will be used in a timeframe where APKWS does exist.

 

Just now, Northstar98 said:

I thought the point what you and Fri were making is that we should have new weapons become available as they are IRL? Or are we going to be inconsistent about that to?

No. The point is, and always has been, that this weapon system, which conveniently is already implemented in the game and therefore requires pretty much zero effort to add to the aircraft, can trivially (and pretty realistically) be added to the aircraft. The fact that it is already implemented just forestalls the so-common-as-to-be-almost-inevitable counter-argument that adding this would delay things.

 

Just now, Northstar98 said:

Y'know what I've just had a thought, if APKWS is 100% backwards compatible, and it already exits, why not just mod it in?

IC. And also because ED decided to neuter the modding capabilities by encrypting weapon (and sound… and a few other) files because of “MP cheating”.

[Fri13]

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

How can they be the same if APKWS have more mass and more drag, but the same motor? Have we entered alternative physics land?

 

You are comparing unguided to guided rocket again.

The small difference between the unguided and guided rocket CCIP accuracy is irrelevant because you are not aiming the APKWS II with the CCIP.

You don't care about the CCIP accuracy at that level as it is irrelevant.

 

The APKWS II has wings, guided wings. That the laser guidance logic will adjust to turn the rocket at any direction where the laser spot is pointing. The CCIP argument is all based to the claim that pilot hit the targets with the CCIP. That it is crucial that the CCIP is not off by even 2 mils (that is 2 meters at 1000 meter range, at max 7000 meter launch range it would be 14 meter CCIP error) as otherwise you can't utilize the APKWS.

Fact is, the APKWS is only required to be shot "from the hip" and "laser designator does the job". You need to get the APKWS "at the direction" without requiring aiming it at all in accuracy that even the CCIP incorrectness is. 

 

I have shown that in the video that it doesn't matter how by the CCIP error amount the pilot would launch the rocket from the laser dot (again, irrelevant how DCS simulates it as the point stands, you can even pretend in my video that I am the designator or that JTAC is in correct position on each one, I just wanted to keep the video short to show that launching APKWS II even with 20 degree wrong angle and they go right place) the APKWS II does itself the guiding on the target where the JTAC is aiming. Once you release the weapon, it is JTAC responsibility to aim it on the target. 

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Nice straw man.

My only argument concerns the real life integration of APKWS on real platforms. Not what you personally think is necessary.

 

It is not a strawman when you are claiming that the APKWS II requires a software update to utilize it.

The real world integration is what I have been talking all the time.

Ground crew converts the unguided rockets to guided ones by adding the guidance module between.

And then pilot utilize exactly the same laser designation procedure as they would with any other laser guided weapon or buddy lazing for others. 

And pilot will then just launch the APKWS II in the general direction of the target by the same range rules of the unguided Hydra 70 rocket (the APKWS II one will actually fly further than unguided because the guidance wings will maintain the rocket pitch toward target instead allow it to droop and hit the ground earlier). 

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Yep, have known about it from the get go Fri, it's completely irrelevant.

 

You are arguing "How the weapon is integrated in real world" and then you say that it is totally irrelevant how it is integrated in real world. 

Nice counter argument from you to yourself. 

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Gonna have to do a bit better than that I'm afraid - it is exactly the same argument and you even highlight that in a subsequent comment.

 

You can't do better than that as you are now grasping straws. 

It is not exactly the same thing.

GBU-12 can not fly upwards, it has no energy or motor to fly vertically. It is a ballistic bomb that will drop by the gravity toward ground and only energy you can give to it is the launch speed and altitude.

 

Your argument is based that If you hover in the helicopter at 50 meter altitude and you release a laser guided bomb from it, it would magically find its way to 5 km distance because there is a laser dot right there.

 Your argument is that the ballistic bomb is same thing as rocket boosted warhead (a rocket). 

 

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Nope, just that in the majority of aircraft we have the GBU-12 does have CCIP and CCRP available, requiring their parameters.

 

APKWS II does not need CCIP or CCRP. If you can launch the Hydra 70 rocket, you can launch APKWS II one.

Of course you want to aim your unguided rockets by some manner on the target, even if it is a grease pencil dot on the windshield! 

 

This is why the APKWS II has 40 degree instant field of view to find the laser spot and not just 2 degree or 5 degree.

You go back to the argument that laser guided bombs and rockets requires exactly correct CCIP or CCRP release parameters or otherwise you will miss the target.

Then you try to go that ballistic bomb is exactly same thing as a rocket boosted warhead. 

 

Just accept the fact that it does not matter to APKWS or the pilot or the JTAC that your CCIP would be 5-30 mils at wrong position. It does not matter because the APKWS laser guidance module takes care of everything with its LOAL, 40 degree IFOV and guided fins. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

But hey, you keep making straw men.

 

It is your strawman to claim that CCIP accuracy has relevance to accuracy of the laser guided rocket accuracy to hit the target, not mine. 

You just do not like that you see your strawman called out and made ineffective. 

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Yes, I understand how APKWS works, failing to see the relevancy here...

 

Do you? How you then fail to completely understand that there is no software updates required of any kind to make the APKWS II usable in the helicopter, fighter, drone, car, ship etc?

You do not need to adjust CCIP parameters, you don't need any magical parameters for the rocket because the rocket itself does it all by itself. 

You do not even understand the fact that you use the APKWS II like unguided rocket except you aim target with the laser and not with a CCIP/CCRP estimation. 

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

At the end of the day a 2002 Apache doesn't have APKWS and that's basically the only relevant fact here.

 

At the end the 2002 Apache is flying in the years far past the 2002 and that is only thin that is relevant here and counters all the arguments "But it is not for anything else than 2002 missions!".

 

Fine, if you never want to fly Apache from 2002 with the Hornet from 2005 and Viper from 2007 and A-10C from "what ever other year than 2002" then that is your own fantasy. 

Others will be flying Apache in missions at the 2016 and 2021 and 2031 and 1942 or what ever they like.

And when they are going to fly Apache in the Syria mission dated to 2019, they should have access to APKWS II in their arsenal. If they want to fly the Apache in 1942 against Germans in Normandy, it is their decision not to have the APKWS II there regardless that the Apache didn't even exist back then!

 

The fact stands, Apache did not fly only in 2002, it flies way past that year as is and it has not received any updates required for APKWS II to be usable with even in 2021. 

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

What part of having realistic building blocks, but scenarios completely up to you is so difficult to understand? It's basically DCS' entire thing.

 

Clearly more than you do.

You claim that Apache exist only in 2002. We can see that it exist at least 2002-2012 as is and even further some ways very likely as some units might not have received the chanced until 2014. If the new pilot manual has come out in 2012, then that is at least the 2002-2012 period where it is flying as is, not just 2002 that you are stomping on the ground. 

Just accept the facts that Hornet didn't just fly in 2005, but it did fly 2005-2019 as is in the condition that it is in the DCS. There are countries that flies it even today in 2021 as in that configuration as we have in DCS. 

 

It is the DCS World that we have various timelines combined, not just one point in time as you argue, but linear time where all modules has multiple years in service times as is.

 

This is how I argue it:

 

And this is how you argue it:

 

It is completely realistic that APKWS II became available multiple different modules we have in the DCS as is, and it is up to the mission designer that they choose do they want to include it based their mission date or for what ever reason they want (be it a logistic problem, funding problem, a game balance reasons, whatever...)

 

You must just accept the fact that DCS World is not as you argue that Hornet exist only in 2005 and Viper exist only in 2007 and Apache will only exist in 2002 and so on.

Every single aircraft with each different modifications/upgrades/changes has a time period when something related to specific weapon systems or features were added or removed or they had it.

Like through the whole lifetime of the Hornet the gun has not changed and it ballistic capabilities has not changed and nothin related to its accuracy has changed, it is completely irrelevant to argue that because at one point in the time Hornet received a AIM-120C-5 compatibility that it changed the way how the gun is integrated to the Hornet. If someone does a modification that pilot headrest is more comfortable by changing the shape of the material in it at 2003, it doesn't mean that now the GBU-12 compatibility was affeced.

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

A 2002 US Army AH-64D is still a 2002 US Army AH-64D regardless of the map, livery, or time. You set the date to whatever you want, it's not like it makes a difference outside historical mode.

 

Exactly, you are arguing that Apache is only allowed to fly in DCS in missions dated 2002. The Hornet is only in missions dated to 2005. And Viper in missions 2007, and A-10C II in any of those, and Harrier in 2009, and up coming F-15C in 200'ish. etc.

 

Or you just need to accept the fact that Hornet was operational at least from 2005 to 2019 as is. It did not just exist in 2005 but in all those years.

The Apache didn't just exist in 2002 but it existed in 2002-2012 at least (if not further). 

All the conditions the Hornet, Viper, Apache etc are, are 100% compatible and usable with the APKWS II if you fly mission dated as 2012- and forward. And that is realistic as it is the history. If someone wants to bring APKWS II from future to 2005, they can because it is technically compatible. Just like they can take the Hornet and fly it in 2002 configuration of the A-10C or what ever it tries to present as it is a mixture as well. 

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Hmmm, so is it "a decade or two" or is it "2-7 years"?

 

Irrelevant question as it is per aircraft history as example. 

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Ah yes, a 1960s/70s A-1 Skyraider should get APKWS because muh compatibility, never mind it was retired with the only operator of APKWS 40 years before APKWS even existed.

 

It is up to mission designer to make their sci-fi setups if they so want. It doesn't change the fact that Apache and all others are technically compatible with the APKWS II because the guidance module was made backward compatible.

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

It isn't all or nothing Fri, in fact it's DCS' whole thing. The building blocks are to be as authentic as possible to their RL counterparts, the missions you make are completely up to you, they have no bearing on each other, and any bearing they do have is totally up to you.

 

That is not true and you know it. Hornet has weapons from the past and from the future.

The viper has weapons from the past that it is not compatible for.

The A-10C has weapons from the future.

The whole DCS World is about mixing up things just as people please. It is not about 2005 vs 1985 but Hornet vs Flanker. People play simulator as they want. That is about simulation and not about history book. 

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

If you want to do otherwise, and strictly control it, well good luck convincing ED to delete the mission editor, as that's what you'll have to do...

 

Hey, not my argument. As through this whole time you are arguing that every module exist only in the very specific year and can not be flown in any other year than that.

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Come on, at least try with the disingenuous remarks.

 

If I want to make a peer-to-peer mission that has consistent units for a particular year, I can't do it, the assets aren't available, it's a mile wide and an inch deep with stuff all over the place. So I have to work with what I've got, and that inevitably leads to inconsistencies somewhere.

 

I'd rather those inconsistencies didn't exist but I'll make do with what I've got, it's not like I've got another option.

 

You keep ignoring the fact that APKWS II came available and usable with the Hornet, Apache, Viper when those were/are in service and with full compatibility not by any updates. 

So just now accept that you need to work what you get, and you can't argue "But it is a circa 2002" because you are arguing against yourself now by not accepting the fact that never has Apache flown as such configuration only one year when it comes out (in what ever configuration). 

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

What a fantastic way of making sure that modules perpetually stay in development. Unless of course, you only want this exclusively for APKWS? So not only are the assets, maps and modules inconsistent, the aircraft are too, brilliant.

 

Strawman argument.

 

APKWS II exist already in the game. It has stamped the in-service year for the time filter.

Placing the already existing weapons from DCS Core (as ED is responsible for all weapons in the DCS unless studio want to make own like HB made AIM-54 etc) to just stamp it available to given module with unique year number.

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

[insert comparison to Paveway series here]

 

Again comparison of apples to monkeys.

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Doesn't change how they're actually integrated though does it?

 

In the Apache's case, going by Raptor9's comment above, the AH-64D doesn't - not that it's relevant because APKWS still isn't accurate for a 2002 Apache.

 

It is actually integrated that way. No changes, no modifications. Load the rocket to the pod and off you go. 

And you go again back to circular reasoning about the 2002 that Apache only exist and can only be flown in missions dated to 2002 and that ED should delete the mission editor as no module is to be flown on any other year than the "circa XXXX".  

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Just how many times are you going to try and twist the argument?

 

I have not twisted the argument, you are twisting the truth and facts. The CCIP accuracy that you claim should be adjusted for the "new weapon" is not required because you do not aim the APKWS II with the CCIP pipper at all! You do not need to have the CCIP accurate to 1 mil or 15 mil. You need to be only able to aim the rocket < 20 degree from the target and if you can not do even so simple thing as that....

 

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

And one that's definitely necessary on the most capable attack helicopter yet in DCS, that isn't only more capable as an attack platform, but also has around a 1-2 decade head start compared to it's contemporary modules, and to top it off, isn't even accurate for it in the first place.

 

And here you go again back to 2002 argument.... You are just doing circular reasoning.

You simply can not even understand the fact that I am talking about real APKWS II weapon project compared to all others in the history how rare successful it has been because it is so simple and brilliant for its time. It is not about comparing it to stick and stones at the ice age but what the whole program managed to do to convert a old well working unguided rocket system to precision guided rocket system.  

[Fri13]

48 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

There's nothing stopping me right now from setting all of my missions to before the wright flyer first flew, or to the year 2100 - it changes the square root of bugger all, it's only purpose is to provide a year in the briefing.

 

It as well change the stars position, the sunset/sunrise times and very important thing for navigation, the magnetic variation.

 

[Tippis]

3 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

It as well change the stars position, the sunset/sunrise times and very important thing for navigation, the magnetic variation.

…and the availability of GPS! (Unless you fiddle with the option to ignore this.)

[Fri13]

43 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Which is all in complete agreement with what I've said, thank you for agreeing with me that the mission you make is independent to reality.

 

So I'll stick with what DCS is supposed to offer - a simulator that gives me realistic building blocks, but gives me free reign on whatever I build out of the building blocks.

 

Happy?

 

Yes, you finally came to agreement that APKWS II for the Apache, Viper, Hornet, Cherokee etc are all 100% realistic and should be implemented by the ED itself so they came available their weapon loadouts when mission in DCS is dated 2012+. And if the mission designer wants to steer out of the realistic weapon loadout they can simply disable the history filter and then they can have APKWS II on any mission date.

 

See, you finally came to disagree with yourself and agree with us.... Even if you don't yet realize it. 

[Northstar98]

8 hours ago, Fri13 said:

The real world integration is what I have been talking all the time.

 

Then you're buy and large getting it wrong then aren't you?

 

Quote

You are arguing "How the weapon is integrated in real world" and then you say that it is totally irrelevant how it is integrated in real world. 

Nice counter argument from you to yourself. 

 

Lol what!?

 

Quote

You can't do better than that as you are now grasping straws. 

It is not exactly the same thing.

GBU-12 can not fly upwards, it has no energy or motor to fly vertically. It is a ballistic bomb that will drop by the gravity toward ground and only energy you can give to it is the launch speed and altitude.

 

It is exactly the same argument, your whole thing is that because it's guided it means aircraft doesn't have whatever parameters, however for the aircraft that do have APKWS, they do in fact have the parameters - so to properly integrate the weapon they had an update.

 

Do they need the update to fire? No, they don't. But that doesn't matter because the RW integration does have them available.

 

EDIT: Though apparently the Apache doesn't for APKWS, but then we still have to assume absolutely nothing changed in over a decade.

 

Quote

APKWS II does not need CCIP or CCRP. If you can launch the Hydra 70 rocket, you can launch APKWS II one.

 

Neither does any weapon guided or unguided, but it doesn't matter - it matters how the aircraft is actually integrated with the weapon, whether it absolutely needs it or not.

 

Quote

You just do not like that you see your strawman called out and made ineffective. 

 

That's a bit rich coming from you Fri...

 

Quote

At the end the 2002 Apache is flying in the years far past the 2002 and that is only thin that is relevant here and counters all the arguments "But it is not for anything else than 2002 missions!".

 

Nobody said it can only be used with the mission editor date set to 2002 and nothing else - that is an argument you made up.

 

When you twist an arguments, pretending that's what your opponent said, and argue against that, we call that a straw man Fri, and you seem really good at making them.

 

Quote

Fine, if you never want to fly Apache from 2002 with the Hornet from 2005 and Viper from 2007 and A-10C from "what ever other year than 2002" then that is your own fantasy.

 

Bloody hell, are you even reading what I'm saying? You're making this stupid point that I never said again.

 

Quote

Others will be flying Apache in missions at the 2016 and 2021 and 2031 and 1942 or what ever they like.

 

And this right here has been my point from the get go, that the mission date doesn't matter, because you can do what you like with it and it affects absolutely nothing practical.

 

The whole argument, that you keep missing over and over again, is that DCS should provide realistic building blocks, that are as accurate to their RL counterparts as possible. The missions you make out of them however, are completely up to you as they should be.

 

In this case our 'building block' is a US Army AH-64D Block II circa 2002, so going with the argument above (which incidentally is the mission statement of DCS) the aircraft we should get should represent a US Army AH-64D Block II, as it was, circa 2002.

 

I couldn't care less what mission you take it into, you're more than welcome to make a mission set from 1900 to 2100 or any date in between - and like I said earlier, the mission date affects nothing about the aircraft. Our US Army AH-64D Block II circa 2002, is still going to be a US Army AH-64D Block II circa 2002 regardless of what mission you take it into or what livery it's painted or whether or not you've disabled GPS or are weapons restricting - the aircraft is a representation of a US Army AH-64D Block II circa 2002, it doesn't magically become a US Army AH-64D Block II circa XXXX just because the mission date is set to to XXXX.

 

And if it's supposed to be a representation of a US Army Block II, as it was circa 2002, then it shouldn't have APKWS available. This isn't a matter of doctrine it didn't exist. If it does get APKWS, then it's less an accurate representation of a US Army AH-64D Block II circa 2002 - that's all there is to it.

 

I don't think I can make it clearer than that. If you're going to twist my argument again, to make out that I think you shouldn't be able to take an aircraft into a mission set outside whatever date the aircraft is supposed to represent, then ding dong, you're freaking wrong. If anything it just proves how adept you are at arguing in bad faith.

 

Quote

Clearly more than you do.

You claim that Apache exist only in 2002.

 

Where did I claim that?

 

You don't even know what I'm apparently saying.

 

I just said it's supposed to represent an Apache, as it was circa 2002, I never said that it can only exist in missions set in 2002 - it is a point you made up.

 

Quote

We can see that it exist at least 2002-2012 as is and even further some ways very likely as some units might not have received the chanced until 2014. If the new pilot manual has come out in 2012, then that is at least the 2002-2012 period where it is flying as is, not just 2002 that you are stomping on the ground. 

 

You can take it into whatever mission you like, set the mission date to however you choose, that has been my point right from the start. The fact that you missed that (how many times now), is quite frankly amazing, well done.

 

Quote

Just accept the facts that Hornet didn't just fly in 2005, but it did fly 2005-2019 as is in the condition that it is in the DCS. There are countries that flies it even today in 2021 as in that configuration as we have in DCS.

 

Read the above, then read it again, because you're having an amazingly hard time grasping my argument.

 

Quote

You must just accept the fact that DCS World is not as you argue that Hornet exist only in 2005 and Viper exist only in 2007 and Apache will only exist in 2002 and so on.

 

You just did it again...

 

Quote

Every single aircraft with each different modifications/upgrades/changes has a time period when something related to specific weapon systems or features were added or removed or they had it.

Like through the whole lifetime of the Hornet the gun has not changed and it ballistic capabilities has not changed and nothin related to its accuracy has changed, it is completely irrelevant to argue that because at one point in the time Hornet received a AIM-120C-5 compatibility that it changed the way how the gun is integrated to the Hornet. If someone does a modification that pilot headrest is more comfortable by changing the shape of the material in it at 2003, it doesn't mean that now the GBU-12 compatibility was affeced.

 

But that doesn't change how those rounds are actually integrated with the aircraft...

 

Again, what is so difficult about this Fri? What aren't you getting?

 

Quote

Exactly, you are arguing that Apache is only allowed to fly in DCS in missions dated 2002. The Hornet is only in missions dated to 2005. And Viper in missions 2007, and A-10C II in any of those, and Harrier in 2009, and up coming F-15C in 200'ish. etc.

 

You're doing it, yet again.

 

I am not arguing that at all. Just that it should represent whatever it should represent, and you have free reign to make whatever mission you choose. I've said this so many times only for you to completely twist it around, effectively arguing for deletion of the mission editor.

 

Quote

The Apache didn't just exist in 2002 but it existed in 2002-2012 at least (if not further).

 

But our one is supposed to represent as it was in 2002, it's amazing how you just dodge it.

 

And cue "you want the Apache to only fly in missions dated in 2002", even if you've never said that and said that mission editors have free reign what missions they make, every time it's come up, but I'll still keep twisting it because it's my entire counter argument" in 3... 2... 1...

 

Quote

And that is realistic as it is the history.

 

Yeah, M5.1 and above is totally fictional isn't it? Nope, never happened. 

 

Quote

 

 

It is up to mission designer to make their sci-fi setups if they so want.

 

FINALLY!

 

Quote

 

 

 

It doesn't change the fact that Apache and all others are technically compatible with the APKWS II because the guidance module was made backward compatible.

 

 

That is not true and you know it. Hornet has weapons from the past and from the future.

 

Which again, we should be fixing the inconsitency not further facilitating it.

 

Quote

The viper has weapons from the past that it is not compatible for.

 

Like?

 

Quote

The A-10C has weapons from the future.

 

Like?

 

Quote

Hey, not my argument. As through this whole time you are arguing that every module exist only in the very specific year and can not be flown in any other year than that.

 

The absolute state of the irony.

 

Quote

Strawman argument.

 

Huh? Do you even know what a straw man is?

 

Quote

It is actually integrated that way. No changes, no modifications. Load the rocket to the pod and off you go. 

 

So the A-10C II doesn't have a dedicated profile for it? Oh look, it does!

 

Quote

And you go again back to circular reasoning about the 2002 that Apache only exist and can only be flown in missions dated to 2002 and that ED should delete the mission editor as no module is to be flown on any other year than the "circa XXXX".  

 

Fri, when you accuse somebody of making a logical fallacy, it helps if you actually know what it means...

 

And damn, we're back to making arguments I never said, and you arguing against those, wonder what logical fallacy that's the exact definition of again...

 

Quote

I have not twisted the argument

 

Oh right. I take it the self-awareness is taking a nap today is it?

 

I think I'm going to stop it here with you, if you're not going to listen to any points being made, and your whole shtick concerns points I never made, then it really is a fruitless effort.

 

After all, you did so well with the F-16CM, with the F/A-18C, twice, yeah I think ED are pretty clear about this.

 

8 hours ago, Fri13 said:

Yes, you finally came to agreement that APKWS II for the Apache, Viper, Hornet, Cherokee etc are all 100% realistic and should be implemented by the ED itself so they came available their weapon loadouts when mission in DCS is dated 2012+. And if the mission designer wants to steer out of the realistic weapon loadout they can simply disable the history filter and then they can have APKWS II on any mission date.

 

See, you finally came to disagree with yourself and agree with us.... Even if you don't yet realize it. 

 

Absolutely priceless.

 

I think we're venturing into the realms of flat earther levels of arguing here, make a point, twist the hell out of it, even if the opponent never said it, juggle around logical fallacies, using them completely inappropriately, demonstrating a total disregard for what they mean, and finally coming to the conclusion that the opponent supports your argument.

 

It is quite literally playing chess with a pigeon.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Northstar98

[shagrat]

15 hours ago, DaemonPhobos said:

Well, according to a real life 64D pilot's commentary I read somewhere, there is no specific symbology for APKWS engagements, nor the software has any constraint limits.

Also according to flashcards you load them as 6PD or 7PD and no more than 16 per pod for maximum weight restrictions.

However, there was multiple modifications to the MPD software and pages from a 2015 to even a 2007 apache.

So having it implemented would inevitably be somewhat unrealistic.

The same logic would apply to the current A-10C.

I don't know what to think about it.

APKWS should work with even IOC AH-64D block 1 in theory.

The problem is it would be anachronistic.

The problem is we tend a lot to project our individual perception of "what is, or is not realistic" on DCS and ask for ED to restrict X and remove Y, instead of restricting stuff in mission building, or restrict ourselves to simply use loadouts, accordingly.

With that approach we would never have seen missions and campaigns like "The museum relict", "Raven One", "Rising Squall", basically most stuff we enjoy in DCS, as most of DCS missions is about fictional scenarios that apart from the WW II historical missions. We have fictional conflicts, fictional liveries, fictional areas of operations (US Navy Carriers in the Black Sea, Blue vs. Red in Russia along the Caucasus, etc.).

Why is it necessary to restrict the modules to a specific timeframe, mission profile (which often changed considerable over time) instead of giving mission builders and server admins the information, options and settings to create either  total fictional but intriguing scenario, or a timeframe correct mission environment with correct opposition, loadouts and ressources?

I find the later, far more appealing and flexible.

Edited April 23, 2021 by shagrat
Typos

[Northstar98]

7 hours ago, shagrat said:

With that approach we would never have seen missions and campaigns like "The museum relict", "Raven One", "Rising Squall", basically most stuff we enjoy in DCS, as most of DCS missions is about fictional scenarios that apart from the WW II historical missions. We have fictional conflicts, fictional liveries, fictional areas of operations (US Navy Carriers in the Black Sea, Blue vs. Red in Russia along the Caucasus, etc.).

 

Well, yes we would.

 

DCS' whole point is that its building blocks (if you will) are as realistic as possible, where feasible to do so (I'm sure there will always be inconsistencies but that is the goal here), but the scenarios and missions you make are completely up to you.

 

So there's absolutely nothing stopping you from making fictional scenarios and missions such as what you mentioned. The scenarios you make are completely yours to build however you want them. The assets and maps themselves however, should be accurate to their RL counterparts, but what you do with them is up to you.

 

This is the clear thing here that people keep missing over and over again.

 

I personally think that's the best option - being completely restricted to a specific year as Fri constantly brings up (regardless if anybody is actually making that point), would mandate deletion of the mission editor, which sounds like a fantastic and popular idea (not).

 

I just think if you're going to advertise something as being specifically x, on a platform whose mission goal is to be as realistic as feasibly possible, then you should provide an accurate representation of x as accurately as possible. What mission you take x into is completely up to you, as it absolutely should be. 

 

Yes Tippis, I'm sure things will get missed and we'll never get 100% of the way there, and we'll have some fudging going on - I absolutely get that. But that's where the as realistic as possible comes in. And where there are inconsistencies it would be better if those inconsistencies were addressed and corrected, mostly by adding maps and assets that fit, at least approximately. 

Edited April 23, 2021 by Northstar98

[Tippis]

9 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Why is it necessary to restrict the modules to a specific timeframe, mission profile (which often changed considerable over time) instead of giving mission builders and server admins the information, options and settings to create either  total fictional but intriguing scenario, or a timeframe correct mission environment with correct opposition, loadouts and ressources?

I find the later, far more appealing and flexible.

+1

 

It really comes back to, or at least is very closely related to, my standard pet peeve: don't enshrine doctrine in the module. Let the module reflect what a platform conceivably can do, irrespective of whether it would be used that way, or only got that capability later. Then let the mission-maker decide whether to stick to doctrine and to pick the appropriate timeframe for “correct” usage, or whether anything goes. It means everyone gets what they want and nothing is lost in the process — often not even development time.

 

…of course, that would require them to fix the hideous bugs with the warehouses and storage limitations, but that would just be a bonus and needs to happen anyway.

[shagrat]

Just now, Tippis said:

+1

 

It really comes back to, or at least is very closely related to, my standard pet peeve: don't enshrine doctrine in the module. Let the module reflect what a platform conceivably can do, irrespective of whether it would be used that way, or only got that capability later. Then let the mission-maker decide whether to stick to doctrine and to pick the appropriate timeframe for “correct” usage, or whether anything goes. It means everyone gets what they want and nothing is lost in the process — often not even development time.

 

…of course, that would require them to fix the hideous bugs with the warehouses and storage limitations, but that would just be a bonus and needs to happen anyway.

The doctrine part doesn't survive exposition to a real conflict anyway. I love the way how "Warthog: Flying the A-10 in the Gulf War" portrayed the ever changing doctrine and mission profile during the conflict, where they ended up with basically every mission possible apart from "doctrine" including, but not limited to SEAD/DEAD, deep strikes and scud hunting with MAV IR displays...

[Tippis]

12 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

hat's a direct result of putting in and not restricting fantasy stuff and frankensteining, you can't "gentleman agree" on a public server to "restrict". And it's really killing MP for many, either driving them off completely (interest in realism, no interest in squadrons or gated communities) or into said gated communities.

And the solution to that is to make the existing equipment restrictions in the game actually work, and maybe even add a few more. Improve the game by creating options and customisation features rather than by refusing to add things (that will then be circumvented with some creative LUA anyway).

 

If the core of the issue is that you can't, then the solution is to make it so you can.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Tippis

[Snappy]

52 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

That's really the core: you can't. At least in MP you can't. Take some public 80s themed server for example (yeah folks... way off topic here, wrong timeframe blablablablatwisttwist), night mission, a small group plans an attack with Mi-8 (no NVG in RL but can't be restricted in sim -> dude is "self restricting") putting up illumination rockets (on a convoy maybe), Su-25A and the upcoming Mi-24 (which in RL don't have GPS or NVG in that timeframe) are to use the illumination to run a well timed attack. The group invests some decent amount of time here in planning and preparation to get that done.

 

Then some random comes in on the site, running NS430 and NVGs effectively negating the extra challenge night time brings (because you can't restrict those as a mission designer/server admin) and instantly kills the fun for the whole group. Like half an hour or hour right into the bin for those. Similar can be experienced in more modern time frames where some dude with non-realistic systems single-handedly wipes out a tank battalion in front of folks who "restricted themselves" to a proper loadout and system use. You experience thus a few times, realize it's a waste of time taking part in such a MP environment and make a decision.

 

The result can be seen on the server browser: lots of open servers which are basically king of the hill 6Mav9CBU105 fests and locked up realism servers you only get access to by joining a squadron or being hand selected via interviews. In between this, there are a few servers which rely on heavy scripting plus all time monitoring and administration to somehow enforce at least some realism. It's literally enforcing the extremes: gamers servers and super-realism servers with few shades in between.

 

That's a direct result of putting in and not restricting fantasy stuff and frankensteining, you can't "gentleman agree" on a public server to "restrict". And it's really killing MP for many, either driving them off completely (interest in realism, no interest in squadrons or gated communities) or into said gated communities.

 

"siMPLy DoNT UsE iT!!11!1!!" is a cake.

 

This, so much! Well put. Thank you.

Kind regards,
Snappy 

Edited April 23, 2021 by Snappy

[zerO_crash]

On 4/22/2021 at 4:34 AM, Mad Dog 762 said:

I'm all for APKWS in the Apache.  Saying we can't have it on the AH-64D is like saying you can't have it on the A-10C because they were built in the 1980's.  If ED doesn't include them, hopefully a modder figures out how to add them.

 

No, that has nothing to do with it. You comparison is just purely wrong. A10CII can have it, as it is an 2008 updated version of A10C. However A10C does not, because back in 2005 it wasn´t used nor certified on the aircraft. It´s not the production year of the actual aircraft, but which batch is being modelled.

Edited April 23, 2021 by zerO_crash

[zerO_crash]

On 4/22/2021 at 12:44 PM, Tippis said:

…but if that's the guiding principle, then why add the AH-64D at all? It could only ever be used on the NTTR map since that's the only place of the ones available that you'd be able to see said 2002 Apache, after all.

 

Your understanding is flawed as always. Just because we have other maps, doesn´t limit one to run it realistically on only NTTR. For us who care about realism, apache should only be used there. When it comes to the systems, that´s something else than even an imaginary scenario where you transported your Apache AH-64D fleet in the back of a C-5 Galaxy to Europe or middle east. Adding systems that were not there at the specific point of the specific tranche is false in every way. If they made AH-64A, "just adding a radar and a couple of MFDs" would be just as wrong to bring it to the “D” standard.

 

Even when pilots do simulator training of a certain aircraft in the military, they will be tested in different scenarios (depending on the education level and point), in different climates. Although their fleets are not there, they still train for it to know the aircraft and fly it well. The aircraft however stays true to its real-life counterpart. Without any imaginary weapons that "should work just like the normal ones". You forget that things like the laser have to be programmed to allow for latching and auto-lasing, something that this apache-version (and specifically block) does not have. Be it a software update or not, this tranche does not have it. That´s all there is to it!

Edited April 23, 2021 by zerO_crash

[zerO_crash]

4 hours ago, shagrat said:

The problem is we tend a lot to project our individual perception of "what is, or is not realistic" on DCS and ask for ED to restrict X and remove Y, instead of restricting stuff in mission building, or restrict ourselves to simply use loadouts, accordingly.

With that approach we would never have seen missions and campaigns like "The museum relict", "Raven One", "Rising Squall", basically most stuff we enjoy in DCS, as most of DCS missions is about fictional scenarios that apart from the WW II historical missions. We have fictional conflicts, fictional liveries, fictional areas of operations (US Navy Carriers in the Black Sea, Blue vs. Red in Russia along the Caucasus, etc.).

Why is it necessary to restrict the modules to a specific timeframe, mission profile (which often changed considerable over time) instead of giving mission builders and server admins the information, options and settings to create either  total fictional but intriguing scenario, or a timeframe correct mission environment with correct opposition, loadouts and ressources?

I find the later, far more appealing and flexible.

 

 

It´s time-restricted because on the outside, it might seem like the only change to this specific Apache was only the addition of the APKWS any maybe something else, but irrelevant. That while IRL there could be documents and info that is classified and talks about further software updates or more added functionality. In that way, you fly neither one or the other. What really shines with DCS is that what we fly, as closely as possible resembles a specific aircraft with it´s build, capabilities and lacks. Not some imaginary "I´ll take the best from each tranche and show them how it´s supposed to be done"! That is the difference! Making an Apache with all its iterations depending on the year would be rather difficult. If anything, go for a Heatblur variant of a F-14A+ and F-14B+. At least they are specific frames which are realistically time-separated but represent a concrete airframe. If ED decided to make an Apache that represents the one which doesn´t have APKWS, then they did and it shouldn’t have it. Now it´s up to the mission-designer to make a relevant scenario. If they released an Apache AH-64A, some people would prefer that as well, while others want the AH-64E with lasers on them because "in the future, we predict that lasers will be mounted on the same Apache’s".

 

At the point ED goes that way, it loses all its credibility and this becomes a game. It loses its charm and becomes nothing more than Ace Combat on steroids. Arma has went this way and turned out completely arcade, even on the most realistic settings. No one who has been with DCS since its start, wants to see it come to end like that. That´s why the disagreement. The ruling principle of DCS is "REALISM", not "quasi-realism" or "almost realistic, but not quite". Even if we have many other maps, that is something different, because each and every one of these aircraft could be flown in other parts of the world. The air is the same all around. However that not all INS-instruments would work, is indeed a truth, and should be simulated as well!

 

Making a realistic mission-design is up to the mission designer. But restricting loadout on an unrealistic aircraft is not! It´s simply wrong!

 

EDIT:

Just for reference, Ugroza (suffix -kor)(Russian APKWS, came before APKWS), is as well a upgrade that doesn´t need any specific changes (at least as far is known), but still we don´t have it on the Russian-side as it´s not realistic. None of the aircraft of the RU-side have it (as per block), and thus it´s not available. Precisely the way it should be.

Edited April 23, 2021 by zerO_crash

[Raptor9]

9 hours ago, Tippis said:

2) Most missions take place after 2015.

4) …but again, the timeframe in which this supposed-2002-but-not-really-so-who-knows bird will be flying is 2016 and later (since that seems to be the new default date in the mission editor).

 

That's not because of anything ED has done, that's on the mission maker.  The default date in the mission editor is an arbitrary value, that doesn't mean that all missions are intended or supposed to happen on or after that date.  By that logic, all aircraft should takeoff with just gun ammo and empty pylons because that's the default loadout in the mission editor, but that is clearly not the intent.

 

And I sincerely mean that with all due respect, @Tippis.  My intention isn't to sling mud, but to draw a distinct line between ED-produced products vs community-produced content.

 

9 hours ago, Tippis said:

3) We're already getting what is commonly labelled a “frankenplane” (snip)

 

There is absolutely zero evidence to support this claim; neither on the DCS website nor here on the forums.

 

I think there may be some confusion regarding what constitutes a 2002 manual and a 2002 Apache.  A "2002 Apache" is an aircraft that was either manufactured in that year, or is equipped with the avionics version that was fielded that year.  An Apache modeled using a "2002 manual" covers over 10 different versions of the manual (updated periodically via "change" documents that are published and distributed to Apache-equipped units), and includes multiple avionics versions and aircraft configurations.  For example, the first AH-64D 2002-dated manual was dated March 2002.  "Change 1" of that manual was six months later in August of that year.  The cover of the manual still says March 2002, but the manual's actual publication date is listed along with the current "Change number" several pages in.  "Change 2" was posted the following year in Aug 2003.  By the time you get to 2010, you're on "Change 10" of the 2002 manual and several avionics versions later.

 

According to one of the newsletters in February, the cockpit screenshot shows an AH-64D Block 2 cockpit layout, Block 2 MPD screens, a CMWS control head, and one of the listed features is MTADS.  These items were not fielded until several years and several avionics versions after the original 2002 manual/avionics version (the first Block 2 airframes weren't even fielded until 2003).  That doesn't mean it's a "frankenplane", it means that ED are probably using a 2002-dated manual that has been updated by one or multiple "Change" documents.

 

Fun fact, the practice of distributing "Change documents" has become quite rare with the advent of modern-day electronics and PDF files.  What was once a practice to save resources, money, and postage in lieu of publishing & distributing thousands of hard copies of brand-new 1000+ page manuals, is now replaced by electronic delivery means.  This in turn has, for the most part, negated the practice of "Change documents" altogether.  Which thank God because the process of systematically swapping out dozens or hundreds of individual pages within a 1000 page manual to make it current is extremely tedious.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Raptor9

[DaemonPhobos]

The real problem I see when integrating APKWS is having a 2015's weapon on a 2005 aircraft.

It's true, the aircraft could have carried it, could... but it didn't, because APKWS did not exist at that time, in fact back in 2005 the program switched from general dynamics to BAE APKWS II because it performed poorly on testing according to some citations.

 

People seem to ignore that Apaches DID receive multiple software changes from 2005 to 2015, there are MPD pages that were renamed or added, button locations modified or removed, etc.

 

Considering that APKWS is going to be pretty much the primary rocket load for every single DCS player, (some are not even going to carry hellfires at all, just x4 m261 with 16 AGRs each) of course it will be a rocket spam based on an anachronism, completely killing any sort of realism the module may have.

 

 

[Tippis]

3 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

That's not because of anything ED has done, that's on the mission maker.  The default date in the mission editor is an arbitrary value, that doesn't mean that all missions are intended or supposed to happen on or after that date.  By that logic, all aircraft should takeoff with just gun ammo and empty pylons because that's the default loadout in the mission editor, but that is clearly not the intent.

That's exactly because something ED has done. For one, they set that default date. For another, they are the ones who have failed to provide proper limitation tools for the mission makers to allow them to actually create these kinds of restrictions — instead, they're made part of the module for no particularly good reason.

 

Quote

There is absolutely zero evidence to support this claim; neither on the DCS website nor here on the forums.

…aside from what they have revealed in terms of its capabilities. Namely…

Quote

According to one of the newsletters in February, the cockpit screenshot shows an AH-64D Block 2 cockpit layout, Block 2 MPD screens, a CMWS control head, and one of the listed features is MTADS.  These items were not fielded until several years and several avionics versions after the original 2002 manual/avionics version (the first Block 2 airframes weren't even fielded until 2003). 

…that makes it a frankenplane, since they have dismissed a fair amount of suggestions for things that it could carry on the basis that the “US Army 2002 Block II” (not just “manual + some supposed change documents that they have never mentioned”) don't have that equipment. That's a neat new excuse, but it there is no evidence of that either.

 

3 hours ago, DaemonPhobos said:

The real problem I see when integrating APKWS is having a 2015's weapon on a 2005 aircraft.

No, if anything, the problem is that they have been very unclear about what version of the aircraft we're getting (is it suddenly a 2005 model now?). And there's no problem integrating a 2015 weapon on a 2005 aircraft if the weapon is a stand-alone upgrade that requires no integration. Like in this case.

 

If you don't want later-year weapons to be available in your earlier-years scenario, then that should be your choice as a mission maker. Except that this functionality remains half unimplemented, half broken. And that's a real problem.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Tippis

[Raptor9]

Well, I've provided as much constructive input into this discussion as I could.  But since this thread has devolved into the realm of absurdity, I'm withdrawing from the discussion to do something constructive with my day.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Raptor9

[3WA]

8 hours ago, shagrat said:

I find the later, far more appealing and flexible.

Yes.  Personally, I think if an airframe can carry it, it should be allowed.  We are not all Americans.  The export versions of American aircraft can be fitted with VERY different loadouts.  It would be nice to see these as an option.  For instance, I have very little care for CMWS in the Apache, as I don't feel it works well ( from my experience with MWS in the A-10C ).  I would much rather fly an export with stinger racks on the wingtips.  There's no where to hide for a heli in the simple DCS landscape, and you are forced to go on the offensive against jets and heli's, killing them before they can kill you.

 

Sometimes I fly the A-10C with 6 Mavericks.  Sometimes, I prefer to fly with a more realistic loadout and 2 or 4 Mavericks.

It depends what mood I'm in.  Just for fun, or Realism.  I see there is a mod for the Shark to Carry Hellfires, and up to 24 Vhikers.  Obviously fantasy, but fun for some people.

Most people in this game fly offline ( I'm guessing around 90% ).  I fly mostly offline.  I even make my own missions sometimes.

So, peoples fantasies are not ruining any online servers, and those who are total hardcore types can restrict themselves as they like.  Doesn't mean you have to restrict everyone else to your beliefs.

As I've said before, DCS is a business.  If they want to sell their product, they need to give people what they want.

Personally, I wish they would release their terrain editor, so we can make smaller maps with MUCH greater detail ( good for heli's ), and also their loadout editor, so people can arm with what they want ( and play in their own computers ).

7 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

Then some random comes in on the site, running NS430 and NVGs effectively negating the extra challenge night time brings (because you can't restrict those as a mission designer/server admin) and instantly kills the fun for the whole group.

Yeah, one, you guys need to password your servers, and let in only trusted people.  2).  I've never looked at what servers can do, but there needs to be ways to set limits on things.

Edited April 23, 2021 by 3WA

[M1Combat]

Post 5 - 

 

"we have no plans currently for APKWS on the DCS AH-64D "

 

Post 6 - all of them...

 

LOL

 

Don't get me wrong I'd LOVE to see APKWS on the D...  But...  it isn't happening outside of a mod or a "change of plans"...  I'm ok with that.

 

Maybe after the BS3 release???

 

 

One thing we need to keep in mind is the licensing issues...  Just because they got it licensed for the A10 doesn't mean it's just ok to throw it on everything else.  Unless you're a modder :)...

 

Modding is literally the community's path around ED's licensing limitiations...

 

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by M1Combat