GBU-38 TER

[benargee]

I think we are having a semantic misunderstanding here. By "pylons" I thought you were talking about the launcher rails that go between the weapon and the station/hardpoint, i.e. LAU-88.

 

For our purposes we do not need to know that there is a AGM-65D fitted to station #3 via a LAU-88. All we need to know is that an AGM-65D is going on station #3.

 

ya but the agm-65d can be loaded on the LAU-117 and the LAU-88, so why dont we just call AGM-65Ds "heat seaking mavericks" while we're at it and lets not call it a an A-10C but an A-10, or even simpler "attack plane". this sim isnt meant to be simple, its meant to be learned and same goes for the the launcher rails, i can see for the bombs because they either use no ejector rack or they only use the one TER, but the mavericks use 2 different rails. the difference being the hard points are already ejectors, but not launchers so they need the lau-117 to function

[Nealius]

ya but the agm-65d can be loaded on the LAU-117 and the LAU-88, so why dont we just call AGM-65Ds "heat seaking mavericks" while we're at it and lets not call it a an A-10C but an A-10, or even simpler "attack plane". this sim isnt meant to be simple, its meant to be learned and same goes for the the launcher rails, i can see for the bombs because they either use no ejector rack or they only use the one TER, but the mavericks use 2 different rails. the difference being the hard points are already ejectors, but not launchers so they need the lau-117 to function

 

And you completely ignored my other post. Explain to me why one Maverick should be loaded onto a LAU-88, which is designed to be used with two or three Mavericks? Should a single Maverick not default to the LAU-117, which is designed to carry a single Maverick?

 

If loading one Maverick, it should use the LAU-117.

 

If loading two or three Mavericks, it should use the LAU-88.

 

Since the number of Mavericks should determine the rail used, why in the hell do we even need to know what rail it is on?

 

For the sake of my own personal enlightenment, I would also like to know why, in real life, the pilots would need to know what rails are being used. Is that not the expertise of the ground crew? From my point of view it is completely irrelevant how a weapon is attached. I just need to know what weapon it is and how to employ.

[Eddie]

For the sake of my own personal enlightenment, I would also like to know why, in real life, the pilots would need to know what rails are being used. Is that not the expertise of the ground crew? From my point of view it is completely irrelevant how a weapon is attached. I just need to know what weapon it is and how to employ.

 

Because the suspension equipment is just as important as what is attached to said suspension equipment for flight planning.

 

The "ground crew" only load what the pilots ask for.

 

Here's a counter question for you, why shouldn't a single Mav be loaded on a LAU-88? While it offers no practical advantage over using a LAU-117 (quick draw requires at least two missiles per LAU-88 ) it is a valid load configuration.

[Nealius]

How important? The only thing I can think of is drag index...which doesn't seem to be used at all in DCS.

 

One missile on a LAU-88 is a valid load configuration, but so is 12 Mk.82s. How often is it actually done?

[Eddie]

How important? The only thing I can think of is drag index...which doesn't seem to be used at all in DCS.

 

What on earth makes you think drag index "isn't used".

 

One missile on a LAU-88 is a valid load configuration, but so is 12 Mk.82s. How often is it actually done?

 

What has that got to do with it being in the sim? I reality LAU-88s aren't used at all these days, in fact apart from those in Korea no squadrons even have them. Does that mean they should be removed? Same thing goes for GBU-12 on TERs or any of the 2000lb class weapons, none of which are used IRL.

 

If its possible IRL it should be possible in the sim. When and how people choose to utilise such options is up to them.

[Silver_Dragon]

In reality of course, in DCS, no. I don't know why though. hmmmmm.

 

Some image or doc from them?

[Nealius]

What on earth makes you think drag index "isn't used".

 

 

The fact that there is no drag index indicated on the loadout screen. I know that it is "used" in the flight model itself, but when there is no indication of drag index in the loadout page there is no way to use it in flight planning.

[Eddie]

The fact that there is no drag index indicated on the loadout screen. I know that it is "used" in the flight model itself, but when there is no indication of drag index in the loadout page there is no way to use it in flight planning.

 

I've posted that info on these very forums several times. I'm sure a search will dig it up for you, but if not I can post again.

 

A lot of stuff isn't in DCS when it comes to mission planning sadly, at least at the moment. For the time being you just have to do it yourself the old fashioned way.

[Nealius]

Old fashioned is fun. Sometimes I get tired of using the Weapons Delivery Planner for Falcon, though sometimes I wish the same existed for DCS.

[Eddie]

It might do in the near (ish) future, if we in the 476th get our way. Work is underway.

[Oznerol256]

What? 2000lb class weapons arent used IR1L? LAU-88s arent used IRL? GBUs arent used on TERs IRL? How do they employ the A-10C IRL without all the effective loadouts?

[benargee]

Because the suspension equipment is just as important as what is attached to said suspension equipment for flight planning.

 

The "ground crew" only load what the pilots ask for.

 

Here's a counter question for you, why shouldn't a single Mav be loaded on a LAU-88? While it offers no practical advantage over using a LAU-117 (quick draw requires at least two missiles per LAU-88 ) it is a valid load configuration.

 

yes exactly, its not about what is practical its about what is possible, and since the lau-88 is already in game then why not have the option to have a single mav on it, i mean i never will but just knowing that option is there is comforting, this is a sim after all, its supposed to be complicated and technical.

 

while i do disagree with Nealius i do agree with him at the same time, like how there is a game mode, there should be simpler options for people learning the game until they grasp the full scale of it, like game mode applying to more than just in game

[Nealius]

It's not the fact that LAU-88 vs LAU-117 is too complicated to understand (it's extremely simple), it's the fact that the weapons selection menu is so messy and cluttered with LAU-this-that-and-the-other.

[benargee]

It's not the fact that LAU-88 vs LAU-117 is too complicated to understand (it's extremely simple), it's the fact that the weapons selection menu is so messy and cluttered with LAU-this-that-and-the-other.

 

yes so then you have a menu that looks something like this

 

 

 

 

or it would even be cool if they upgrade the airplane graphic to show the changes as you select the options, so it will show the ejector/ rail and the munition in the pic

[Nealius]

How did you get a menu like that?

[Oznerol256]

yes so then you have a menu that looks something like this

 

THAT menu is really cool! +1

 

Updating the graphics may be nice too, but i fear it wont work in the refueling and rearming menu but only in mission editor.

[benargee]

How did you get a menu like that?

 

about half an hour of my life, printscreen, microsoft paint and attention to detail :P. well you can see it gets the idea across right? just a mock up, you like?

[Nealius]

It's a lot more pleasant to look at compared to what we have now.

[Oznerol256]

about half an hour of my life, printscreen, microsoft paint and attention to detail :P. well you can see it gets the idea across right? just a mock up, you like?

 

I thought you had modded the weapon menu. Instead you edited an screenshot :(

[159th_Falcon]

If its possible IRL it should be possible in the sim. When and how people choose to utilise such options is up to them.

 

Weren't there picture's / video's of R-77 AE being (test?) fired from SU-27?:music_whistling: