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

[M1Combat]

I for one am glad we have a mental gymnastics team here on the DCS forum

 

I kid...  I kid...

 

Look Fri and co...

 

We understand "what you're saying".  There's no need to find another way to say it.  We get it.  We understand the direction you approach the subject from.

 

But ED approaches the subject from a different direction.

 

You aren't going to change their mind HERE...  With the Apache APKWS.

 

You have a MUCH better chance of changing their mind with the BS3.  You've demanded that they open this very can of worms in that thread even when many people told you and ED that it would indeed be a can of worms and that you and your team (I don't care if you feel like a team or not) would then turn around and throw those worms in the face of ED when you chose to on other subjects.

 

Stop.

 

You've got your answer sir.

 

I know I know...  there were two sets of words used.

 

Who gives a flying ****...  All of the rest of us got the effing point the first time...

 

I promise you...  It's EXACTLY that type of word twisting that causes game devs to clam up and stop sharing with the community.

 

Stop.

 

 

[Fri13]

Just now, M1Combat said:

You aren't going to change their mind HERE... 

 

.....because very popular demand the custom weapon mods has been disallowed....

 

 

 

[3WA]

9 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

I look forward to the long replies. 

[Fri13]

Seems that people don't understand that ED has nothing to do with this thread anymore. They have given their statement and you are not here to defend it by any means as there is nothing to change in it. You are to issue your arguments and discuss about the topic, and if you can not reason your arguments logically, then it is invalid. So far it has ended with circular reasoning against APKWS II with double standards across the whole DCS World offerings. And it is common thing here, be it a LAU-88 with count of Mavericks, a HARM and count of stations, JSOW count of stations, a cannon spread.... 

[DaemonPhobos]

There are no arguments here that could be proven right or wrong.

APKWS is possible to load in any apache.

APKWS is anachronistic therefore inaccurate.

Those are facts, the rest, are all personal opinions.

ED wants historically accurate aircraft, not historically accurate scenarios.

ED develops the Apache module, we develop the scenarios for the aircraft.

An apache with said software never had an APKWS in the US army.

 

 

 

 

[NineLine]

I think this thread has run its course when I get called here for name calling, thanks.

[SCPanda]

As the title says.

[Fri13]

6 minutes ago, SCPanda said:

As the title says.

 

Likely not, because circulus in probando.

[SCPanda]

7 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

Likely not, because circulus in probando.

Why not? A-10 has it. It was also used on Apache IRL. 

[Fusedspine33]

One can hope. The system was tested in 2013 and implemented in 2015.

https://www.flightglobal.com/bae-secures-us-army-apache-as-apkws-laser-guided-rocket-customer/118521.article


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SCPanda]

55 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

 

Because technical facts doesn't matter in DCS.

 

Is our AH-64D pre-2015 variant then? IDK so I am asking. 

 

Also, is our new A-10C post-2015 variant? Cuz A-10C also go APKWS in 2015. Just wondering if ED has mentioned this info. 

 

I understand F-16 won't get it, since ED clearly said our F-16 is 2007 variant. 

[SCPanda]

Also, another guess is that ED is gonna do what they did with A-10C II, bringing an upgraded version of the aircraft with new weapon systems and etc. and make us pay more money for it. 

Edited June 21, 2021 by SCPanda

[Northstar98]

7 minutes ago, SCPanda said:

Is our AH-64D pre-2015 variant then? IDK so I am asking.

 

It was supposed to be 2002 IIRC. It might have some other stuff that is later, but even accounting for that, it still predates APKWS by a significant amount of time.

 

Quote

Also, is our new A-10C post-2015 variant? Cuz A-10C also go APKWS in 2015. Just wondering if ED has mentioned this info.

 

AFAIK, the new A-10C is ~2017, so Scorpion HMCS, APKWS and GBU-54 are all perfectly accurate. The older A-10C probably best fits circa 2005 AFAIK, which is why it doesn't have those systems.

 

Quote

I understand F-16 won't get it, since ED clearly said our F-16 is 2007 variant. 

 

Yeah, 2007/2008.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Northstar98

[SCPanda]

5 minutes ago, SCPanda said:

Also, another guess is that ED is gonna do what they did with A-10C II, bringing an upgraded version of the aircraft with new weapon systems and etc. and make us pay more money for it. 

 

Kinda like a paid DLC you know. 

5 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

It was supposed to be 2002 IIRC. It might have some other stuff that is later, but even accounting for that, it still predates APKWS by a significant amount of time.

 

 

AFAIK, the new A-10C is ~2017, so Scorpion HMCS, APKWS and GBU-54 are all perfectly accurate. The older A-10C probably best fits circa 2005, which is why it doesn't have those systems.

 

 

Yeah, 2007/2008.

 

Cool thx man. 

Edited June 21, 2021 by SCPanda

[Northstar98]

Just now, SCPanda said:

Kinda like a paid DLC you know. 

 

Yeah, it makes sense that they would do that.

 

Though personally, I'd rather get an earlier aircraft first, like say, an AH-64A, and have future aircraft as paid addons, to get the most coherent set, and better filling out the eras, which are currently all over the place.

[Fri13]

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

We've had this over and over again.

 

Yes we have, as I said; circulus in probando.

Such a defense is hard when facts, historical or technical doesn't matter.

 

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Outside of historical mode, the year the mission is set to, does not matter. 

 

Your opinion doesn't matter. Hence your circular reasoning.

There is no argument in it.

[SCPanda]

7 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Yeah, it makes sense that they would do that.

 

Though personally, I'd rather get an earlier aircraft first, like say, an AH-64A, and have future aircraft as paid addons, to get the most coherent set, and better filling out the eras, which are currently all over the place.

Yep same. Like I'd rather get an earlier F-16, A model or C model but block 30 or 40. 

Oh, btw I found another topic in the wishlist. Sorry for posting a similar topic. 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/268624-apkws/

 

And ED said no plans for APKWS, so I guess a paid DLC is on the line. 

Edited June 21, 2021 by SCPanda

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

Yes we have, as I said; circulus in probando.

Such a defense is hard when facts, historical or technical doesn't matter.

 

If an aircraft is supposed to represent an earlier year, then a weapon system not being integrated or even existing at the time (fact) sounds like a technical, and historical fact to me.

 

And just because I've set the year to some date in the future, doesn't mean the aircraft has magically changed to an XXXX variant.

 

For example, we currently have a Soviet MiG-21bis circa 1972. If I make a mission that's set in 1998 and I fly for Romania, what I haven't done is turned it into a LanceR C - it's still a 1972 Soviet MiG-21bis, it's just done some time travelling and has a Romanian skin - that's it, nothing else has changed.

 

Same for our F-16CM Block 50 which is circa 2007, if I date the mission to 2016, I don't have a 2016 F-16CM Block 50; I still have a 2007 F-16CM Block 50, just being flown in a 2016 mission. Similarly if I got backwards into the late-ish 90s, I don't have a pre-CCIP F-16C Block 50 etc. What I'm getting at, is that the year the mission editor is set to, does not matter.

 

It's only in historical mode (that we almost certainly aren't using for this scenario) or going backwards so we don't have GPS (which also doesn't apply here) where it has any practical difference at all, and only if those restrictions are turned on in the first place (and any mission editor is more than able to turn them off should they desire). The only thing it does change is the date in the briefing (which could be anything for a fictional scenario) and maybe the constellations of stars (hardly a concern for mission editors).

 

Same thing for our Apache. 

 

Can I approximate other aircraft? Sure I can! Same with other operators too. But it doesn't change what the aircraft actually represents.

 

Quote

Your opinion doesn't matter. Hence your circular reasoning.

 

Except, it isn't circular reasoning, it's just an argument you don't like.

 

Very simple, the aircraft is supposed to represent an aircraft as it was, as used by a particular operator at a particular point in time. And the only place where the date matters is historical mode and for GPS, both of which being up to the mission editor where they are fully capable to do whatever they want.

 

The mission you make is completely up to you, but if you want to keep the year consistent, hell even the decade consistent, then I wish you good luck, because outside of BLUFOR aircraft, it's going to be next to impossible with how incoherent the unit set is (check this thread out on that subject).

Edited June 21, 2021 by Northstar98

[SCPanda]

Guys, I don't think it's worth to argue about this now. Sorry for starting this topic. 

 

The point is ED said "not planned", and there were a 9 pages of argument already. 

 

But ED knows people want this weapon system, and they will probably bring an upgraded version of our Apache in the future like they did with A-10 and what they are doing with the Black Shark. Although I'm not a fan of this, but I understand ED is a company and they need to make money. 

[Northstar98]

2 minutes ago, SCPanda said:

Guys, I don't think it's worth to argue about this now. Sorry for starting this topic. 

 

I've said my piece, I've said it before in that previous thread, so I'll stop it here.

 

2 minutes ago, SCPanda said:

But ED knows people want this weapon system, and they will probably bring an upgraded version of our Apache in the future like they did with A-10 and what they are doing with the Black Shark. Although I'm not a fan of this, but I understand ED is a company and they need to make money. 

 

My guess is that they probably will, I just wish they'd start with an earlier version to better flush the eras out. But as far as paid variants go I'm absolutely fine with it.

 

What you could do, is have one variant be full price, and then subsequent variants be heavily discounted so long as you paid full price for one (ignoring sales). Obviously workload dependent.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

I am not certain if APKWS is cleared for use on Apache. I don't why not.   All knowing all powerfull Oracle of Wikipedia does list Apache as a launch platform. If A-10C, AV-8B, AH-1Z, and Eurocopters can use it, so should Apapche.

[BIGNEWY]

APKWS was not used on the AH-64D we are modelling, and is currently not planned. 

thanks

[Bunny Clark]

The US Army didn't begin integrating APKWS on the Apache until 2015, well over a decade after the timeframe of the DCS Apache module.

[SUBS17]

It would be the same as the A-10C to model, is it used on that version in other Countries?

[Raven434th]

Seems it would be a logical choice of weapons to have on this bird no?