Next "Big" Update?

[TEOMOOSE]

Hey it's a topic can't be answered easily. Given the fact that we mostly want to know the "when". 

I'm curious if ED could share some information on the next planned update for the F16. There has been many small changes since January but nothing substantial after that.

From reading the previous announcements 2021 and 2022 are the following items are still in progress to be released anytime soon ?

 Network the flight together for HARM HTS TDOA mode to more effectively triangulate emitter locations

- Assign air-to-air target sorting between flight members / Further work on Link 16

- CAS mission assignments and reception

- Tuning air-to-air performance including look-down and search to bug target delay. 

- Air-to-Air datalink assignment functions.

- Digital Maneuver Cue (DMC) and Loft indications.

- IAM loft cue

- Radar Velocity Search mode.

Respectfully, Thanks.

[AdrianL]

See the roadmap. Items in blue are what are being worked on

 

[NineLine]

When we know we will let you know for sure. We do not give dates though as we do not how things will do in testing and development. Sorry.

[TEOMOOSE]

7 minutes ago, NineLine said:

When we know we will let you know for sure. We do not give dates though as we do not how things will do in testing and development. Sorry.

Thank you for communicating that. I wasn't expecting any dates. I understand thats a promise hard to keep.

Appreciate all the work. Looking forward for more stuff coming to dcsw.

[S]

3 hours ago, AdrianL said:

See the roadmap. Items in blue are what are being worked on

 

Wondering if they just swapped the SNIPER pod to the LITENING spot (top) with the changes they're making?

[AdrianL]

7 hours ago, S said:

if they just swapped the SNIPER pod to the LITENING spot

See 

 

[Temetre]

Am 29.4.2023 um 00:53 schrieb AdrianL:

See the roadmap. Items in blue are what are being worked on

 

A general question, since I dont quite follow the development, and Im kinda new:

There doesnt seem to be mentiones of damage model or PFL(D) functions. Seems like currently you can over-G without damaging your stores or targeting pod. Is that still planned, even though it doesnt seem to be listed in the roadmap?

[darkman222]

You wont be damaging your stores, but if enough G applied the wings rip off. But agreed. Over-G-ing and damaging stores is a severe thing IRL and should be implemented. But not only to the F16 but to all the other airframes too.

The next big updates for me, that will bring the F16 closer to realism will be: (hopefully soon) implementig a pilot that is acutally qualified to fly a 9 G jet, and the DTC, data cartrige, that already can be used, more or less comfortable with a 3rd party external program. But having it in game will be much easier to use.

[Temetre]

vor einer Stunde schrieb darkman222:

You wont be damaging your stores, but if enough G applied the wings rip off. But agreed. Over-G-ing and damaging stores is a severe thing IRL and should be implemented. But not only to the F16 but to all the other airframes too.

Of course. Just flying the F-16 and F-18, its seems way more relevant with the Viper than many other modules. Its got those aggressive flight charachteristics, reacting so fast to your stick movement, and no dynamic limiter. So it makes a huge difference if you have to observe the rules or not.

 

Though its always hard to say what the g-limit actually means. Theres a big difference between "we got this limit because otherwise maintenance gets expensive over the design life", and "this thing breaks if you go over the limit". Playing BMS recently the stores just insta-broke because I pulled 6-G with underwing fuel tanks for a second or two, thats probably wrong.

And its not even consistent in reality. Eg the F-14 doesnt got a G-indicator or limiter, and it seems like some aircraft just broken in over-G, while others flew on just fine even after 10G or more.

Frankly, thinking about it I now kinda feel like g-damage to stores is probably best done very conservatively, so it shouldnt make too much of a difference. More aggressive store and g damage models would have to be optional, by setting or some "logistics/maintenance" scenario mechanic.

vor einer Stunde schrieb darkman222:

The next big updates for me, that will bring the F16 closer to realism will be: (hopefully soon) implementig a pilot that is acutally qualified to fly a 9 G jet, and the DTC, data cartrige, that already can be used, more or less comfortable with a 3rd party external program. But having it in game will be much easier to use.

Oh 100% on those parts, the quick 9G blackout onset is so annoying, and DTC will make things so much more comfortable and consistent...

Edited May 6, 2023 by Temetre

[Ignition]

On 5/6/2023 at 10:04 AM, Temetre said:

Though its always hard to say what the g-limit actually means. Theres a big difference between "we got this limit because otherwise maintenance gets expensive over the design life", and "this thing breaks if you go over the limit". Playing BMS recently the stores just insta-broke because I pulled 6-G with underwing fuel tanks for a second or two, thats probably wrong.

And its not even consistent in reality. Eg the F-14 doesnt got a G-indicator or limiter, and it seems like some aircraft just broken in over-G, while others flew on just fine even after 10G or more.

The F-14 has a G indicator, If you look to DCS videos of the F-14 on youtube you can see most of them went 10+G. 

Also some people can't dogfight in the F-18 without the paddle switch and make the F-18 an F-16 going beyond 7.5G.

The big problem is DCS is trying to be a simulator but its just a game, you just respawn and that's it, there's no drawback. In real life if an F-16 went 9G that plane needs to be examined for several hours. In DCS every plane is brand new. It should take into account how you fly and that should go to your profile so if you constantly over G the plane then sometime it should brake. This way people will start to care for the plane and learn to fly it as it was meant to.

[Temetre]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Ignition:

The F-14 has a G indicator, If you look to DCS videos of the F-14 on youtube you can see most of them went 10+G. 

  Yeah of course, but it was down low in the cockpit, and Pilots couldnt be - and apparently werent - expected to constantly look at the indicator. Its clearly not a hard limit.

Considering all the stories about F-14s putting lots of Gs on the aircraft, it seems like the 6.5g limit for maintenance was not nearly as strict of a rule as it might be for an F-18.

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Ignition:

Also some people can't dogfight in the F-18 without the paddle switch and make the F-18 an F-16 going beyond 7.5G.

The big problem is DCS is trying to be a simulator but its just a game, you just respawn and that's it, there's no drawback. In real life if an F-16 went 9G that plane needs to be examined for several hours. In DCS every plane is brand new. It should take into account how you fly and that should go to your profile so if you constantly over G the plane then sometime it should brake. This way people will start to care for the plane and learn to fly it as it was meant to.

DCS is a game, its kinda pointless to pretend anything else. Pretty much everyone is playing the game for fun and entertainment. Nobody treats it like a military simulator with no fun involved. Even the most hardcore simmers do it for fun.

And some of those expectations are just not realistic: People here talk so much about the G-limit, but you know whats the funny bit? We push the limit of planes so much, because we dont "feel" the G-forces. We dont even have the massive stick-resistance and mechanics of real planes.  We dont got that massive weight on our body and neck when doing a hard turn.

Its actually impossible for us to fly with the same concern for forces as real pilots would, because we do not feel those forces. And if its really hard to accidentally over-G in real life, but really easy in a simulation, then its unrealistic to expect anyone to behave the same.

Zitat

This way people will start to care for the plane and learn to fly it as it was meant to.

In reality, there is no way how a plane is "ment to fly". Even in military use, with time, modifications, depending on scenario and airframe, the rules can change a lot. And no, you dont even get to decide if people fly a perfectly or badly maintained F-16 in their scenario.

Its actually absurd when people do a staged 1v1 dogfight in DCS, and then someone complains that pulling the paddle isnt realistic. As if thats the point where this gladitorial plane fight to the death becomes unbelievable. If actually people cared about realism (while wanting to control others playtime), theyd just say "people should never fly combat for fun" in the first place. 

Meanwhile back to reality, Iran puts HAWK missiles on Tomcats and Ukraine puts HARMs on Mig-29s. Imagine someone just suggested such a feature in the forum without context, some people here would get an aneurysm. Because doing something not "by the book" is considered unrealistic, despite it constantly happening in reality. We dont even know what militaries are ready to do in emergency situations, and how capable the equipment is when pushed past the limit.

 

I like flight sims, but sometimes people just obsess over numbers, and dont even know what they want. And often its just people trying to tell others how to play with their toys.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Temetre

[darkman222]

9 hours ago, Ignition said:

Also some people can't dogfight in the F-18 without the paddle switch and make the F-18 an F-16 going beyond 7.5G.

Even worse. The paddle is often used to prevent speeding over the corner speed, resulting in converting execess speed to turn rate with 9G. Wihtout the paddle, proper energery management would have been needed. I know what I say, I fly the F16 and the F18 for fun. You pick that  described habit up in no time, trust me. And yeah, put me in an F18 and I become one of that paddle guys instantly, i confess.

There was one folds of honor tournament with respecting G limits mandatory. It was very complicated to monitor and a lot of discussions arise afterwards. Its worth a look on youtube.

In reality an overG-ed aircraft is off service for couple of months worst case. So if your tactics in an F14 would make it necessary to pull 10G to win the fight against a hostile, you just would not go into that fight and bug out instad.

 

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

Its actually impossible for us to fly with the same concern for forces as real pilots would, because we do not feel those forces. And if its really hard to accidentally over-G in real life, but really easy in a simulation, then its unrealistic to expect anyone to behave the same.

Not really, we don't get the actual forces, but the sim compensates with visual and audio cues. Yes, we get less exhausted than real pilots do, but that's just something we have to deal with. It's not that hard to avoid overstressing your plane in the sim. 

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

Nobody treats it like a military simulator with no fun involved.

Except actual military simulators, or the pilots' actual job for that matter, are very much a lot of fun IRL. Sure, there's tedium, there's a lot of BS involved, but flying itself, particularly air combat, has been described as "the most fun you can have with your clothes on" by people who actually did it. Let's face it, most people can't get the real thing even if they signed up for military service, the Tomcat in particular is almost impossible to fly for real (unless you're Iranian and make the cut into a very elite part of their military), and many aircraft we fly are no longer in service anywhere in the world. I see it as an attempt to keep that history alive in some form.

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

As if thats the point where this gladitorial plane fight to the death becomes unbelievable.

1v1 fights are a common training scenario. The only unrealistic bit is the explosion at the end, real pilots only get to pretend their opponent blew up. Many of the "unrealistic" scenarios of that sort do occur IRL, in training environment. They could possibly occur in combat if the conditions were just right, but actual combat is vanishingly rare IRL. FYI, pulling the paddle is indeed unrealistic, first because most fights can be won without it by a pilot who knows how to fight in the Hornet, second because it would dramatically shorten the airframe's life, leading to attrition problems in a real scenario and unacceptable increase in costs during training. Sure, bullets shorten the lifetime even more, so it would be used if really necessary, however it is an emergency measure and should be treated as such.

Ukrainians are putting HARMs on their own, bespoke MiGs. Iran, meanwhile, puts modified Hawks on its own modified Tomcats. Neither is really a "field" modification done by squadron techs, but rather an involved project with quite a bit of engineering done. Sure, in a war, all sorts of things are done, but there's quite simply not enough data to simulate how would a given jury-rigged setup work unless it has been tried. Making things up is not the answer, particularly if you subscribe to "keeping history alive" approach.

[Temetre]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Dragon1-1:

Not really, we don't get the actual forces, but the sim compensates with visual and audio cues. Yes, we get less exhausted than real pilots do, but that's just something we have to deal with. It's not that hard to avoid overstressing your plane in the sim. 

G-forces are something you feel in your body. Visual and audio cues can give you some information, but they can NEVER make up for that. The visual and audio cues arent even as good as in reality, since vision/sound is so much more limited in games. That is so obvious im not sure why its even a discussion.

And btw, real pilots struggle to not overstress their problems despite all of that. See the F-14s. So if you think "its easy", then something is wrong either way.

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Dragon1-1:

Except actual military simulators, or the pilots' actual job for that matter, are very much a lot of fun IRL. Sure, there's tedium, there's a lot of BS involved, but flying itself, particularly air combat, has been described as "the most fun you can have with your clothes on" by people who actually did it. Let's face it, most people can't get the real thing even if they signed up for military service, the Tomcat in particular is almost impossible to fly for real (unless you're Iranian and make the cut into a very elite part of their military), and many aircraft we fly are no longer in service anywhere in the world. I see it as an attempt to keep that history alive in some form.

Sure you can treat military simulators also like a game, rather than a military training tool. But now youre the one treating the simulated "plane" in a way thats not at all like you would in reality, youre treating it as a toy.

But we arent allowed to do that in a video game? 

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Dragon1-1:

1v1 fights are a common training scenario. The only unrealistic bit is the explosion at the end, real pilots only get to pretend their opponent blew up. Many of the "unrealistic" scenarios of that sort do occur IRL, in training environment. They could possibly occur in combat if the conditions were just right, but actual combat is vanishingly rare IRL. FYI, pulling the paddle is indeed unrealistic, first because most fights can be won without it by a pilot who knows how to fight in the Hornet, second because it would dramatically shorten the airframe's life, leading to attrition problems in a real scenario and unacceptable increase in costs during training. Sure, bullets shorten the lifetime even more, so it would be used if really necessary, however it is an emergency measure and should be treated as such.

So now youre saying gladitorial combat 1v1 plane dogfights people do for funs, are realistic, because military 1v1 BFM training is a thing, and thats why people should fly the aircraft as if its a real plane?

Okay, we just ignore respawning, we ignore the laughs we have, we ignore the plane explosions and the pilots ingame literally dying. But the paddle is the problem, because the planes we just blew up might be reduced in maintenance... if they were real planes. And if we didnt kill them. If we were military pilots.

 

I dont understand how you can justify that train of thought. These are two laughably different scenarios, which differences that go way beyond some silly g-limit maintenance topic. First big point here being, you are extremely inconsistent, you are morally offended by people pulling the paddle, but ignore all the other nonsense that people, and im sure you as well, do. Its like youre saying only what bothers you right now, is "bad", and everyone should accept your opinion.

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Dragon1-1:

Ukrainians are putting HARMs on their own, bespoke MiGs. Iran, meanwhile, puts modified Hawks on its own modified Tomcats. Neither is really a "field" modification done by squadron techs, but rather an involved project with quite a bit of engineering done. Sure, in a war, all sorts of things are done, but there's quite simply not enough data to simulate how would a given jury-rigged setup work unless it has been tried. Making things up is not the answer, particularly if you subscribe to "keeping history alive" approach.

Im not asking about silly modifications to be added to the plane. Im just pointing out you hardly know how anything about this works. Youre just trying to get some picture based on extremely limited documentation. The documentation might be wrong, and you might be dead wrong as a result. So you, just like me, we are both extremely ignorant about those planes and their usage. Let alone how they would be used in hypothetical conflicts.

But thats not the issue; the second big problem here is, that despite that limited knowledge, you take yourself, and your opinion, so extremely important that youre trying to tell everyone how to play their video game plane fighter game, even when its just a fun matchup with no rules. You take yourself so important in your idea about how planes are flown, that you think a silly 1v1 dogfight between friends has to be flown exactly as to how you, personally, understand the usage of the plane in a real world scenario.

 

Like... have you never thought about how silly and pointless that is? Even ignoring that people dont care about what you tell them, because its frankly just rude.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Temetre

[Dragon1-1]

41 minutes ago, Temetre said:

I dont understand how you can justify that train of thought.

Well, at least I have one. It goes like this: the point is to simulate the plane as it's flown in reality, and to get as close to real experience as possible. Therefore, features that improve that experience and introduce realistic consequences for exceeding limits are good.

Fun, laughs and yes, even respawns are part of training scenarios IRL. Red Flag has "regenerations" both IRL and in DCS campaigns based on it. Literally every single thing you mentioned except people actually dying is part of the experience in any big training exercise (and pilots do imagine shooting their opponents and them blowing up, just listen to any song that mentions training exercises). Now, this is a bit more serious than your average DCS server when the mission is in progress, but I guarantee you that once they get to the O-club after the mission, the pilots are having a lot of laughs about various things that went on during the sortie. Realism is not the opposite of fun, quite the contrary, many people enjoy the challenge of learning and following realistic procedures and limitations. If you're unable to win fights in the Hornet without using the paddle, all right, but don't complain when people who can look down on you, because they're the ones with more skill.

You're free to fly in your own way, of course, but the moment you step into multiplayer, be prepared to have people tell you how to play the game, because you're no longer the only person in it. You want airquake, go to an airquake server, you can find them easily enough, but even there, if you fly against humans, you're going to agree to some rules. Sure, against AI you can do whatever, but also keep in mind that ED devs are in the "as realistic as possible" camp and are not going out of their way to accommodate other play styles. If you can find someone with whom you can do a "fun matchup with no rules" on a private server, fine, but don't come here complaining that you bump up against realistic limitations that limit your "fun" when you take the plane outside of what it was meant to do.

[Temetre]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Dragon1-1:

Well, at least I have one.

I have even multiple: I can play arcade battle setups, or more realistic and RP heavy missions. Both without trying to dictate other people how to spend their time. Funny how that works, if you just respect how other people spend their time, with a game of all things.

vor einer Stunde schrieb Dragon1-1:

It goes like this: the point is to simulate the plane as it's flown in reality, and to get as close to real experience as possible.

Okay, thats your definition. And im sure "as close as possible" is defined by a set of your completely personal rules as to what is acceptably realistic and what isnt. 

vor einer Stunde schrieb Dragon1-1:

You're free to fly in your own way, of course, but the moment you step into multiplayer, be prepared to have people tell you how to play the game, because you're no longer the only person in it.

Maybe you should take your own words to heart then, because you are the one trying to tell other people as to how theyre supposed to play the game. Even on their private servers.

And you dont get how absurd that is.

Zitat

but also keep in mind that ED devs are in the "as realistic as possible" camp and are not going out of their way to accommodate other play styles

Well, they did accomdate other playstyles already, so that train has sailed.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Temetre

[Dragon1-1]

45 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Maybe you should take your own words to heart then, because you are the one trying to tell other people as to how theyre supposed to play the game. Even on their private servers.

Nice strawman, now stop putting words in my mouth. I haven't, in a single place, said that ED should, say, disable the paddle. I said you should, realistically, suffer from broken/damaged things if you abuse it. G limits are there for a reason. Likewise, in the Viper, it should be possible to break your stores, such as bomb racks, by applying too much G. This has nothing to do with telling people how to play, but with making the simulation more detailed. If you don't like detailed simulation, go play War Thunder.

FYI, "game mode" stuff is leftover from an earlier era and pretty much abandoned by ED. In most modules it doesn't work well, or at all. Easy communications work, but that's relatively minor. You definitely shouldn't expect them to leave out features because they make certain things harder, or make stuff like boresighting Mavericks optional. I don't care how you play, just don't come crying when your way of playing gets hampered by an update that introduces additional complexity.

[TobiasA]

Am 29.4.2023 um 02:36 schrieb NineLine:

When we know we will let you know for sure. We do not give dates though as we do not how things will do in testing and development. Sorry.

It would be very nice to know what is currently in development. 

What are you working on?

We haven't seen any new features in a while, and I would be interested in knowing what is next in the line.

[NineLine]

The best place to look is the Viper Roadmap and mini-updates. That's where you are going to see the latest news. 

 

[TobiasA]

vor 40 Minuten schrieb NineLine:

The best place to look is the Viper Roadmap and mini-updates. That's where you are going to see the latest news. 

 

But that's been several months now. 

Is there a chance that we can buy a beer for you guys and get a sneak preview? Like... We haven't heard something from the radar rework, or the HTS feature to work together with a wingman for higher precision, PRF tones, the jammer to be used together with your wingman... I am not even talking about the large features. We've been waiting so long for small goodies. 

There must be something in the pipeline for the Viper right now... Doesn't it? Doesn't even need to be finished yet.

A little tease for the die-hard fanboys.

[Ignition]

9 hours ago, Temetre said:

Its actually impossible for us to fly with the same concern for forces as real pilots would, because we do not feel those forces. And if its really hard to accidentally over-G in real life, but really easy in a simulation, then its unrealistic to expect anyone to behave the same.

You need to fly more then. We can't feel the G in our body but you can train your muscle memory, you will almost never over G a plane again. It's just practice as everything else.

[Temetre]

Am 8.5.2023 um 19:27 schrieb Ignition:

You need to fly more then. We can't feel the G in our body but you can train your muscle memory, you will almost never over G a plane again. It's just practice as everything else.

Yes, you can train yourself to not over-G a plane in a game. Of course you can do that. 

But thats not like flying the real plane then either, because your senses and mechanics in trying to avoid that stuff are completely different. And as said, theres so many reports of pilots over-g'ing planes, especially before modern limiters and hud-indicators. So real pilots actually do over-g their planes, and slavishly trying to keep the plane in their limits might not be realistic either. And its not like planes didnt support that; F-14s started rated as 7.5, got put down to 6.5 for maintenance reasons, but AFAIK those planes airframes are tougher than 9G-rated F-15s. 

 

Point being that some of this stuff doesnt translate well into a game, or even simulator. You can try hard to keep the plane always in its rated limits, or you can play soft and loose to a degree, but either of those is a compromise that doesnt perfectly replicate the real experience. 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Temetre