Jump to content

AlexCaboose

Members
  • Content Count

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AlexCaboose

  1. It doesn't matter why. It isn't. And it isn't wired, which you've been hearing from people who work(ed) on the jet.
  2. Completely wrong. There's nothing that stops you from taking it, other than an agreement that it won't be done on a private server. Regardless, it is not accurate for the specific aircraft being modeled and should not exist.
  3. It does specify "hardcore realistic AND casual gameplay modes." Sounds to me like they're pretty well separated in intent. It is entirely about realism to me, personally. ED said they're modeling a 2007 USANG F-16CM Bl. 50 and 4x HARMs were not able to be fired.
  4. How is killing one or two extra tanks the lesser of two evils when an aircraft is far more valuable? Regardless, that's pretty off topic. The pylons weren't wired for HARMs and so shouldn't be allowed.
  5. That's my point. They don't have unlimited airframes, why would they risk that level of damage?
  6. And "Unlimited Weapons" already exists as an option for those people, as does the rest of the Game Mode you're describing. Why would they risk the whole plane when they could just send another strike flight? I'd expect that it still would probably not happen.
  7. This is what ED's own marketing materials on their website have to say:
  8. I would imagine that they didn't greenlight it and that ED did what they did on their own. I was not consulted, nor am I an F-16 SME. I would probably ask them if that's the case before I would place any blame at their feet.
  9. I have no idea, I'm not a Hornet guy. I don't believe it's realistic though. It's more than just not being certified. It's not even wired for it. I absolutely agree, there should be a high probability of catastrophic stab damage. But at the moment, that doesn't exist, and I don't think anyone sees that being programmed in anytime soon. If it's not certified for use, it's not accurate. It's an equivalent argument because neither are something that the 2007 USANG F-16CM Bl. 50 would have access to.
  10. It pops up because if it's not realistic it shouldn't exist. If ED accidentally modeled an AESA radar it shouldn't stay on the aircraft because "oh well, we already gave it that capability." If it's not real, it's not real. ED billed the module as being the most accurate representation of a 2007 USANG F-16CM Bl. 50. There's really no difference between 4x HARMs and double racked AMRAAMs as neither are real.
  11. Because if it can't physically launch them, it doesn't matter what map it's on. The conflict and scenario may be fictional, but the aircraft is not. Should we have an F-35 in DCS? It would be just as fictional as 4x HARMs. What about a moving map on the HSD because it's convenient? Perhaps while we're at it we should get double racked AMRAAMs because that looks cool. Because all of that is just as fantasy as having 4x HARMs. The sim is a sandbox, but the aircraft are not.
  12. Or, just hear us out, we play MP and want to see people taking realistic loadouts. Who would read the NATOPs for the F-16? More like the -1, -34, CAF, etc. Regardless, the point stands - someone who is buying the F-16 SOLEY because it can carry 4x HARMs should be doing more research. There are plenty of reasons to buy, fly, and love the Viper. 4x HARMs isn't one of them. A quick google search of F-16s will how you that it just doesn't happen.
  13. If this hypothetical person bought the F-16 solely for the purpose of having 4x HARMs, they should have done more research.
  14. Yes, that's correct. Alt or Attitude hold is required to turn on the autopilot.
  15. @BIGNEWY I have created a few tracks to send to you. The bombs are releasing when they shouldn't be in CCRP Bomb 7. Additionally, the release cue never falls down. This seems to happen around headings close to 360. CCRP Bomb 3.trk CCRP Bomb 4.trk CCRP Bomb 7.trk
  16. No. If it's not realistic, it shouldn't exist. There's lots of things that were tested and then never adopted by the USAF.
  17. The default picture of the F-16's TGP is nowhere near what it is by default in the Hornet or the A-10/II. Even with contrast and brightness adjustment, it doesn't work properly as someone noted above.
  18. Any updates on the contrast issue?
  19. Try this one: https://discord.com/invite/cj6Ee3v
  20. Hi everyone, Twice a year, The State opens up its doors to pilots looking for a new milsim group to join. We wanted to take a minute to give you a quick run-down on who we are and what we offer, compared to other groups. The State aligns to a military simulation experience. We keep a very good, 24/7, OVH server up with dynamic missions, updated on a daily basis throughout deployment and our fleet readiness exercises. We provide custom skins for our squadrons, respective to the period we are simulating with our graphics, and if you are a full-time, line pilot, we put your name
  21. This wasn't a mod. It was a bug that was hotfixed.
  22. Any updates? The TGP is very hard to use at night because the contrast is so much worse than it was before the changes made to the pod.
  23. Yes, I tank daily in my squadron during our ops. It's never been modeled, so we don't bother with the procedure anymore to save time. Hopefully it comes in one day.
  24. 4 minutes IRL, but that pressurization stuff isn't modeled in DCS. You can just fill them up instantly.
×
×
  • Create New...