Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Xavven

  1. No worries. We'll have to live with what we've got. Thanks! I think in the end it helps me decide personally whether I will put HARMs on 4 & 6, since in the next patch we will have the option to restrict or allow such a loadout. I don't care how others play DCS. But it's a treat when we get what info we can from SMEs on the ED forums.
  2. @Scrape I had to slowly and carefully re-read your post a couple times along with another certain one from 9/28/2020 where you talk about the video line being capped for the inboard stations on that T-connector. Is that what you're referring to when you say it's the show stopper? In other words, you are certain that no US vipers have a 1553 bus or video line to 4 & 6, and that is at odds therefore with whatever proof ED has and cannot share with us? If so, this would mean ED's proof is erroneous. Am I interpreting that correctly? Well, that, or ED's allowing us to decide to allow HARMs on 4 & 6 to simulate a non-USA F-16, which is a whole other can of worms because of the whole "this is an ANG circa 2007" thing. Or maybe it's to end HARMgate because it's a tiresome hill to die on. Haha!
  3. It's not too late to add your 2 cents, especially given your background and experience!
  4. I lined up the view so that you can only see the back edge of the fins of the maverick. In my opinion this gives you the best representation of where the exhaust would fire -- directly at the viewer. Please feel free to get a better angle if you can.
  5. I don't think we can come to IRL conclusions from DCS screenshots, so take this as you will, but here are some screenshots I took while in the mission editor. As some have pointed out, apparently rockets can have plugs in the engine bells to protect them, and they get blown backwards when the rocket motor fires. Some seem to have more clearance issues than others, just eyeballing it. HARM on station 6 That 3rd Maverick on station 7 Hydra Rockets, LAU-3 on Station 4 Not sure if these have plugs
  6. APKWS won't be added. See https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/253106-not-going-to-happen-not-accurate-for-year-apkws-on-viper/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-4487253 ED's reasoning is that it's not accurate for a 2007 viper. I have my own feeling about this but let's not derail the thread, especially since ED has already made their decision.
  7. I'm a layman here so take this with a grain of salt, but I think a laser guided bomb doesn't need targeting info, it's just a dumb bomb as QuiGon said, but then it has a laser seeker on the front controlling fins on the back. LJDAMs aka dual mode laser guided bombs do have GPS guidance and so would need targeting info (possibly over the 1553 bus?) just like a JDAM would. I have seen some LJDAMs referred to as Paveways, for example the "Paveway IV" is a dual mode LGB and that explains why "paveway" is listed in your link.
  8. You know what... you're right. If anything, I feel bad for ED. This is how we thank them. They say you can please some of the people all of the time, and please all of the people some off the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. But they'd be wrong. At first ED allowed HARMs on 4/6. Then ED disallowed HARMs on 4/6. Then ED gave us the option to choose whether or not to disable HARMs on 4/6. In all cases, they got community uproar. So the truth is that, when it comes to the DCS community, you're pissing someone off no matter what you do. I guess we get to wear that badge now. Not with pride, though.
  9. I get where you both are coming from. I agree there needs to be evidence for ED to implement a weapon on a particular station. But let's look at an extremely recent interaction with BIGNEWY on this thread: It's clear ED is not going to implement Mavs of 4/6 without evidence, so ironic claims about rivet guns and "anything goes" are not an accurate read of ED's modus operandi at all. ED had previously made HARMs inoperable on 4/6 based earlier research before this recent change, and they explained why they made this recent change. That explanation is not "because whiny community members wanted it for game balance", the reasoning is in fact documents and SMEs. And finally, they are not at liberty to reveal their sources, probably because they want to keep their jobs. Does that sum it up?
  10. Are you referring to this? https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/209147-viper-mini-updates/page/3/#comments "I am posting this here as we hope this will be a good solution for “HARMgate”. Based on further research, it comes down to a “it depends” situation. While some Viper units have had their HARM shooters wired for STA 4 and 6, other did not. This explains the conflicting SME feedback and mass-consternation and confusion." Or are you asking for the source of their research? In which case, BIGNEWY gave you the answer, which is, they can't answer.
  11. Ya'll know I'm no ally of the ED forum mods, but seriously, BIGNEWY is probably not allowed to give you the source. Maybe they didn't get it from a T.O., maybe they got it after consulting with one or more SMEs they know to be trustworthy. Do you really want to argue that HARMs on 4/6 should be disabled again? After ED is giving us the ability to disable them ourselves?
  12. I don't remember where I read this, but IIRC mavericks have some kind of plug on the back that gets blown off and away by the rocket motor when launching, and this debris can hit the horizontal stab on the F-16 if fired from stations 4/6. If the HARM is cleared for 4/6 then I would guess it doesn't have such a debris issue? Don't quote me on this, I'm a layman here.
  13. Bravo, ED! I'm happy to see you made the right choice with this one. I'm sure you won't please everyone with this update but that's normal. I bet you have 95% or more of the community in favor.
  14. Let's not debate this again. The whole community has hashed it out in the now-closed thread (closed for a good reason I imagine) here. Read to your hearts content: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/245426-4-harms-for-the-viper
  15. Sure are getting a lot of these. I once again respectfully suggest the devs label the HARMS on 4/6 as inoperable or remove them from the menu.
  16. I tested this for myself over my lunch break and my conclusion is the F-14B Ace AI is fairly tame. I will say that the F-16C handles like a wallowing pig if you keep 4x AIM-120 and 2x AIM-9X on it, compared to clean. The added weight and drag prolonged the fight but the result was always the same -- the F-14B Ace AI loses in both 1C and 2C flow. This isn't meant as a dig at anyone, just that I agree that beating the AI says nothing about whether DCS's F-16C's flight model is correct or not.
  17. LOL! Yeah, I went through both USA's and Russia's "Air Defense" list and none of them look exactly like that. I dropped JSOW-A's in a test map on both EWRs and they were reliably destroyed, or else reached critical damage and were destroyed after catching fire for about 15 seconds. Are you sure it wasn't a tracked vehicle? Also what country did it belong to?
  18. Hmm, not sure then... Was it this?
  19. I'll upload a track. @CybrSlydr what radar installation did you find was virtually immune to JSOW damage?
  20. ^All good tips If I may nitpick, it's possible to enter a merge with 100% fuel if you had taken 2 fuel tanks and weren't all the way through them by the time you jettison them shortly prior to entering threat range.
  21. You can also open the mission planner before you start (if singleplayer) and edit your loadout. The Liberation devs will probably add the CBU-105 in their next update if I were to take a guess. They were pretty quick about adding JDAMs for the F-16.
  22. Can you manually account for the drift and set your SPI a couple hundred meters against the wind's direction?
  23. Yes. @totmacher has. Here are his charts: https://dcs.silver.ru/70,73 Here's how he tests. I'm guessing he uses some mod to fly the aircraft in nearly perfect parameters.
  • Create New...