not planned Is ED still set on not allowing aircraft to carry APKWS?

[tora117]

Yeah just trying to figure out if ED is still sticking with their mentality of limiting aircraft features because wE aRe oNLy sIMuLaTInG A 2007 aIrcRAft

Would be nice to be able to do CAS training with an F-5 or employ the F16 in a post-2012 threat environment

Really just annoyed that the F16s I work on that rolled out of the factory 3 decades ago have more capability than DCS's block 52 because systems like APKWS and DEP that don't require any modification to the jet are not implemented.

Granted it takes coding to implement but I would assume it is pretty minor since many other aircraft can already utilize them

Not like DCS is the most realistic thing in the world anyways, so I do not understand the apprehension

[Furiz]

2 hours ago, tora117 said:

Not like DCS is the most realistic thing in the world anyways, so I do not understand the apprehension

Off course its not, there is only so much they can do, but I'd like to stay as realistic as it can. I'd love to see SDBs and AWPKS on our Viper too, maybe with a tape upgrade in the future who knows.

[Northstar98]

On 5/16/2023 at 4:25 AM, tora117 said:

Yeah just trying to figure out if ED is still sticking with their mentality of limiting aircraft features because wE aRe oNLy sIMuLaTInG A 2007 aIrcRAft

They still are and I don't see the problem with it. When somebody plans to deliver 'x', I don't see how it's in any way problematic or unexpected when 'x' ends up being delivered.

Like it or not, "wE aRe oNLy sIMuLaTInG A 2007 aIrcRAft" gives ED a clear end-state to the module. If not for that, where would you draw the line? And one has to be drawn, because otherwise it'll be very vulnberable to scope and feature creep, which would be particularly harmful to a module that's already taking years and years to finish, without needing to expand its scope.

On 5/16/2023 at 4:25 AM, tora117 said:

Would be nice to be able to do CAS training with an F-5 or employ the F16 in a post-2012 threat environment

But APKWS is a 2016 and beyond weapon (that's when it was operational on F-16s), so you really mean 2016 threat environment.

Surely there's a lot more to employing F-16s in a post 2016 threat environment than just a 2007-spec F-16 with APKWS available? For 2016, the F-16 also has things like LJDAM, JASSM, MALD and SDB (the first 3 would also apply to a 2012 F-16 and JASSM and MALD would substantially change how you could operate the F-16). We probably won't be getting any of those, so we'll still be fairly far away.

Not only that, but I doubt you're going to be doing much in the way of a post-2012 A/G threat environment in DCS anyway, considering that the only REDFOR ground units we have that are post 2012 is the T-72B3 and ZTZ96B, everything else is earlier where a post 2012 threat-environment is just as much a mid 2000s or early 90s threat environment.

On 5/16/2023 at 4:25 AM, tora117 said:

Really just annoyed that the F16s I work on that rolled out of the factory 3 decades ago have more capability than DCS's block 52 because systems like APKWS and DEP that don't require any modification to the jet are not implemented.

As far as what stores are available, the DCS F-16CM Block 50 is pretty much as capable as a real one for the timeframe. The only omission I'm aware of is AIM-120C-7, which would also apply to a post 2012 F-16.

On 5/16/2023 at 4:25 AM, tora117 said:

Not like DCS is the most realistic thing in the world anyways, so I do not understand the apprehension

Firstly, because we're having enough trouble (though granted far less trouble than the F/A-18C) getting the F-16 completed for items solely constrained to its narrow scope, without needing to expand it.

Secondly, because the whole mission goal of the game is realism where possible. This would go against that goal.

Yes, there are plenty of things that are unrealistic (sometimes on purpose - such as the MiG-21bis' completely fictional Kh-66 and RS-2US capability) even things that are very unrealistic.

But how does merely 'x' being unrealistic, justify why 'y' should be made unrealistic?

Edited May 18, 2023 by Northstar98

[BIGNEWY]

8 hours ago, tora117 said:

Yeah just trying to figure out if ED is still sticking with their mentality of limiting aircraft features because wE aRe oNLy sIMuLaTInG A 2007 aIrcRAft

Would be nice to be able to do CAS training with an F-5 or employ the F16 in a post-2012 threat environment

Really just annoyed that the F16s I work on that rolled out of the factory 3 decades ago have more capability than DCS's block 52 because systems like APKWS and DEP that don't require any modification to the jet are not implemented.

Granted it takes coding to implement but I would assume it is pretty minor since many other aircraft can already utilize them

Not like DCS is the most realistic thing in the world anyways, so I do not understand the apprehension

Hi, 

we tend to model aircraft for a particular year, this is for many reasons but mainly, it depends on public information of the aircraft, and setting a time frame prevents feature creep that can happen when aircraft cover more than one year. 

Other than our A-10C II we are not planning APKWS for any other aircraft. 

DCS is a entertainment product, but it is the most realistic we can legally make it. 

thanks

[tora117]

On 5/16/2023 at 3:57 AM, Northstar98 said:

They still are and I don't see the problem with it. When somebody plans to deliver 'x', I don't see how it's in any way problematic or unexpected when 'x' ends up being delivered.

Like it or not, "wE aRe oNLy sIMuLaTInG A 2007 aIrcRAft" gives ED a clear end-state to the module. If not for that, where would you draw the line? And one has to be drawn, because otherwise it'll be very vulnberable to scope and feature creep, which would be particularly harmful to a module that's already taking years and years to finish, without needing to expand its scope.

But APKWS is a 2016 and beyond weapon (that's when it was operational on F-16s), so you really mean 2016 threat environment.

 

While I spend the majority of my time in the viper, there are many other aircraft that could employ APKWS. I would prefer to see it be available for all aircraft that can carry it.
 

On 5/16/2023 at 3:57 AM, Northstar98 said:

Surely there's a lot more to employing F-16s in a post 2016 threat environment than just a 2007-spec F-16 with APKWS available? For 2016, the F-16 also has things like LJDAM, JASSM, MALD and SDB (the first 3 would also apply to a 2012 F-16 and JASSM and MALD would substantially change how you could operate the F-16). We probably won't be getting any of those, so we'll still be fairly far away 

Not only that, but I doubt you're going to be doing much in the way of a post-2012 A/G threat environment in DCS anyway, considering that the only REDFOR ground units we have that are post 2012 is the T-72B3 and ZTZ96B, everything else is earlier where a post 2012 threat-environment is just as much a mid 2000s or early 90s threat environment.

 

Syria is a current warzone. We have a Syria map and all the assets that belong in it. Minor software differences that civilians don't even know about aren't as big of a concern to me as not having simple capabilities that even the Ukrainians are utilizing.
As far as other modern weapons are concerned, the main argument for the APKWS is it is no different than strapping a GBU-12 to something. It simply requires you set a laser code and there are likely some aerodynamic differences in regard to missile trajectory but otherwise, it does not require any modification to the jet.
If we were to pull F16s decommissioned in 2007 out of the boneyard and throw them back in the air, they could carry APKWS.
 

On 5/16/2023 at 3:57 AM, Northstar98 said:

As far as what stores are available, the DCS F-16CM Block 50 is pretty much as capable as a real one for the timeframe. The only omission I'm aware of is AIM-120C-7, which would also apply to a post 2012 F-16.

 

My point was that I work on jets older than ours, yet have more capabilities because they have aftermarket systems that are plug-and-play.
 

On 5/16/2023 at 3:57 AM, Northstar98 said:

Firstly, because we're having enough trouble (though granted far less trouble than the F/A-18C) getting the F-16 completed for items solely constrained to its narrow scope, without needing to expand it.

 

Again, the 16 is not the only aircraft that would benefit from carrying APKWS.
 

On 5/16/2023 at 3:57 AM, Northstar98 said:

Yes, there are plenty of things that are unrealistic (sometimes on purpose - such as the MiG-21bis' completely fictional Kh-66 and RS-2US capability) even things that are very unrealistic.

But how does merely 'x' being unrealistic, justify why 'y' should be made unrealistic?

 

I never made that argument but now that you mention it, ill make sure to include it next time.
Granted its not an ED product.


Since I didnt say it before ill say it now.

How does ED plan to make a dynamic campaign system and yet only limit the F16 to 2007 weaponry?

[Gunfreak]

5 hours ago, tora117 said:

While I spend the majority of my time in the viper, there are many other aircraft that could employ APKWS. I would prefer to see it be available for all aircraft that can carry it.
 

Syria is a current warzone. We have a Syria map and all the assets that belong in it. Minor software differences that civilians don't even know about aren't as big of a concern to me as not having simple capabilities that even the Ukrainians are utilizing.
As far as other modern weapons are concerned, the main argument for the APKWS is it is no different than strapping a GBU-12 to something. It simply requires you set a laser code and there are likely some aerodynamic differences in regard to missile trajectory but otherwise, it does not require any modification to the jet.
If we were to pull F16s decommissioned in 2007 out of the boneyard and throw them back in the air, they could carry APKWS.
 

My point was that I work on jets older than ours, yet have more capabilities because they have aftermarket systems that are plug-and-play.
 

Again, the 16 is not the only aircraft that would benefit from carrying APKWS.
 

I never made that argument but now that you mention it, ill make sure to include it next time.
Granted its not an ED product.


Since I didnt say it before ill say it now.

How does ED plan to make a dynamic campaign system and yet only limit the F16 to 2007 weaponry?

Well, most things in "modern" dcs is limited to mid 2000s( as absolute latest) so it doesn't matter what date you set in the Dynamic campaign.  You'll be flying in a mid 2000s environment(with most red force being mid 90s as absolute latest)

[Northstar98]

On 5/18/2023 at 1:57 AM, tora117 said:

While I spend the majority of my time in the viper, there are many other aircraft that could employ APKWS. I would prefer to see it be available for all aircraft that can carry it.

That's fine, but you're not addressing what I said.

On 5/18/2023 at 1:57 AM, tora117 said:

Syria is a current warzone. We have a Syria map and all the assets that belong in it.

Syria is indeed a currently active warzone (one that the CJTF-OIR first entered in late-ish 2014) and we do have a map for it. While we have a decent number of assets (though many of them would actually be stand-ins because they're the wrong version), we don't have anything like "all" of them.

On 5/18/2023 at 1:57 AM, tora117 said:

Minor software differences that civilians don't even know about aren't as big of a concern to me as not having simple capabilities that even the Ukrainians are utilizing.

I never brought up aircraft software, though that would still be relevant (I'd hardly call things like AGCAS "minor"). I also think relying on ignorance is a pretty poor argument. The whole point is that it's as realistic as possible to what it's supposed to represent - that doesn't become true just because some people don't know better.

On 5/18/2023 at 1:57 AM, tora117 said:

As far as other modern weapons are concerned, the main argument for the APKWS is it is no different than strapping a GBU-12 to something. It simply requires you set a laser code and there are likely some aerodynamic differences in regard to missile trajectory but otherwise, it does not require any modification to the jet.

If we were to pull F16s decommissioned in 2007 out of the boneyard and throw them back in the air, they could carry APKWS.

I am aware. I'm afraid it doesn't address what I said.

APKWS is still out of scope for an aircraft that's supposed to be representative of how it was circa 2007, when APKWS didn't exist (and it was nearly a decade before it did on the F-16). Not only that, but adding it would introduce an inconsistency, that goes against the goals of the module and the product.

Again, having it be the way that it is, is a great way to define a clear end-state to the module, that simplifies research (you only need one -1 and -34 to figure out what weapons it should have, how they're integrated and what their workflow is from the perspective of the pilot). And again, I fail to see how somebody planning to deliver "x" delivering "x", especially when it fits the goal of game and the product, is in any way problematic.

On 5/18/2023 at 1:57 AM, tora117 said:

Again, the 16 is not the only aircraft that would benefit from carrying APKWS.

I never said it was - your post mostly concerned the F-16, so that's the aircraft my reply was focused on.

But equally, the F-16 also isn't the only module with a very specific scope, that's taking years and years to get completed to said narrow scope (I brought up the Hornet as being a worse example).

On 5/18/2023 at 1:57 AM, tora117 said:

I never made that argument

You said:

On 5/16/2023 at 4:25 AM, tora117 said:

Not like DCS is the most realistic thing in the world anyways, so I do not understand the apprehension

This implies that you think that merely "x" being unrealistic, justifies why "y" should be unrealistic, without actually justifying why.

Even worse, it ignores the entire mission goal of the game and of the module and it ignores a solution that would fit said goals - correct "x".

If you didn't mean this (though it looks like you agree with it given the next thing you say), then what did you mean by this?

On 5/18/2023 at 1:57 AM, tora117 said:

but now that you mention it, ill make sure to include it next time.

Granted its not an ED product.

Welp if you're going to do so, I sure hope you actually justify it beyond just stating it.

Because I'm just going to say "why?" and then I'm going to say "then, so long as its possible, correct x" or I'll just say "but "x" is realistic, therefore y should be kept realistic". If you disagree with the latter 2, I'm going to again bring up the goals of the module and the goals of the game and how "x is realistic, so y should be kept realistic" is consistent with said goals, but "x is unrealistic, so y should be made unrealistic too" is not.

If you disagree with said goal, I'm going to tell you that's fine, but then you might've made a mistake purchasing something who's goals you disagree with.

On 5/18/2023 at 1:57 AM, tora117 said:

Since I didnt say it before ill say it now.

How does ED plan to make a dynamic campaign system and yet only limit the F16 to 2007 weaponry?

Erm, I imagine they'll probably make one same as before and ignore this point - because they don't have anything to do with each other...

It doesn't follow at all that a module accurately being depicted for its scope, would have any affect whatsoever on making a dynamic campaign system... Likewise, it doesn't follow at all, that a dynamic campaign would necessarily have to be 2007 or above...

You could have a mid 2000s campaign, a WWII campaign or a Cold War campaign - the mission editor allows you to do basically whatever you like and I doubt a dynamic campaign would be any different. Because what units are present and what their capabilities are has nothing to do with a dynamic campaign in and of itself. It has implications on the scenario, but that'll almost certainly be solely up to the mission editor to decide, just like current missions and campaigns.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Northstar98
grammar

[draconus]

On 5/16/2023 at 5:25 AM, tora117 said:

Yeah just trying to figure out if ED is still sticking with their mentality of limiting aircraft features because wE aRe oNLy sIMuLaTInG A 2007 aIrcRAft

Yes. Just becuase it has "F-16" in the name does not mean you can use anything that any F-16 in the world had or will have. That also means no AESA, no CFTs or landing chute. They're not compatible with hardware and software of the currently simulated model and would need modifications that are beyond the scope of the module.

Yes, there are users that want it all anyway, however unrealistic it might be, but that is what mod community is for.

Edited May 19, 2023 by draconus