AGM-65G

Reopened with new info from the latest Mini-Update:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3704424&postcount=93

I really welcome this step forward :thumbup::thumbup:

i really don’t understand people that wants absolute realism about every thing and wants to oblige others to do the same...don’t understand me badly...i am one of those who seeks for realism, but there are others who wants just to have fun and why you should limit their possibilities?

Also back in topic if the Hornet has the software or the wiring to carry the G version why some mission builder can implement a scenario where navy Hornets operates with Air force stores...or some foreign client wants to load g mavericks on their Hornet?why to limit that?

if you don’t want to use fictional or unrealistic scenarios well don’t do...but do not pretend that every one has to do the same because or your complaining.

i really don’t understand people that wants absolute realism about every thing and wants to oblige others to do the same...don’t understand me badly...i am one of those who seeks for realism, but there are others who wants just to have fun and why you should limit their possibilities?

Also back in topic if the Hornet has the software or the wiring to carry the G version why some mission builder can implement a scenario where navy Hornets operates with Air force stores...or some foreign client wants to load g mavericks on their Hornet?why to limit that?

if you don’t want to use fictional or unrealistic scenarios well don’t do...but do not pretend that everyone has to do the same because or your complaining.

I know what you're saying but where do we stop with the additional weapons or what if stuff? We have a cutoff point for realism for a variety of reasons. Resources in terms of manpower in the development process are clearly one of them for ED.

As for the realism in a broader sense, the clue is in the name of this thing we do "simulation" - the imitation of a situation or process.

Let's just stick to what we know the aircraft has done and can do and not what it might have done.

i really don’t understand people that wants absolute realism about every thing and wants to oblige others to do the same...don’t understand me badly...i am one of those who seeks for realism, but there are others who wants just to have fun and why you should limit their possibilities?

Also back in topic if the Hornet has the software or the wiring to carry the G version why some mission builder can implement a scenario where navy Hornets operates with Air force stores...or some foreign client wants to load g mavericks on their Hornet?why to limit that?

if you don’t want to use fictional or unrealistic scenarios well don’t do...but do not pretend that every one has to do the same because or your complaining.

You can edit ... I think .lua files? To load up pretty much anything you want. But as this is a simulation I do want them to keep things as realistic as possible. The only exception would be for some gameplay aspects that are because we are in a simulation on a computer vs real life... such as being able or not able to see targets visually..things like that.

Taking out four targets in a single pass with fire and forget missiles is, unfortunately, another thing the aircraft shouldn't really be capable of doing. This is an arcade trick shot that's only viable in DCS due to its current system of locking onto objects/entities rather than an image, and Force Correlate locking onto ground coordinates instead of using image/scene expansion.

 

I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it, because it's perfectly viable in the sim right now, but expecting that capability as a necessary feature is going to leave you disappointed down the road when the IR environment is redone, Force Correlate inaccuracies are modeled, and the damage model is improved.

 

In this hypothetical future, even with Gs your reliable locking ranges are going to be cut down and half your weapons are going to be missing their targets if F/C is used. You're going to want to withhold your shot as long as possible (as long as the threat will allow you) in order to ensure the highest likelihood of hitting and subsequently damaging your target.

 

I'm not trying to be a dick or a gatekeeper of realism or anything. I'm just trying to help manage expectations if you do lose the ability to slick off four missiles in one pass for one reason or another. Anything after 1 is already a bonus.

If you don't like that, don't use it...but do not dictate to others what we should use....I don't care about MP...if you don't want it in your MP game then don't allow it, but don't ruin it for others...I'm not asking for "Friggin Sharks with Laser beams on their heads" :)

If you don't like that, don't use it...but do not dictate to others what we should use....I don't care about MP...if you don't want it in your MP game then don't allow it, but don't ruin it for others...I'm not asking for "Friggin Sharks with Laser beams on their heads" :)

He's not dictating to you what you should use. He's explaining how that type of flying isn't realistic, as DCS becomes more realistic (Damage models, missile physics, targeting systems etc) they way you wan't to fly will no longer be possible because you wont be hitting anything any more.

He's not dictating to you what you should use. He's explaining how that type of flying isn't realistic, as DCS becomes more realistic (Damage models, missile physics, targeting systems etc) they way you wan't to fly will no longer be possible because you wont be hitting anything any more.

mounting agm-65g on the Hornet is not unrealistic...just us navy did not equip their jets with it....but it could well be that a foreign customer uses it or that a mission designer decides to have a scenario where us navy is operating with air force stocks..the Hornet has the wirings and the software to employ g mavericks

Only F is not bad, but better ED could leave Gs as mission editor choice

mounting agm-65g on the Hornet is not unrealistic...just us navy did not equip their jets with it....but it could well be that a foreign customer uses it or that a mission designer decides to have a scenario where us navy is operating with air force stocks..the Hornet has the wirings and the software to employ g mavericks

Foreign customers did purchase and use AGM-65G on their Hornets. The Kuwait Air Force was one such customer that purchased a few hundred Ds and Gs with their Hornet purchase in 1992; however, these Hornets had to be specially modified with new software in 1993 which US Navy Hornets never benefitted from.

To be clear, I never advocated for their removal from the DCS module, I just asked why they were being included. ED is committed to modeling a US Navy Hornet and the US Navy Hornets can't (never could) use Gs without modifications they never actually received.

Foreign customers did purchase and use AGM-65G on their Hornets. The Kuwait Air Force was one such customer that purchased a few hundred Ds and Gs with their Hornet purchase in 1992; however, these Hornets had to be specially modified with new software in 1993 which US Navy Hornets never benefitted from.

 

To be clear, I never advocated for their removal from the DCS module, I just asked why they were being included. ED is committed to modeling a US Navy Hornet and the US Navy Hornets can't (never could) use Gs without modifications they never actually received.

yes i understand your point, but why being limited to that version?in Dcs ED don’t need to update their Hornet code to be able to mount the g version...so if someone wants to simulate Kuwaitian hornets (following your example) like i think our kuwaitian friends would like to do, why to limit that option?if you don’t like it, just don’t implement it in your missions/campigns/servers...that is the wonderful thing of software...you can do every thing, simulate and sometimes assume every thing...and sometimes with a fair amount of guessing you can have a lot of fun while not being completely unrealistic...

I am willing to bet that it is to protect themselves from then having to model every weapon an F/A-18 from any nation or service has ever carried. If they include Gs for the benefit of KAF Hornets, they'll be compelled to include Ds and possibly other weapons that they didn't intend to include in their scope.

They may not have documentation detailing things like valid ordnance loads, HUD and DDI symbology, or guidance/FM data for these weapons. The more guessing required, the more fidelity you lose.

Less guessing, more fidelity. That's what DCS is about.

During the development, they said they were 'mimicking' a USN Hornet, so stick to that. And they did.

Is the AGM65G being taken away? :O

I was reading through the hornet mini updates board and discovered that the MavG may be getting replaced with the MavF?

My concern with this is that I really enjoy using the force correlate feature on the MavG. Does the MavF have this? or are we going to lose F/C completely? :helpsmilie:

For reference:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=225340

The AGM-65F does not have a true Force Correlate mode, but it does have a manual lock which the weapon can accept or reject depending on the infrared image contrast.