Loadouts changing

[Bukkwild]

Are we here to simulate a specific plane or a plane ordered by a specific party ,loaded and FLOWN to their specifications? I think you should stop updates until you get all relevant information and make it correctly the first time instead of constantly having to say sorry we got that completely wrong for what we are trying to simulate, instead here is something completely different that we think will work for the next month. You would have a lot less confusion and a better overall product. Constant dramatic changes to loadouts to conform to the rules someone flew by seems like a silly thing get ppl riled up with. Stop making changes to loadouts piecemeal, do your research, completely. Only then do one last final update to weapon loadouts and then let your product speak for itself, good or bad.

[jack varus]

According to Patch notes they're limiting them to 2015 USMC loadouts. Which I agree would have been fine if we had been restricted to that from the start, but having options and having them taken away is really not cool.

Me personally, 90% of the flying in the harrier isn't realistic and I'm not really that bothered whether a specific loadout was approved in real life, as long as the aircraft can physically load it. I much prefer to have the choice to stick to historical accuracy or not. They can be enforced on individual multiplayer servers too if that's a concern.

[salling772]

I 2nd that as a ordinance man for the air force the capabilities of the aircraft from the Factory and in the Squadron's ordinance workup for mission's can be very different as not all aircraft will have avionics package or mission avionics to have all the capabilities. some Squadron's have set ordinance workup for their battle plan's.  But unlike new weapon's come online  just like the f-117 and the gbu-28 for desert storm.  Alot of squadron's have left capabilities on the table becasue the labor and time it would take to reconfigure a aircraft  for that mission.  Perfect example would be the f-16 Squadron I was attached to they would keep the under wing drop tanks for all their missions as it would be a full day to change them out.  I would you go the way ED. did with the harm missle on the f-16  keep the capabilities and let the people do want they want.

[AlphaJuliet]

3 hours ago, Bukkwild said:

Are we here to simulate a specific plane or a plane ordered by a specific party ,loaded and FLOWN to their specifications? I think you should stop updates until you get all relevant information and make it correctly the first time instead of constantly having to say sorry we got that completely wrong for what we are trying to simulate, instead here is something completely different that we think will work for the next month. You would have a lot less confusion and a better overall product. Constant dramatic changes to loadouts to conform to the rules someone flew by seems like a silly thing get ppl riled up with. Stop making changes to loadouts piecemeal, do your research, completely. Only then do one last final update to weapon loadouts and then let your product speak for itself, good or bad.

I absolutely agree, that's why I spent weeks researching what can and can't be mounted under the wings.

These modifications are documented.

They are respecting what can physically and safely being loaded and released from a 2015ish USMC AV-8B N/A according to the latest USMC authorised loadouts.

I know it's a downgrade in quantities of bombs you can carry compared to what was previously allowed, but the previous loadouts were incorrect for our lovely Harrier, as unsafe to carry and release.

Cheers,

A.J.

[Homelander]

Hi Folks, Hi @AlphaJuliet

Can you add a loadout switch button (old loadout / USMC loadout) to the special options?

Thanks in advance
Homelander

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Homelander

[Britchot]

Since we're throwing personal opinions on the matter, I appreciate the realistic constraints, @AlphaJuliet.

I'm sure we'd see a lot more of these, otherwise:

[Bukkwild]

Well I appreciate the OPTION for realism, or the option for fun. Either way I appreciate WAY more the forethought to avoid this situation altogether. Something I hope they avoid on the 15E.

[Thanatos31]

5 hours ago, Bukkwild said:

Well I appreciate the OPTION for realism, or the option for fun. Either way I appreciate WAY more the forethought to avoid this situation altogether. Something I hope they avoid on the 15E.

meh, that argument can also be taken to the next level and say - well I appreciate the realism of weight restrictions when doing a VTO or VL , but I want the option of FUN so lets just give me afterburners. Or HARMs for SEAD etc etc. 

Also - it's a natural development, not everything is thought of straight from the get go - so if anything, AJ and RZBM are committed to continually develop and improve the harrier ( within the limits of Dev Resources)  - even if that means that some toys are being taken away from us. 

[Bukkwild]

5 hours ago, Thanatos31 said:

meh, that argument can also be taken to the next level and say - well I appreciate the realism of weight restrictions when doing a VTO or VL , but I want the option of FUN so lets just give me afterburners. Or HARMs for SEAD etc etc. 

Also - it's a natural development, not everything is thought of straight from the get go - so if anything, AJ and RZBM are committed to continually develop and improve the harrier ( within the limits of Dev Resources)  - even if that means that some toys are being taken away from us. 

at the end of the day is it better to do the proper amount of research and only release the intended loadout to avoid having to take away our toys. Being committed to improvement is what any good developer should, refine flight performance and such, but something as fundamental as weapon loadouts should be FULLY researched and basically set in stone before any of us consumers has the chance to even touch it, even us 'beta' testers. Because if the argument will remain "we want ultimate realism" then we do too, meaning that these things sorted out before it reaches pilots hands. The idea of this post, in its entirety, is that to avoid negative feelings towards anyone or anything ,its better to have this fundamental stuff figured out. There is no excuse for this, sorry AJ, this s*** should have been done before the harrier was released at all instead of multiple years into development, then we wouldn't have had someone take away something we shouldn't have had.

[davidrbarnette]

I haven't messed with the Harrier in a bit. What changed from a loadout perspective?

[Beirut]

I don't like when options are removed, and the Maverick changes a while back were a prime of example of "this is how not to do something", but on the other hand I really don't care because my Harrier install remains wonderfully borked and I still have weapons loads in my presets that were supposed to be removed years ago. 

 

Look at them MK-83s on the inner pylons. 6 of 'em. That's my Harrier, baby. 

 

(Edit: Excellent skin by Therio.)

Edit

Edited March 17, 2023 by Beirut

[Ramsay]

4 hours ago, davidrbarnette said:

I haven't messed with the Harrier in a bit. What changed from a loadout perspective?

Main changes (from my perspective) are

• 19x rocket pods and AIM-9L legacy loadouts are allowed/back as they were used on the AV-8A, etc. and allow players to simulate older mission profiles.
• GBU-12 and GBU-38/GBU-54 JDAM have been give ~2015 USMC loadout restrictions

... you can still take 10x GBU-38 but NOT if you ALSO want A2A missiles - in that case, you are limited to carrying 8x GBU-38.

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Ramsay

[davidrbarnette]

Ok, so an unrelated question along the lines of loadouts...

A number of publicly available pics of USMC Harriers in Iraq show a side-by-side configuration for JDAMs, while in the DCS representation two JDAMs are hung in a configuration where one hangs from the bottom of the triple-ejector and one from the side (a "slanted" configuration). Why is this? Doesn't seem accurate. 

null

[Eugel]

37 minutes ago, davidrbarnette said:

Ok, so an unrelated question along the lines of loadouts...

A number of publicly available pics of USMC Harriers in Iraq show a side-by-side configuration for JDAMs, while in the DCS representation two JDAMs are hung in a configuration where one hangs from the bottom of the triple-ejector and one from the side (a "slanted" configuration). Why is this? Doesn't seem accurate. 

null

Depends on which pylon. If I´m not mistaken, what you describe (one on the bottom and one to the side) is only done on the inner pylons to avoid interference from the rotating nozzles.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Eugel

[Ramsay]

1 hour ago, davidrbarnette said:

A number of publicly available pics of USMC Harriers in Iraq show a side-by-side configuration for JDAMs, while in the DCS representation two JDAMs are hung in a configuration where one hangs from the bottom of the triple-ejector and one from the side (a "slanted" configuration). Why is this? Doesn't seem accurate. 

Having JDAMs in a side by side configuration on stations 2 and 6 is supported in DCS using loadouts with the *-* option, however as in the RL photo, you then can't carry A2A missiles on outer stations 1 and 7.

The slanted configuration is chosen when carrying a A2A missile AND 2x JDAM on an adjacent station.

[davidrbarnette]

3 hours ago, Ramsay said:

Having JDAMs in a side by side configuration on stations 2 and 6 is supported in DCS using loadouts with the *-* option, however as in the RL photo, you then can't carry A2A missiles on outer stations 1 and 7.

The slanted configuration is chosen when carrying a A2A missile AND 2x JDAM on an adjacent station.

Awesome, I appreciate the help. Thanks for the response.

[percivaldanvers]

On 3/10/2023 at 2:11 PM, Bukkwild said:

Are we here to simulate a specific plane or a plane ordered by a specific party ,loaded and FLOWN to their specifications? I think you should stop updates until you get all relevant information and make it correctly the first time instead of constantly having to say sorry we got that completely wrong for what we are trying to simulate, instead here is something completely different that we think will work for the next month. You would have a lot less confusion and a better overall product. Constant dramatic changes to loadouts to conform to the rules someone flew by seems like a silly thing get ppl riled up with. Stop making changes to loadouts piecemeal, do your research, completely. Only then do one last final update to weapon loadouts and then let your product speak for itself, good or bad.

It's honestly infuriating. 

I get the realism thing, but that stuff needs to be done up front, not years after we've gotten used to doing things a certain way. 

[Beirut]

I'm looking forward to what they remove next. 

 

"Yeah, you boys won't be needing these wings anymore..."

[percivaldanvers]

5 hours ago, Beirut said:

I'm looking forward to what they remove next. 

 

"Yeah, you boys won't be needing these wings anymore..."

We have discovered that the AV-8b II Night Attack Harrier has never operated in the Caucuses, so going forward the module will be disabled for this map. 

[Thanatos31]

13 hours ago, percivaldanvers said:

It's honestly infuriating. 

I get the realism thing, but that stuff needs to be done up front, not years after we've gotten used to doing things a certain way. 

Lol - so just stop developing the thing? That’s real smart. 

[percivaldanvers]

42 minutes ago, Thanatos31 said:

Lol - so just stop developing the thing? That’s real smart. 

Order the development correctly. If you can't get this kind of information up front - don't make the module. I paid for an aircraft with the understanding that it had certain capabilities only to be told now that it doesn't have those capabilities. I feel cheated. 

Edited March 19, 2023 by percivaldanvers

[AlphaJuliet]

Having to choose between taking a full DITER rack of JDAMS or sidewinders is part of the constraints of AV-8B operation, IRL, and now in DCS.

If you are unhappy that such a fix would happen at this stage of the module's life, I'm with you, it would've been better if we had done it right on release.
Plot twist we didn't.
Am I supposed to let other bugs and inaccuracies in because some among the userbase grew used to them ?

If given the choice between pleasing some and having the Harrier to have realistic specs, you know what I'll choose.
Our end goal is to have the Harrier as realistic as we can.

It'll take time, but we'll get there.

[Bukkwild]

5 hours ago, AlphaJuliet said:

Having to choose between taking a full DITER rack of JDAMS or sidewinders is part of the constraints of AV-8B operation, IRL, and now in DCS.

If you are unhappy that such a fix would happen at this stage of the module's life, I'm with you, it would've been better if we had done it right on release.
Plot twist we didn't.
Am I supposed to let other bugs and inaccuracies in because some among the userbase grew used to them ?

If given the choice between pleasing some and having the Harrier to have realistic specs, you know what I'll choose.
Our end goal is to have the Harrier as realistic as we can.

It'll take time, but we'll get there.

well said, the intention of this post is not to beat you over it, but to offer a correction of course for future modules to avoid this situation. hopefully you have taken it for what it is. I would hate to see a repeat of this type of history on something else we have been waiting for like the F 15E I have pre-purchased. take all the time to get the weapon loadout right, because it will make for a better, more accurate product we can all be happy with, not more wishful hindsight. If its worth doing right at all, do it right the first time.