Aim-7

Not sure which is worse. This post or bumping an old one: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=232497

If I want to make a mission where the F-16 is downgraded, let me. Some F-16C have carried the Aim-7, just not ours...whatever. You don't have to play with me, right?:doh:

If I want to make a mission where the F-16 is downgraded, let me.

Then use Sidewinders only, which is historically correct as that was the only A-A armament of the Cold War F-16 (besides the gun). The USAF F-16 never recieved the AIM-7.

It has been discussed here in depth: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=274588

I don't care if it is historically accurate. It needs to be a thing for mission design.

I would make the same argument for rear-aspect ir missiles. Some of our fighters cannot downgrade to them.

I Agree, stop with teh restriction son Loadouts, its bad enough that we have to work with just a few airframes.. you also constrain the loadouts? Wahy why does a little felñxibility threatens you so much? Specially when a downgrade is beiong asked for....

We are not All Us pilots. Maybe some of us wan t to fly as another countruy that did use AIM7 or a what if buy with downgraded armament...

Why force us to resort to MODs?

Baco said:

I Agree, stop with teh restriction son Loadouts

It's not a restriction per se, the aircraft we have in DCS literally can't fire it, as in it physically isn't wired up to employ the AIM-7.

The F-16C we have, as I understand it, is modelled on a specific aircraft variant, it is supposed to authentically represent that specific aircraft - that's the entire point. If that specific aircraft physically cannot employ the AIM-7 then IMO the DCS version shouldn't be able to employ it either. And when you factor that the DCS F-16C currently doesn't have things that it actually is compatible with and capable of using, well...

You guys make it sound like we're artificially restricting things just to spite you or because we have a false superiority complex. Fact of the matter is, the whole point of DCS is to have aircraft and weapons be as accurate to reality as possible.

When it comes to it, here's how it should work.

1. Can the specific aircraft employ it & was it used? If yes, then obviously yes, it should be included if feasible to do so.
2. Can the specific aircraft physically employ the weapon as is, but the weapon is out of service or otherwise unused by the specific operator? Again, in my opinion, it should be present if feasible, as the real aircraft can physically employ it, without modification.
3. Is the weapon physically incompatible and/or did it come after the date the aircraft variant is modelled on? Then here is where I say no, the weapon doesn't fit the aircraft in terms of era, and/or the weapon is physically incompatible with the aircraft.

Here we have a case of number 3, the AIM-7 is physically incompatible with the aircraft ours is modelled after.

If our F-16C was compatible with the AIM-7, as in the avionics support it without modification and it is wired for it, then absolutely it should be present. If it isn't wired for it, and the avionics don't support it, then no.

Baco said:

its bad enough that we have to work with just a few airframes.. you also constrain the loadouts? Wahy why does a little felñxibility threatens you so much?

I absolutely agree, having such few variants, and a limited number of aircraft is a pain in the arse, especially when as far as eras go nothing is comprehensive and it's all basically a pick 'n' mix. I absolutely get that.

I would love older aircraft and older variants; they better fit the current asset pool, they're more likely to have more documentation available on them, they were involved in more famous conflicts etc and to me personally, they have more character and I find are more fun. And both sides win.

That should be the solution here, development of older aircraft, exactly like what Heatblur are doing with the F-14A.

Baco said:

We are not All Us pilots. Maybe some of us wan t to fly as another countruy that did use AIM7 or a what if buy with downgraded armament...

Yes I absolutely understand, I absolutely understand why people want weapons our current aircraft never used/not even capable of using, so they can represent a different aircraft - I get that, I'm not being snarky, I genuinely understand the frustration. The problem is, unlike liveries, or scenarios, it doesn't mandate changing the avionics to make it work.

It kind of all boils down to these 3 options.

1. We develop an aircraft realistically based on a specific variant and potentially a compromise has to be made to the accuracy of certain scenarios.
2. We develop an aircraft, but instead of compromising on the accuracy of the scenarios, we compromise on the accuracy of the aircraft, making more of an allowance for different scenarios, even if it fudges the accuracy of the aircraft.
3. We have multiple variants that are appropriate to different eras and different scenarios, meaning we don't have to compromise the accuracy of the specific aircraft or the specific scenarios.

The difference between us, is not that we're hypersensitive to realism, ultimately you want the same thing, just for something different - you want to choose option 2 instead of option 1 whereas we're more interested in option 1 as that is really supposed to be the main selling point of DCS among other things.

That's it, we're more interested in the accuracy of the aircraft, whereas you're more interested in the accuracy of the scenario. We're both realism absolutists, just in different ways.

However, the solution to both our problems is option 3, but hardly anyone seems to go down that route...

Baco said:

Why force us to resort to MODs?

Ironically because basically, that's exactly what those other countries did IRL to get AIM-7 capability on their F-16s. The only F-16s that can are special modifications.

The F-16C we have is modelled on a specific variant, it is supposed to be authentically represent that specific variant, and that specific variant physically cannot employ the AIM-7. And when you factor in the fact that the F-16C currently doesn't have things that it actually is capable of using then it becomes pretty clear...

The authenticity is great. We all agree on that, but it was a programming choice to make it so specific.

There is another sim where, if we want to, my friends and I can load up the F16 with Aim-9Ps for furballing fun. Can't do that here. I don't get why half the users here seem to agree with that outcome when they would never have our gameplay choice imposed on their gameplay choice.

gavagai said:

The authenticity is great. We all agree on that, but it was a programming choice to make it so specific.

I don't know why ED decided to model the DCS F-16 on that specific variant, presumably it was because it was the latest and greatest while still being feasible, which seems to be a bit of a theme. I doubt it was merely a programming choice that is causing the issue. Of course it could be that they it was a contract and as such which variant is constrained (somebody correct me).

gavagai said:

There is another sim where, if we want to, my friends and I can load up the F16 with Aim-9Ps for furballing fun. Can't do that here. I don't get why half the users here seem to agree with that outcome when they would never have our gameplay choice imposed on their gameplay choice.

I've edited my post but it's exactly the same the other way round.

You want the 'scenarios' so to speak to be more realistic, because that allows more flexibility with the era, even if it fudges the accuracy of the aircraft.

The other side wants the aircraft to be more realistic, because that's what DCS is really about (the scenario is completely up to you, there aren't any restrictions apart from what theatre and assets are available), even if it means fudging the accuracy of the scenario.

The best option would be to have more aircraft variants so we don't have to make compromises to one thing or the other.

I would love to have accurate scenarios and I'd love to have accurate aircraft, adding different variants solves this dilemma, without having to resort to fudging the accuracy of one thing or the other.

Ok, so here we go again to discuss this all over again...

I don't care if it is historically accurate. It needs to be a thing for mission design.

I do care. I don't want Spitfires armed with AMRAAMs.

Why force us to resort to MODs?

Because this sim tries to resemble real aircraft and their capabilities. Mods can do whatever they want. That's why they're there!

The best option would be to have more aircraft variants so we don't have to make compromises to one thing or the other.

This!

I do care. I don't want Spitfires armed with AMRAAMs.

Have I got a LUA hack to show… ehm… not show you! :D

Have I got a LUA hack to show… ehm… not show you! :D

Thanks, that's very kind of you as that would definitely give me eye cancer :D

Im not sure this is just a software choice either. The F-16 radar would need to be capable of PDI illumination to use AIM-7s, which it isnt afaik. Now as for the AIM-9Ps, I'm not sure whats stopping the F-16 from carrying it actually, perhaps someone with more knowledge could step in here?

Im not sure this is just a software choice either. The F-16 radar would need to be capable of PDI illumination to use AIM-7s, which it isnt afaik.

Not just the radar, but also the wiring for the pylons. It was only present for a very brief time in the early 90s when the USAF though about putting Sparrows on Vipers, which it then did not do and instead went straight for the AMRAAM:

The only F-16C able to use Sparrow was 'C block 25'. It required some massive cabling to integrate the weapon. It became operational in 1992, after Gulf War, but in 1992 AMRAAM became available so there was no purpose using Sparrow.

In next block 30 they removed the cabling being dead weight.

So our block 50 Vipers are missing the required wiring for the Sparrows.

Not just the radar, but also the wiring for the pylons. It was only present for a very brief time in the early 90s when the USAF though about putting Sparrows on Vipers, which it then did not do and instead went straight for the AMRAAM:

The ADF's could and did carry Sparrows, but given the end of the Cold War those went away pretty fast or started using AMRAAM's for the handful that stuck around more than a few years. USAF block 50/52's never used them although many foreign AF's did.

Not sure which is worse. This post or bumping an old one: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=232497

 

If I want to make a mission where the F-16 is downgraded, let me. Some F-16C have carried the Aim-7, just not ours...whatever. You don't have to play with me, right?:doh:

+1

So our block 50 Vipers are missing the required wiring for the Sparrows.

It's a game, there are no wires, it's only in your mind.

It's a game, there are no wires, it's only in your mind.

Said game is supposed to represent it having wires, and if you want to go down this route it doesn't have wings or engines either...

Im not sure this is just a software choice either. The F-16 radar would need to be capable of PDI illumination to use AIM-7s, which it isnt afaik.

Apparently, the AN/APG-68 in Block 25 had this capability (maybe AN/APG-66A as well then?).

"Beyond-visible-range capability has been added in the form of a high-PRF track mode to provide continuous-wave (CW) illumination for guidance of the AIM-7 Sparrow semi-active radar homing missile."

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article5.html

Said game is supposed to represent it having wires, and if you want to go down this route it doesn't have wings or engines either...

You're right, it doesn't.

I think we should stick to real world capabilites of the specific model. Otherwise we open a big can of "what about this?" for every single module in DCS.

A better solution down the road is to have multiple variants with different capabilities.

The ADF's could and did carry Sparrows

Indeed, which is why I was talking about USAF birds specifically, excluding USANG birds :)

It's a game, there are no wires, it's only in your mind.

I'm looking forward to the day when you eventually have something maningful to contribute ;)

I think we should stick to real world capabilites of the specific model. Otherwise we open a big can of "what about this?" for every single module in DCS.

 

A better solution down the road is to have multiple variants with different capabilities.

This, right here.

I think we should stick to real world capabilites of the specific model. Otherwise we open a big can of "what about this?" for every single module in DCS.

 

A better solution down the road is to have multiple variants with different capabilities.

"Down the road" is as good as years and years from now or...never. ED is not a big company that can turn out high fidelity modules at a rapid pace. I love the work they do and I've spent hundreds on their modules and maps. That said, a little flexibility in how the modules are coded is not debauchery, and it is easier to start that near the beginning of a project instead of after-the-fact. Just put a * on it and say "Only used by Egypt, Iraq..." and move on.:smilewink:

Apparently, the AN/APG-68 in Block 25 had this capability (maybe AN/APG-66A as well then?).

 

"Beyond-visible-range capability has been added in the form of a high-PRF track mode to provide continuous-wave (CW) illumination for guidance of the AIM-7 Sparrow semi-active radar homing missile."

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article5.html

CW =/= PDI and that would mean only AIM-7F and below, as the 7M does not support CW for guidance, it uses PDI. And yes I think the point was that select older blocks could, but certainly not any as modern as 2007.

"Down the road" is as good as years and years from now or...never. ED is not a big company that can turn out high fidelity modules at a rapid pace. I love the work they do and I've spent hundreds on their modules and maps. That said, a little flexibility in how the modules are coded is not debauchery, and it is easier to start that near the beginning of a project instead of after-the-fact. Just put a * on it and say "Only used by Egypt, Iraq..." and move on.:smilewink:

While I agree that "down the road" is a very ambigous term in DCS standards, I don't think this should be an excuse to compromise the quality and authenticity of the modules by giving them Frankenstein-esque mixing of features and abilities.

I hope that one day ED would look at the option of selling variants at a discount.

Imagine F-16AM Block 15 upgrade to original F-16 module for 5$ or whatever. F/A-18A model with analog IFEI and no JHMCS.