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

[Schmidtfire]

@Fri13 Please don't use the term "Asset Pack". Sends shivers down my spine 
Otherwise I agree, there is a shortage of AI representing different eras. Another sim (I won't mention it by name)
has an interesting approach. You pay for maps (incl. AI units). It gives you access to Singleplayer and Mission Editing.
But everyone can access the map in multiplayer. It's a great way to avoid splitting the playerbase into many fragments
and also a great way for undecided singleplayers to try out the map.

[Fri13]

11 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

@Fri13 Please don't use the term "Asset Pack". Sends shivers down my spine 

 

You might be right.

Maybe the better would be something with similar syntax like:

 

DCS: 1980 West Germany

DCS: 1970 USSR

DCS: 2010 Russia

DCS: 2000 USA

DCS: 1980 Israel 

 

But it really should be so that all those units will come in the DCS World, but you only can use them in Mission Editor or in Combined Arms (command and use them) with the license. 

 

This way if your friend has a license, he can make a mission and you can both fly there and you see as well units and all. But you can't do anything with them even having Combined Arms installed.

 

This way you can make a missions for multiplayer server where everyone can fly and bring units from different eras, like having a Persian Gulf Map and have Israel troops from 1980's there, with the US, USSR, French ground/sea units and so on.

If someone wants to be using Combined Arms, they need to own the license.     

Edited April 26, 2021 by Fri13

[M1Combat]

I say again...

"Post 5 - 

 

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

 

Post 6 - all of them...

 

LOL"

 

All I was trying to say is that ED has a specific POV.  The results of their POV were laid out in Post 5.

 

I too would rather have an Apache with APKWS (as I've said) but to do so ED would need to model the Apache with all the later updates.  They won't/can't etc...  So...

 

 

 

Post 5.

[Fri13]

14 hours ago, M1Combat said:

I too would rather have an Apache with APKWS (as I've said) but to do so ED would need to model the Apache with all the later updates.  They won't/can't etc...  So...

 

That is the "Circa XXxx" argument that module is not to be flown in any mission that is dated for a year other than the one specific one that developer say it was taken from. 

And that requires to ignore that military vehicles are in-service for multiple years without updates and modifications (in other words, they would every year receive updates and changes constantly). 

It as well requires to ignore that DCS World is a digital combat simulator that is suppose to be free from real world politics, religion and weapon manufacturers influence, allowing players to simulate "what if" scenarios with only limitation of the real world physics (no flying UFO) and technical limitations (no Vikhr for Apache). 

 

So again, they wouldn't.

The Apache would be flying in the 2016, 2018, 2021, 2022 in the condition that it is modeled by ED.

Only thing is that later on new weapons come available, some are not compatible, but some are.
 

It is up to mission designer to select:

1) What map is chosen.

2) What countries belong to what coalition

3) What is the mission date.

4) What modules are allowed.

5) What weather is in the mission.

6) What weapons and supplies are available in the map and where.

7) What is the situation for everyone, red and blue (and neutral).

etc

 

If someone does not want to fly 2005 Hornet in 2011 dated mission in Syria so they can fly with 2007 Viper and 2009 Harrier.... It is their on choice.

Otherwise they should never fly in Syria or with those other aircraft because every one of them is from different time period.

 

Through this thread ED statement has changed from "We have currently no plans to support APKWS II" -> "We now have a plan to not support APKWS II".

 

 

[Fri13]

[BIGNEWY]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

Through this thread ED statement has changed from "We have currently no plans to support APKWS II" -> "We now have a plan to not support APKWS II".

I will make it very clear for you

 

DCS:AH-64D Will not get APKWS.

 

I look forward to the long replies. 

 

Thanks

 

 

[Fri13]

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

I will make it very clear for you

 

DCS:AH-64D Will not get APKWS.

 

I already made it very clear that what You said, that you changed from the "No plans currently" to "We have now a plan".

 

First You said: "we have no plans currently for APKWS on the DCS AH-64D "

Then You said: "we have replied that the APKWS will not feature on the Apache"

 

It is crystal clear that IT WILL NOT GET THEM, because you have in the time of this thread made a plan that there will never be them, even when first it was said that you have not had plans for either direction.

 

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

I look forward to the long replies. 

 

No need to be insulting. 

[BIGNEWY]

Quote

First You said: "we have no plans currently for APKWS on the DCS AH-64D "

Then You said: "we have replied that the APKWS will not feature on the Apache"

 

No matter how I say it here the answer was the same, we have no plans and it will not feature on the DCS:AH-64D, but the back and forth in the thread has continued, as I mentioned before there is no need for it. 

 

thanks

 

 

[Fri13]

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

No matter how I say it here the answer was the same

 

"No plans currently" means It is open for discussion as it is subject of change"

"Our plan is" means "it is not subject of change so discussion can not change it".

 

When you use word "currently" then it means that you can change it in the future as there is no plan to any direction.

If you do not like how you were informing ED plans to people, then learn not to use word "currently" as it has very clear definition and meaning for possibility of change for reason.

 

You can learn more about word "currently" from here and what it means: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/currently

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, Fri13 said:

 

"No plans currently" means It is open for discussion as it is subject of change"

"Our plan is" means "it is not subject of change so discussion can not change it".

 

When you use word "currently" then it means that you can change it in the future as there is no plan to any direction.

If you do not like how you were informing ED plans to people, then learn not to use word "currently" as it has very clear definition and meaning for possibility of change for reason.

 

You can learn more about word "currently" from here and what it means: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/currently

 

 

and now I have made it very clear for you I hope we can all move on. 

 

thanks

[Fri13]

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

and now I have made it very clear for you I hope we can all move on. 

 

It was already very clear on the second post where you said that it is the plan that it will not be supported as I said.

We have already moved on, but ED reasoning why doesn't change even when a decision was made. No one can do anything about ED decision, no matter how illogical reasoning it would be. Everyone needs to just live with them no matter how they change through different modules and times. 

[BIGNEWY]

2 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

It was already very clear on the second post where you said that it is the plan that it will not be supported as I said.

We have already moved on, but ED reasoning why doesn't change even when a decision was made. No one can do anything about ED decision, no matter how illogical reasoning it would be. Everyone needs to just live with them no matter how they change through different modules and times. 

 

The logic is we work in a time frame otherwise the feature creep for avionics and weapons goes on and on, we would end up in constant early access. The design limits are there to give us clear goals to work to.

 

thanks

[Fri13]

11 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

The logic is we work in a time frame otherwise the feature creep for avionics and weapons goes on and on, we would end up in constant early access. The design limits are there to give us clear goals to work to.

 

thanks

 

Why we come to again conclusion that APKWS II should be included because:

1) It is already in the game. No extra development time. 3D/texture/programmin work is already done.

2) It is 100% compatible with the Apache in no matter what version or time variant you make.

3) APKWS II is special ammunition program that doesn't require any other systems to be changed what so ever for it to be there. It is not like others, you do not require to start adding new avionics or weapons etc as already everything you are doing for it, is being done.

 

Only thing that ED would need to do is to slap APKWS II for a year for the year filter purposes and it is all done. Exclude it from the official what-ever weapon loadouts that presents only old years, but mission designers would be able to make it available in missions dated +n from it, like 2020 Syria scenario.

 

If APKWS II would be a common weapon upgrade that requires new avionics, new updates, new all, then it would be logical not to be included as systems would not be compatible with it. But it is not, it is unique backward compatible ammunition to anything that can launch standard Hydra 70 rockets. And making a case for the APKWS II doesn't mean that ED needs to live in constant "Early Access" forever etc (that is slippery slope argument). 

 

But it is clear that ED doesn't consider APKWS II as what it is, and it will never be included regardless its technical compatibilities for older weapon systems.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Fri13

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, Fri13 said:

 

Why we come to again conclusion that APKWS II should be included because:

1) It is already in the game. No extra development time. 3D/texture/programmin work is already done.

2) It is 100% compatible with the Apache in no matter what version or time variant you make.

3) APKWS II is special ammunition program that doesn't require any other systems to be changed what so ever for it to be there. It is not like others, you do not require to start adding new avionics or weapons etc as already everything you are doing for it, is being done.

 

Only thing that ED would need to do is to slap APKWS II for a year for the year filter purposes and it is all done. Exclude it from the official what-ever weapon loadouts that presents only old years, but mission designers would be able to make it available in missions dated +n from it, like 2020 Syria scenario.

 

If APKWS II would be a common weapon upgrade that requires new avionics, new updates, new all, then it would be logical not to be included as systems would not be compatible with it. But it is not, it is unique backward compatible weapon to anything that can launch standard Hydra 70 rockets. And making a case for the APKWS II doesn't mean that ED needs to live in constant "Early Access" forever etc (that is slippery slope argument). 

 

Ive told you we will not be getting APKWS, I have explained why, that is all I can do. You can accept it or not, its your choice. 

[Fri13]

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

 

Ive told you we will not be getting APKWS, I have explained why, that is all I can do. You can accept it or not, its your choice. 

 

As I explained, it doesn't matter what ED argument (logical or illogical) is, no one can do anything about it and can only accept it anyways regardless of anything.  

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, Fri13 said:

 

As I explained, it doesn't matter what ED argument (logical or illogical) is, no one can do anything about it and can only accept it anyways regardless of anything.  

 

Ultimately it is a design choice and we have to stick to it.  Thanks for understanding. 

[Fri13]

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

 

Ultimately it is a design choice and we have to stick to it.  Thanks for understanding. 

 

Let's say it is a business management decision because project budget and schedule, and it makes it more understandable because it doesn't need to reflect anything about simulated aircraft technical capabilities, historical accuracies or what the DCS World itself is representing overall with multiple different products.  

[BIGNEWY]

4 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

Let's say it is a business management decision because project budget and schedule, and it makes it more understandable because it doesn't need to reflect anything about simulated aircraft technical capabilities, historical accuracies or what the DCS World itself is representing overall with multiple different products.  

design choice, time frame, available documents it all counts in the choice.

 

I have given you clear replies, and the reason lets move on now. 

 

thanks

[M1Combat]

Newy...  

 

Thank you for what you do.

 

Also...  Please don't get run down by this team of folks either from this thread or the mirror BS3 thread.

 

I've told them they're playing with fire on multiple fronts and they just don't get it.

 

We would all love to have a full fidelity F35...

 

All I'm saying is that ED approach the "simulator" term one way, and these folks approach it a different way.  They can be very "adamant and single minded" in their drive towards justifying their position.  

 

Me...  I prefer ED approach AND appreciate the slight movement we got on the BS3.  

 

Thank you...  and thanks to the team who will eventually make that happen :).

[BIGNEWY]

21 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

Newy...  

 

Thank you for what you do.

 

Also...  Please don't get run down by this team of folks either from this thread or the mirror BS3 thread.

 

I've told them they're playing with fire on multiple fronts and they just don't get it.

 

We would all love to have a full fidelity F35...

 

All I'm saying is that ED approach the "simulator" term one way, and these folks approach it a different way.  They can be very "adamant and single minded" in their drive towards justifying their position.  

 

Me...  I prefer ED approach AND appreciate the slight movement we got on the BS3.  

 

Thank you...  and thanks to the team who will eventually make that happen :).

 

 

Thanks for the kind words appreciate it. 

[fargo007]

5 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

LMFAO

 

It's funny because it's true....  

 

[DaemonPhobos]

Personally, I totally support ED decision on this subject.

While it's confirmed that any aircraft with appropriate pods could carry the rockets, they decided to restrict the aircraft to it's real life authorized loadouts, because they are intending to model a US army 64D LBA blk 2 from that specific date.

 

 

 

[Fri13]

47 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

While it's confirmed that any aircraft with appropriate pods could carry the rockets, they decided to restrict the aircraft to it's real life authorized loadouts,

 

Then simply make the official (default) loadouts based to that timeline they want, but let the mission designer to make the loadout selection as they see fit.

https://youtu.be/Q-AzSGRAza4?t=1305 & https://youtu.be/Q-AzSGRAza4?t=3092 & https://youtu.be/Q-AzSGRAza4?t=1406

 

They are already required to redesign the rocket pod loadout system for the Apache. As you are not just loading one pod full of same warheads, but you choose what is going inside the pod. It will be plenty of choices and options how to arm it. 

 

 

Quote

because they are intending to model a US army 64D LBA blk 2 from that specific date.

 

So in Your opinion it can not be flown in missions dated any other than that specific year in DCS?

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Fri13

[DaemonPhobos]

 

Actually, the Apache doesn't use the LAU series pods like fixed wing aircraft already in DCS, it has the M-140 aerial rocket system/ rocket management subsystem consisting of the M261 pods and the Pylon interface units, which provide different rocket inventory zones, inflight and LMP loaded fuze settings for each zone, quantity fired per trigger pull, penetration settings, and number of rockets available displayed instead of just a single Ripple/low rate of fire mode on the LAUs.

They don't have to redesign it, they are making a completely new system.

 

In regards of being flown in missions later than 2000-2010s, that is just complete nonsense.

DCS map dates are intended to be sort of a briefing data in order to give you some context for the mission, it's completely unrelated to the systems in any aircraft.

A simple solution is not to give dates for the missions themselves and just stick to the authorized stuff in every aircraft.

 

Every single aircraft cannot be modeled on the same era because of the impossibility of getting said info.

You may be getting a 2007 F-16C 34-1 manual, a 2005 FA-18C NATOPS and tactical manual, a 1995 F-14B natops, a 2001 kiowa -10 etc..

That is a technical limitation of the available data.

 

Now thinking that the mission date should be something to consider when building the avionics of a module is ridiculous.

By 2015 it's most likely that all aircraft in DCS had lots of modifications we don't even know about or have been taken out of service in some cases.

So, let it be as it is, a 2009 apache, a 2007 viper, a 2005 hornet, etc etc with their own limitations.

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by DaemonPhobos

[Fri13]

25 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

They don't have to redesign it, they are making a completely new system.

 

So they are redesigning it when they are making completely new system. 

 

25 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

In regards of being flown in missions later than 2000-2010s, that is just complete nonsense.

DCS map dates are intended to be sort of a briefing data in order to give you some context for the mission, it's completely unrelated to the systems in any aircraft.

 

The Mission Editor is directly responsible for the maps magnetic variations, GPS satellites, star positions, moon and sun locations etc. They have put a lot of stuff there from the reality.

The dates are as well for tying up every single unit in the DCS World. 

 

That is why we have now this:

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/openbeta/2.5.6.52196/

 

"Introduced Historical mode filter in the ME.

The historical mode is designed to facilitate the creation of historical mission scenarios. If the author of the mission wants to use equipment only for a given year, he can click on the small button with a clock in the bottom line of the Mission Editor, after which all lists of equipment and aircraft are filtered out for a given year. The lists will show only those aircraft or equipment that were in service with the selected country in a given year. This mode can be turned on and off in the process of creating a mission if you need to select objects outside a given year."

 

And everyone are happy. Those who want realistic 2015-202x missions where US Apache is flying in a Syria, they can simply pick the APKWS II to their loadouts.

Those who do not want to do that, can set their mission date to < 2015 and enjoy from not seeing even APKWS II. And those who want to fly Apache for odd reason < 2015 with APKWS II can just disable the filter and do what ever they want. 

 

And ED doesn't need to model dozens of different systems or anything as APKWS II is fully compatible with any Apache they are going to do.... Regardless the year!

 

Quote

A simple solution is not to give dates for the missions themselves and just stick to the authorized stuff in every aircraft.

 

So do you want to follow the year argument or the technical specifications argument?

As year argument leads that you can't fly with anyone else. While technical specification allows to use any ammunition there is that is just compatible - like APKWS II in 2015.

 

25 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

Every single aircraft cannot be modeled on the same era because of the impossibility of getting said info.

 

It is stupid to argue that "this module will only model year XXXX" instead going "This module will simulate technical specification of XYZ"

 

25 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

You may be getting a 2007 F-16C 34-1 manual, a 2005 FA-18C NATOPS and tactical manual, a 1995 F-14B natops, a 2001 kiowa -10 etc..

That is a technical limitation of the available data.

 

What is why we can fly as well various modules at various years than just one.

Why now the technical limitation matters, but not when it would be about giving a fully compatible ammunition for the weapon when it would be flying in mission that would have it as authorized loadout?

 

25 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

Now thinking that the mission date should be something to consider when building the avionics of a module is ridiculous.

 

That is your argument?

Why are they considering any specific individual year at all, instead a specification?

 

25 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

By 2015 it's most likely that all aircraft in DCS had lots of modifications we don't even know about or have been taken out of service in some cases.

 

And why all should be limited to history books and not to be allowed to be creative with the toys they are given?

Why are you enforcing real world history, real world situations, real world politics to the simulator game that's purpose is to allow simulate scenarios that has not even happened in the history?

 

25 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

So, let it be as it is, a 2009 apache, a 2007 viper, a 2005 hornet, etc etc with their own limitations.

 

Flown with a specific set of technical standards and compatibilities that should be the only factor that matters when it comes to what ammunition the aircraft can use. 

If it is compatible with it, then it is usable.

If it is not compatible with it, then it is not usable.

 

You want to fly them across different years, but you do not want them to have proper era matching ammunition that would be available to them.