Jump to content

Realism versus fun


Nanne118

Recommended Posts

If there is no evidence that weapons are in operational use, it is not evidence it can't be equipped.

 

If there is no evidence for one thing, then lack of it is not evidence something being impossible.

 

We are talking about military where many things are technically possible, but politically not. So one might never get access to documentation, but not even to political reasons.

What kind of effed up logic is that? :huh:

By that logic literally everything is possible as you will never be able to proof that somewhere in some dark secret Skunk Work lab someone put weapon X on aircraft Y.

 

As a sim DCS should stay on proven ground and implement things that are actually known to be a thing IRL and not implement all kind of hypotetical stuff that could have been.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Quigon says that choices should not be allowed because players on Blue Flag only choose degenerate choices.

Uhm, no I've not mentionaed Blue Flag with a single word?! :huh:

If you would have paid some attention on what I wrote, you would have noticed that I spoke about multiplayer servers in general...

 

D2M was a Razbam mistake. I'm not sure if its your memory or you missed this buddy, but, they had it like that first because they took their data from the later models and screwed up. So as not to annoy people, they made it an option. Thankfully the French AdA helped them with data. No reason to have a riot here, there was nothing devious in the mistake, just incorrect data.

It doesn't matter if it was implemented by mistake or not. If it's wrong then it is wrong, no matter why it is in there. RAZBAM does now know that the D2M never existed on the 2000C and yet decided to keep it in DCS, which is not true to reality.

 

F-16 Alignment demonstrates degenerate play in options because its no longer enforceable like other INS.

Hahaha! Have you noticed the state of development of the F-16 recently and for the last year? You understand the terms Work In Progress, why do you assume this is complete? There is no reason to suspect the currently abbreviated INS for the F-16 wont follow the equally long development the F-18 took, right?

Well, so far everything I've heard from Wags and the ED team indicates that it will stay like this. Coments by Wags like the ones

sound like it is supposed to stay like this. I hope you're right though and there will be such an option for mission makers to select the availabilty of SHA for the Viper, just like there is for the Tomcat.

 

There's no valid argument from you, that DCS is being developed with less realism in mind. None.

I just gave you two valid examples. I haven't listed everything as there is more stuff. Another example would be the easy mode IR pipper for the MiG-21 which can also not be enforced for everyone by admins or mission makers.

 

Also the fact that Admins choose the setting that you dislike is not evidence this is happening either.

I would already be much more happy if admins could even choose the settings, but things like SHA for the Viper or the realistic IR pipper for the MiG-21 can't even be enforced by admins...

 

BF is popularised, it's not attempting realism, you making a deal out of the D2M setting is actually validating the TF-51 recon missions on Blue Flag!

Again, you're putting words in my mouth that I have never said. I never mentioned Blue Flag anywhere in this thread and definitely have never validated the TF-51 recon missions on Blue Flag as I absolutly hate them for the very reason of being utterly unrealistic.

It would be nice if you would stop putting words in my mouth and instead respond to thing I've actually said...

 

The example I gave was ASRAAM for the F-18. It's there, tested and we are restricted to the US Navy ordnance. Why?

 

SkyFlash for UK, Meteor in Europe over AIM-120, Python in Israel, R73's/American stuff in places like India, there is a whole load of examples where loadouts have been reduced to country and fleet purchased ordnance, because "Navy didnt do that", so then people say, well I want a Finnish F-18 and the reply is, "Its a Lot 20 No 1236523 which never went outside the US.

But that doesnt mean it couldnt. And are we really going to say, well, it never flew off the Stennis so you can't fly it in DCS it will not spawn there? Really? I think not. This is the thing, you can only take realism so far. If you want perfect.... tough. Not happening. It can fire Asraam and does, so I want to have the same Hornet, but I want it flying for the UK with ASRAAM because DCS is a sandbox and I should be allowed that because its possible, feasible, reasonable and doable.

ASRAAMs are actually used by Hornets, although not in the UK, but in the RAAF. They're not the Lot 20 USN Hornet that we have in DCS though.

 

Hope that makes sense. Not asking for ridiculous things when it comes to Kiowa options. Just feasible things that tolerate the possibilities:

a) The Country is not forced

b) The time period is not ultra fixed to an exact point where weapons that were fitted to the same airframe later on, can be fitted to the Kiowa they have data on.

c) There is a reasonable effort to keep loadouts feasible but not exclude things that were possible but rejected for monetry or country reasons, especially things that can be solved with options and loadouts.

I would love to have the total opposite of those three possibilites and stick to configurations that are actually used IRL.


Edited by QuiGon
Added missing link to Wags comments

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This particular rule of thumb falls short.

 

Let me work backwards.

 

Had F-18 or F-16 been sold to the UK, would you expect to see Aim9 and AIM-120 only?

Did the Israelis use Sidewinders on their Vipers only, or is the Python a a world first exception?

Do even the US Navy and the US Airforce carry the same inventories of weapon?

 

Artificial restrictions on weapons loadouts are artificial. I'm not talking about a AV-8B carrying AIM-120 and Harpoon, I am talking about a variant of the correct year being able to fire a wider amount of ordnance than what is operationally 'seen'. Example - F-4 Phantom from USAF. Carried AIM7. Would you see Skyflash done? Doubt it. What was Skyflash to an AIM7?

 

Real life, current Weapons manafacturer reference:

https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/asraam/

There is an ASRAAM on a F-18 and its been test fired, as well as F-16.

 

If the Houthis in Yemen can jerry rig weapons to fire at Saudi aircraft, you can bet the CEO of MBDA will give you a quote on rewiring your aircraft to fit his missiles. And it will cost less than a Litening II off the shelf! This is all about cost, politics and very little about technical feasibility. Which in a sandbox simulator, has very little purpose.

 

Example? How many TGP's are sent to units? Anyone care? Nope. It's a simulator, no one cares. Why not? Because money is not part of a the sandbox. So why should it matter that there is one or no TGP's in stock for the skin of the Harrier that never existed on the Tarawa? No one cares, and if someone does, they don't make the mission. But... this is the same argument for some loadouts! Just because it's a US Hornet Lot 20 which never went to any other country, you suddenly cannot get any appropriate and fittable weapons for it for other countries. WHen indeed, there is no difference and an ASRAAM should be possible. Except, ED don't want to develop an ASRAAM or Meteor and kit out other countries because it opens a can of worms and cost.

 

Before this view is percieved as too broad, let me reiterate, the platform must be capable of firing it. It doesn't mean it had to have been tested with any country, but obviously the largest inspiration is from exports and trials, not from operational usage.

 

As a sandbox, DCS is more restricted than you think. In DCS they find it easier to set artificial restrictions on loadout according to Country, fleet, specific Lot, version etc. And it's an entirely artificial restriction that, if money was waved at the problem, would go away. Sadly it costs a lot to add variants to DCS, else believe me, you would have seen F-14A sooner, the Spitfire CW variant would have been done immediately. The Mirage and AV-8B woudlnt have caused so many arguments, the C101CC wouldnt have taken a year, the L-38ZA wouldn't have taken longer. And, to their credit, the Gazelle variants are almost an exception, but how cool wasn't it, to have them? I don't think Polychop got enough praise here, because the effort for variants is quite a lot.

 

Does it hurt anyone to have realistic potential loadouts assuming they can be developed?

 

The only person it hurts is the guy writing the mission unticking the variant in the warehouse. Restrictions shouldnt exist where they are feasible and there are far too many of them occuring naturally that are excused their existence because people can't see the rest of the world outside the United States of America. I really hope to see mor emultinational support for variants and loadouts in the future from ED.

 

This particular explanation falls way short. Had the F-18 or F-16 sold to... well did it? No? /argument

 

Artificial restrictions? You got it backwards, what you suggest is artificial inclusions. Potential != realistic, and yes, it does hurt the idea of DCS being as real as it gets. Test fired once also does not qualify. Was it even a guided launch? A seperation test? Even if a guided launch, were there reasons made actual integration unfeasible?

 

I'll reiterate: Was it operational on a decent number of airframes? Yes? Ok it's nice to have. No? Leave it

That's all there's to it, anything more is people trying to shoehorn make-believe gamey capabilities.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I was pretty clear on what I consider arcade/unrealistic and realistically we have much(!) more arcade "workarounds" in DCS than most people are aware ( e.g. the Lasercodes on GBUs can be changed mid flight, HoF for CBUs magically switched per MFD buttons).

I'm aware of that and this is what I find so frustrating. I just gave two examples instead of making a complete list :)

 

So please be reasonable and don't make up accusations to discredit other people's viewpoint. You should know me good enough to be aware that I am definitely NOT advocating arcade gimmicks like JSOW on the F-5E or AIM-120 on the AV-8B Night Attack...

Apparently I don't know you good enough, because you appear on every realism discussion on this forum to argue against keeping things true to real life. :huh:

 

So because you can't be bothered to create an environment/host a server you can enjoy, it is reasonable to limit anybody else's environment to your view of "realism"? So when I want to create and host a 2024 fictional conflict on the Persian Gulf map with US NAVY F/A-18C employing CBU-97 to take out a convoy of BMP-3 I cannot do it, because you say so? I prefer to have the realistic option based on possible loadouts for the missions I create for our little group and not the "photoproof loadout from the 90ies". I as the mission designer want the flexibility to limit or not limit loadouts for the scenarios I create.

Basically I can't see why I should be limited in mission design, so my mission is more to your liking and based on your preference, as you will never fly it anyway?

What I'm saying is, that this is a process: A hardcore sim tries to open up to a wider player base by adding more arcade features to bypass hardcore realism features. More and more arcade minded players get attracted and eventually will become the majority and replace the hardcore simmers. The devs will adjust the game accordingly and arcade features become the new norm.

 

I've seen this happening with a number of other sims that got washed out, because they added more and more arcade options, the player base changed and realistic features got dropped because the new player base had no need for them. It's really frustrating to me and I really hope that DCS won't go down the same road. :(

 

Sorry, but you are aware that "stored heading alignment" is a very real thing? It's standard for alert 5 and other scramble jets to be set up, pre aligned and ready to go.

I am aware, as you would know if you would have read what I wrote on the first page of this thread:

Unfortunately it is, yes.

 

That's why I made a request for ED to implement an option for mission designers to be able to disable Stored Heading Alignment for each aircraft, as it is possible with the Tomcat, in order to allow for more realistic mission building, because AFAIK usually an aircraft is NOT pre-aligned IRL. It's something that is used for things like Quick Reaction Alert (QRA).

So it is pretty unrealistic to have SHA alignment available for every flight, because SHA is usually only used for special cases like QRA as it needs to be prepared beforehand. That's why I would like to get the option for mission designers to decide which jet in a mission is prepared (SHA available) and which jet is not prepared (SHA not available). With the Tomcat I have this option, with the Viper I don't.

 

It's also unrealistic to just jump into the seat and start a plane on the carrier deck without going through exterior checks and preflight

The sim starts in the cockpit, so exterior checks would have already been carrierd out by the pilot before the player takes control. The sim also doesn't simulate getting breakfast, waking up and stuff like that, that a pilot does before his flight. It's not in the scope of the sim...

 

now there are people in this community who have a life, family and work outside the Sim and a realistic(!) 40 minutes Startup with all necessary preparation isn't popular with a lot of them, I am sure. Especially, when you need to do it again, after you lost server connection 32 minutes into the start-up and are back to a cold and dark cockpit.

That's why DCS gives you several options at what time you want to take control (cold pit, hot pit, on the runway, in the air). I wouldn't mind more options (exterior check, breakfast, waking up), but I don't think those options are worth the development ressources as they're not really within the scope of a flight sim.

 

Well, let's say if the only reason against a GBU-12 on a particular plane is budget considerations, I prefer to have the option, as budget does not matter in a Sandbox Simulation.

As for the CBU canisters, I can see no reason why a plane that can deliver a CBU-99 can't deliver a CBU-87 or CBU-97... more or less only the canisters payload is different and the markings maybe.

Hmm, you seem to have mixed up my comment somehow. I was neither talking about budget considerations on the GBU-12 nor was I talking about different canister payloads. I was talking about differents in the shape, size and weight of a GBU-12 compared to a Mk-82, which require seperation tests to be carried out before a GBU-12 can get approved for an aircraft that is already approved to carry Mk-82s. Those differences can sometimes prevent this, so it's not a safe assumption that an aircraft can employ GBU-12s just it can employ MK-82s as you said.

 

 

And btw, the actual reason for this thread has been clarified to not be an issue for anyone (including even me) as the systems mentioned by the OP were actually operational on the Kiowa (except the GAU-19). #OnTopic


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this thread got hijacked pretty quickly :huh:

 

I expect PC to have a very clear picture of what systems and/or weapons were operationally implemented and used due to the motivated SME group they have working with them. As such I dont think there will be a lot, if any, hypothetical or only tested systems/weapons.

 

Some features like SatCom and BFT would probably not have much use in DCS, so I could live without those.

''Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction.''

Erich Fromm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently I don't know you good enough, because you appear on every realism discussion on this forum to argue against keeping things true to real life. :huh:

As I said multiple times: True to life, does not mean you need a photoproof and official public statement from the US NAVY or Air Force. There were so many things done and used in real life operations, that we have no public proof of, yet, still they were actually done... and we don't even touch the country specific loadouts here.

This "true to life" concept is interesting considering the whole US F-15 C, F-16C, F-5E dogfighting russian Su-27, MiG-29 and french Mirage 2000 C over the Caucasus or Georgia is a complete fantasy battle. Then there is the US Carrier group in the Black Sea joke! Persian Gulf, pretty similar. We get US vs. Iran in all flavors for entertainment, but "true to life"? So basically NTTR Red Flag and BFM Training against Aggressor F-16C, F/A-18C, F-14B and F-5E simulating eastern Opposition is the only halfway "true to life" scenario, until we see the Syria map arrive.

So please stop telling us mock up fantasy scenarios are "true to life", but feasible and realistic loadouts are not, because there "is no proof".

Because then we should also go full in and advocate to restrict the maps to realistic jets and time-frames... though I doubt the community would enjoy this kind of realism.

What I'm saying is, that this is a process: A hardcore sim tries to open up to a wider player base by adding more arcade features to bypass hardcore realism features. More and more arcade minded players get attracted and eventually will become the majority and replace the hardcore simmers. The devs will adjust the game accordingly and arcade features become the new norm.

DCS has a simple option to make it an Arcade game, it is there since DCS: Black Shark, it is not a process, it was there from the start and is part of the philosophy behind DCS... and was never a problem it seems. Basically nobody plays in Arcade Mode, at least I am not aware of any server or group playing like this.

DCS prides itself to be adaptable to your personal preference, so newcomers can ease their learning curve with "unrealistic" aids like "easy comms", "unlimited fuel" and "invulnerability", "map options" to let you see red and blue etc. Remembering the times I started learning the A-10C back then, it helped me tremendously to start with these helpers and gradually reduce them to full realism. I don't know what public servers ever had these options on, but anyway I find it very entitled to request a ban of realistic loadout options and basically everything that is not *your* preference, as you can't be bothered to simply host a server yourself with the realism settings you prefer?

So you want to force your preferred settings on each and every server and even worse on singleplayer, to "have more servers to choose from"?

 

(...) I am aware, as you would know if you would have read what I wrote on the first page of this thread:

 

So it is pretty unrealistic to have SHA alignment available for every flight, because SHA is usually only used for special cases like QRA as it needs to be prepared beforehand. That's why I would like to get the option for mission designers to decide which jet in a mission is prepared (SHA available) and which jet is not prepared (SHA not available). With the Tomcat I have this option, with the Viper I don't.

QuiGon please, as already posted above by someone else: the INS alignment in the F-16C is rudimentary implemented, even in the F/A-18C it's not final as both are still Early Access and not finished in regards to INS alignment and system dependencies.

I hope that SHA will be implemented similar to the Tomcat along the Data Cartridge to have a realistic mission preparation, as well.

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said multiple times: True to life, does not mean you need a photoproof and official public statement from the US NAVY or Air Force. There were so many things done and used in real life operations, that we have no public proof of, yet, still they were actually done... and we don't even touch the country specific loadouts here.

I don't doubt that. Quite to the contrary, I'm very well aware of that. Apparently you don't me very well either, as, throughout all the threads we engage in discussion with each other, you always act like I have absolutly no clue about military aviation. And like always we end up going in circles, so to cut things short I will just quote myself from earlier in this thread were I adressed this already:

What kind of effed up logic is that? :huh:

By that logic literally everything is possible as you will never be able to proof that somewhere in some dark secret Skunk Work lab someone put weapon X on aircraft Y.

 

As a sim DCS should stay on proven ground and implement things that are actually known to be a thing IRL and not implement all kind of hypotetical stuff that could have been.

 

 

This "true to life" concept is interesting considering the whole US F-15 C, F-16C, F-5E dogfighting russian Su-27, MiG-29 and french Mirage 2000 C over the Caucasus or Georgia is a complete fantasy battle. Then there is the US Carrier group in the Black Sea joke! Persian Gulf, pretty similar. We get US vs. Iran in all flavors for entertainment, but "true to life"? So basically NTTR Red Flag and BFM Training against Aggressor F-16C, F/A-18C, F-14B and F-5E simulating eastern Opposition is the only halfway "true to life" scenario, until we see the Syria map arrive.

So please stop telling us mock up fantasy scenarios are "true to life"

I'm not aware that I ever said they are?! :huh:

 

 

DCS has a simple option to make it an Arcade game, it is there since DCS: Black Shark, it is not a process, it was there from the start and is part of the philosophy behind DCS... and was never a problem it seems. Basically nobody plays in Arcade Mode, at least I am not aware of any server or group playing like this.

DCS prides itself to be adaptable to your personal preference, so newcomers can ease their learning curve with "unrealistic" aids like "easy comms", "unlimited fuel" and "invulnerability", "map options" to let you see red and blue etc. Remembering the times I started learning the A-10C back then, it helped me tremendously to start with these helpers and gradually reduce them to full realism. I don't know what public servers ever had these options on, but anyway I find it very entitled to request a ban of realistic loadout options and basically everything that is not *your* preference, as you can't be bothered to simply host a server yourself with the realism settings you prefer?

So you want to force your preferred settings on each and every server and even worse on singleplayer, to "have more servers to choose from"?

I want a realistic flight sim, that depicts (modern) air combat as realistic as feasible. What I don't want is yet another ex-sim that got washed down with unrealistic options make things more accessible/easier than they are IRL in order to cater to more casual players.

 

 

QuiGon please, as already posted above by someone else: the INS alignment in the F-16C is rudimentary implemented, even in the F/A-18C it's not final as both are still Early Access and not finished in regards to INS alignment and system dependencies.

I hope that SHA will be implemented similar to the Tomcat along the Data Cartridge to have a realistic mission preparation, as well.

I also adressed this earlier in the thread (although I forgot to add the link to Wags' comments, which I now added):

Well, so far everything I've heard from Wags and the ED team indicates that it will stay like this. Coments by Wags like the ones
sound like it is supposed to stay like this. I hope you're right though and there will be such an option for mission makers to select the availabilty of SHA for the Viper, just like there is for the Tomcat.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not aware that I ever said they are?! :huh:

So fantasy conflict with a Carrier Group in the Black Sea is "realistic", but a F/A-18C with CBU-87 is not? Because, let me quote you:

I want a realistic flight sim, that depicts (modern) air combat *as realistic as feasible*.

 

...as for the you said, he said, I said: I said in my first post, where I draw the line at realistic loadouts, and not for the first time. An F-5E dropping JDAM is bogus, as it does not have the necessary wiring for the pylons, so that's a no go. Yet, the F/A-18C can easily employ AGM-65D/G or CBU-87 or Flechette warheads on HYDRA rockets and a Mirage 2000C can drop a Mk-82AIR.

Actually, as has been pointed out, the F/A-18C should be able to use CRV-7 rockets (Canadian Air Force) and is approved vor ASRAAM and that's just one Airframe... so again, nobody wants made up fantasy loadouts, but it would be nice to have less made up, artificial limitations to the loadouts with a bogus "realism" argument. Instead allow for a realistic variety of weapons the airframe is capable/equipped to use without fantasy controls. The MiG-21 is a very good example, how to achieve this and keep "true to life".

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So fantasy conflict with a Carrier Group in the Black Sea is "realistic", but a F/A-18C with CBU-87 is not? Because, let me quote you:

Am I stupid? Even in your quote of me I don't see me saying that this would be realistic?! :huh:

 

...as for the you said, he said, I said: I said in my first post, where I draw the line at realistic loadouts, and not for the first time. An F-5E dropping JDAM is bogus, as it does not have the necessary wiring for the pylons, so that's a no go. Yet, the F/A-18C can easily employ AGM-65D/G or CBU-87 or Flechette warheads on HYDRA rockets and a Mirage 2000C can drop a Mk-82AIR.

Actually, as has been pointed out, the F/A-18C should be able to use CRV-7 rockets (Canadian Air Force) and is approved vor ASRAAM and that's just one Airframe... so again, nobody wants made up fantasy loadouts, but it would be nice to have less made up, artificial limitations to the loadouts with a bogus "realism" argument. Instead allow for a realistic variety of weapons the airframe is capable/equipped to use without fantasy controls. The MiG-21 is a very good example, how to achieve this and keep "true to life".

CRV-7s and ASRAAM are indeed approved on the 18C, but not necessarily on the Lot20 we have. If they are, then I would have no problem with them getting implemented, although I would prefer them to be restricted to the specific countries, because if the ASRAAM turns out to be better than the 9X and everyone in DCS would then fly around with USN Hornets armed with ASRAAMs instead of 9X, this would be far from realistic.

 

But to put an end to this OT discussion I would rather like to address the actual issue of the OP of this thread: A GAU-19 on the Kiowa would not be realistic as it was never anything more than a prototype test project. The other systems that the OP mentioned were actually fielded and hence would be realistic to have in DCS.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not logic, it's Fri13. And never shall the twain meet.

 

I love it, it's too true

 

If he wasn't so combative at times, I'd say he has the qualities of a true skeptic

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] DCS: The most expensive free game you'll ever play

 

 

 

Modules: All of them

System:

 

I9-9900k, ROG Maximus , 32gb ram, RTX2070 Founder's Edition, t16000,hotas, pedals & cougar MFD, HP Reverb 1.2, HTC VIVE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I stupid? Even in your quote of me I don't see me saying that this would be realistic?! :huh:

I want a realistic flight sim, that depicts (modern) air combat *as realistic as feasible*.

That pretty much reduces your DCS experience to NTTR with Red Flag and unarmed Aggressors/ground forces and russian Su-27/MiGh29, Su-25 in the Caucasus conflict... and I am sure that's not the only scenario you are playing.

So realism on your side is veeeery selective?

To sum it up: I don't like artificial limitations with a bogus "realism" argument, that serve only the purpose to enforce some small groups preferred preferences for multiplayer on everyone, including campaigns and singleplayer. Especially if you could easily set the respective options/limitations for yourself and just host a server to your liking. Instead you want anybody else to suffer from your personal choice.

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...)

But to put an end to this OT discussion I would rather like to address the actual issue of the OP of this thread: A GAU-19 on the Kiowa would not be realistic as it was never anything more than a prototype test project. The other systems that the OP mentioned were actually fielded and hence would be realistic to have in DCS.

The real question is, was it tested successful or not?

...or should we really start limiting Modules to maps and opponents they actually were fielded against to have it as realistic as feasible? I mean you have proof for any USAF/USN/USMC fighter jets being fielded in the Caucasus I am happy to hear. Otherwise we should definitely block these planes from being used on that map, shouldn't we?

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question is, was it tested successful or not?

That's your opinion. In my opinion the real question is, was it actually used (deployed) to the units or not and were the squadron Kiowas capable of using it. Same with the AIM-120 on the Tomcat, which has also been tested, but never fielded:

Putting a 120 on a Fleet F-14A/B is throwing Loadout and Capability Accuracy out the window as Fleet birds were not capable of deploying this missile.

Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's your opinion. In my opinion the real question is, was it actually used (deployed) to the units or not and were the squadron Kiowas capable of using it. Same with the AIM-120 on the Tomcat, which has also been tested, but never fielded:

 

It was tested successfully. 1/17 got to shoot it. We did the academics at 3/17 and expected to see it in Afghanistan in 2013, but the program was cancelled.


Edited by Coota0
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and that clears that. Thanks Coota0.

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's your opinion. In my opinion (...)

That is the basic problem. Only that "my opinion" leaves you with the option to make "your opinion" work, by ticking an option box, and "your opinion" enforces your preference on anybody else, which I find utterly egoistic and unacceptable.

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was tested successfully. 1/17 got to shoot it. We did the academics at 3/17 and expected to see it in Afghanistan in 2013, but the program was cancelled.

That's interesting, thanks! :thumbup:

So the program got canceled, before it got fielded. That makes it pretty clear indeed.


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's interesting, thanks!

So the program got canceled, before it got fielded. That clears it up indeed.

So, it was live fired, approved and can be used whenever there is an operational need for it... so why exactly should it be not be implemented for mission design, again? Because you are afraid of a fictional conflict on the Caucasus map, where an OH-58D "could" field a GAU-19 to suppress infantry and that's "unrealistic", but a US Squadron of A-10C/F-15C/F/A-18C strafing and bombing the shit out of russian ground forces is "true to life"?

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it was live fired, approved and can be used whenever there is an operational need for it... so why exactly should it be not be implemented for mission design, again?

Because the program got canceled before it made it into operational service. If that isn't clear enough then I don't know what is.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the program got canceled before it made it into operational service. If that isn't clear enough then I don't know what is.

 

I think ultimately that would be up to PC to decide. Given that the airframe was cleared and able to carry it I think the GAU-19 would make a great addition to the KW. It does not appear to be that unrealistic for us, seeing as it fires the same .50 cal munition as the M3P, just at a faster fire rate.

 

In terms of "making it into operational service", there is the matter of the bomb load on the F-14B. In a similar fashion this program also never made it into operational service due to concerns about the bomb clearance from the airframe: would you also suggest that that needs to be removed to suit realism?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Groundpounder extraordinaire

 

 

SPECS: i7-4790K, MSI Z97 Gaming 7, 16 GB RAM, MSI GTX 980ti, Thrustmaster WARTHOG HOTAS, Saitek Pro Combat Rudder pedals, TrackIR 5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of effed up logic is that? :huh:

By that logic literally everything is possible as you will never be able to proof that somewhere in some dark secret Skunk Work lab someone put weapon X on aircraft Y.

 

Take good look at this:

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=234847&d=1588663300

 

1) First of all, is it logical that example Kiowa Warrior is made to carry in example a AGM-86?

Is there a possible scenario where you would want to launch that missile from a helicopter like a Kiowa? Has anyone ever done anything like that?

 

2) Secondly is it possible? One missile weights about 1500 kg, would Kiowa be able to carry one or two of it? What would happen on the moment of launch of it? Could a Kiowa Warrior survive from a launch?

 

3) Is it technically possible that to be integrated to the system?

 

4) Is there material that a such weapon and aircraft exist?

 

5) Would there be any documents available as evidence for a such weaponry be tested or even questioned for a Kiowa (helicopter overall)?

 

6) Are there any neutral testimonies (photographs, interviews etc) for such combo?

 

7) Are there party testimonies (pilots, ground crews, maintenance personnel etc) that talks or show about such combinations?

 

If you look carefully, it all falls already in the first point, there wouldn't be any logic to have a such weapon.

 

No replace the AGM-86 with a AIM-9 or R-60/R-73, what happens?

How about if you swap it to some ATGM?

 

All the ridiculous ideas are easily to be dropped by the logic.

 

As a sim DCS should stay on proven ground and implement things that are actually known to be a thing IRL and not implement all kind of hypotetical stuff that could have been.

 

That is what I said, if someone has it tested, found it working but not taken in operational use because politics or simply no requirement in missions = possibility to be implemented in DCS & up to mission designer to decide is it available in DCS.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the program got canceled before it made it into operational service. If that isn't clear enough then I don't know what is.
You mean somebody decided, that they won't buy them for the Kiowa, as there was no operational need.

...and I would still like to know your opinion on aircraft flying fantasy missions with "true to life" loadouts on maps that never, ever saw these planes in real life?

Seems you are a bit hypocritical about that whole realism thing... it needs only to be "true to life" when it suits you, else it can be the weirdest shit.

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, to maybe get the salt out of the topic a bit, I might link in here ?

 

Why are we not integratging the GAU19. Simple, we talked tot he SMEs. The GAU19 was tested, even one of the SMEs did test it. Another one has seen the maintenance reports as crew chief. There were numerous reasons why it was not fielded. The fact it was not fielded and used in an operational manner and has not been deliverred to any operational unit for anything else then testing stuff, made me call, with the vote of the team, that the M3P 50 cal was the gun to go with only, cause it was the ine that was used for many years reliable in combat. I will not go into further details about the GAU19 what issues were occuring in RL why it did not make it into the field, but there were reasons.

 

If we talk about realism, we then would have to integrate the FIM92 STINGER block 2 with a head on range of more then twice the block 1 has.We made the call, NOPE, cause the fast jet fanboys would be super upset to be shot down by KIOWAS, although in reality, this would very very likely happen easily within a 20km circle. So to speak, we made the call on our side, that we will not integrate systems that either were only tested or never made it to the field, although the block 2 was fielded as far I heard. In case of the blcok 2 we simply are not making it for the sake of the community and balance it there for the fast jet fans, as I am one myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it, that the GAU-19 had issues you are not allowed/willing to model, as it is more trouble than benefit. Ok, that is not what I hoped for, but reasonable, but the self-defense Stinger SAM?

Realism out the window in favor of balancing, to make the air-quake guys happy? Well, it is your call, after all. I just can't see the point... basically we will miss a self-defense system actually implemented for the purpose of not being a sitting duck like in other helos and the only reason is "jet pilots would be annoyed", when the easy prey had teeth?

Why can't the mission designer make that choice?

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...