ED: Why deactivate CBU-97?/ Same warheads on AGM-65D/K?

[VTJS17_Fire]

Hello ED Developers,

 

I have some questions, whose answers are for me unknowable.

 

 

1. Why do you deactivate the CBU-97 for FC 2.0?

 

It's an active weapon (U.S. AF), such as for the A-10A. It's still in the weapons_db.lua, in the Names.lua and we still have a model/ skin for it.

But it has no data in the bombs_data.lua, bombs_table.lua and cluster_data.lua.

Is it to much work or do you have no real data for this weapon?

 

 

 

 

 

2. Why we have same warheads for AGM-65D and AGM-65K?

 

The K-model is newer and has a other warhead. But in the warheads.lua, they have the same entry:

expl_mass = 39.0, -- Warhead 56,25 kg, explosive 39 kg

The AGM-65D has an 56kg hollow charge with contact fuze.

The AGM-65K has an 136kg high explosive penetrator with delayed fuze.

 

I don't know, if it is possible to simulate the different bursting charge?

But i think and see it in the warheads.lua, that's possible to simulate different explosion mass.

 

This need a fix!

 

 

Best regards,

fire

[NRG-Vampire]

This need a fix!

 

Yep, +1

[Nerdwing]

I was disappointed in the reduction in weapon possibilities for the A-10 in FC2. However, I went straight from LOMAC to FC2 so not sure if this was also this way in FC1 :P

 

Regarding the Maverick, what difference does this have exactly in the representation of the weapon's capabilities? The K weighs more, and would be better against ships if (God forbid) you're tasked with striking some boats? As is, the D is a superb weapon as is.

[GGTharos]

The differences are quite large in RL, but not really well represented in LO due to how damage is modeled. Not much that an be done about this right now. In general the K is a demolition type missile, the D is anti-armor.

[VTJS17_Fire]

Regarding the Maverick, what difference does this have exactly in the representation of the weapon's capabilities? The K weighs more, and would be better against ships if (God forbid) you're tasked with striking some boats? As is, the D is a superb weapon as is.

 

 

The Maverick was not only designed to destroy tanks or other vehicles. You can also attack buildings, such as bunkers or bridges. Remember, the AGM-65 is a stand-off weapon.

If you use it to attack tanks, protected by short-range SAM or AAA, so you can do this with protected buildings as well. Such as with the AGM-65K 136kg warhead.

 

In reference to the model, the U.S. Navy/ Marine Corp has it's own laser-guided AGM-65E/ IIR-guided AGM-65F for ship-attack. To attack ships, i think, isn't the business of the U.S. Airforce.

In addition, the E/F models have a larger range as the K model, adapted for ship attack.

 

Here some information about the AGM-65 and it's models:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-65.html

or search "AGM-65" with google.

 

 

Kind regards,

fire

[topol-m]

The differences are quite large in RL, but not really well represented in LO due to how damage is modeled. Not much that an be done about this right now.

 

What about DCS: A-10C?

[GGTharos]

I think weapons will be more authentically modeled in A-10C for sure, at least when it comes to loading and using them.

[VTJS17_Fire]

I hope so.

The entries in the lua files look like DCS:A-10C ready. You have a CLSID and a model for the AN/AAQ-28 Litening AT, CLSID for the AIM-9X, AGM-65G/H, TGM-65G/H and other stuff, labeld with "for A-10C".

 

 

kind regards,

fire

[NRG-Vampire]

What about DCS: A-10C?

 

What about DCS: A-10C + CBU-97 & Mk20 Rockeye ?

"the pilot has to set a burst altitude and an impact spacing along with an Arming delay" <-- will we get these options ?

 

First off, lets get something right... In a real aircraft when dropping these CBU's, the pilot has to set a burst altitude and an impact spacing along with an Arming delay. FC2 doesn't have any of these variables... instead it goes by some silly script.

Real Rockeye works differently. Minimum drop altitude is 500 Ft, 400Ft with 4G pull.

It has a 247 MK-118 bomblets capable of penetrating 7.5" thick armour. So when a Rockeye in FC2 Takes out 1 or 2 tanks Please DON'T JUSTIFY IT without knowing how they work.

And last but not least, if you have to resort to dropping mk82/84 iron bombs on a convoy then there is seriously something wrong the cluster weapons in FC2.

Peace

[VTJS17_Fire]

ED: Could you insert a valid CLSID for LAU-68?

 

My next, hog based question to ED:

Could you insert a valid CLSID for the LAU-68 launcher, both HE and WP?

 

The launcher is in the names.lua and in the db_weapons.lua. But only for the OH-58 helicopter and without a CLSID. Just named. I could activate it for the A-10A and it works fine ingame, but get a error message in the ME "need CLSID" (or so).

 

It's a actual weapon for the A-10 too (like the CBU-97) and sometimes, i don't need the big and heavy LAU-61 and 19 rockets. ;)

 

I hope for a "full" weapons fix and better, more accurate loadouts.

 

 

kind regards,

fire

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

I'd always assumed that ED had simply made a misprint and meant the AGM-65B rather than 65K.

 

From what I've read - many, many more 65B's were manufactured than K's.

[mvsgas]

Raytheon.com Maverick PDF

[mvsgas]

 

 

 

How do you know if the CBU in the photo are CBU-97? They could be 87/103, 89/105.

 

What about DCS: A-10C + CBU-97 & Mk20 Rockeye ?

"the pilot has to set a burst altitude and an impact spacing along with an Arming delay" <-- will we get these options ?

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=893959&postcount=27

 

It would be cool to set burst height and spin on the mission planning map