Jump to content

ED implemented laser guided rockets


Fri13

Recommended Posts

Its not a simple as that. Nothing is slapped on without first being testing, and a official manual being revised to document new procedures for new integrated weapons so other pilots can be taught how to use it.

 

Using such line of reasoning to justify any weapon is a quite a slippery slope to getting totally speculative fiction genre of loadouts.

 

Well, if what Fri13 says is true (and from the looks of it it is), then its as easy as plugging in a USB 1.1 cable into any USB 1-3 port - itll work. If the launching aircraft can self designate or can pick up a buddy lase, then there doesnt need to be any special mods to use the rockets. The F-5E can drop LGBs just fine without the use of a pod; Im fairly sure an F-18 can do the same with no problems whatsoever, alongside the F-14. Just because they've never been fitted to the aircraft before doesnt mean they cant be fitted to it now IRL.


Edited by Hammer1-1

Intel 13900k @ 5.8ghz | 64gb GSkill Trident Z | MSI z790 Meg ACE| Zotac RTX4090 | Asus 1000w psu | Slaw RX Viper 2 pedals | VKB Gunfighter Mk3 MCE Ultimate + STECS/ Virpil MongoosT50+ MongoosT50CM | K-51 Collective + custom AH64D TEDAC | HP Reverb G2 | Windows 11 Pro | |Samsung Odyssey G9 | Next Level Racing Flight Seat Pro

The Boeing MQ-25A Sting Ray = Dirt Devil with wings
 My wallpaper and skins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can all get into loud arguments about this but at the end of the day, it is ED that holds the final say and perhaps we should MAYBE consider that they may have their own reasons to not include such weapons.

 

It is up to ED, if you read the topic, it is "ED implemented laser guided rockets" meaning that it should be ED that does it.

 

Polychop has added them already to their coming DCS: Kiowa.

Razbam has been talking to add them to their DCS: AV-8B Harrier II, question is about ED.

Deka Ironworks has implemented their own BRM-1 laser guided rockets, those are unique for JF-17 and are 90mm in diameter. (Currently broken, being a laser bream riders instead laser spot tracking as should).

 

Since their release, lots of currently in service being helicopters, fighters etc has been qualified to use those. It is just politics really in USA, where every tiny change is behind a committee of congress and their budget checking.

 

Let's think about forward next 20 years. If there would come a new kind weapons that do not require anything changed in the aircrafts that are currently in DCS so being a backward compatible, why should those not to be considered added to be used?

 

Be it a new shell for a cannon that has identical flight dynamics but just 30% better penetration?

Or a new missile with identical flight performance but just much better seeker logic?

 

Perhaps it does simply come down to only using weapons that are available on a very, very specific airframe during a very specific timeframe but maybe it goes beyond that. Maybe ED was simply not able to get the minimum amount of documentation that they require to feel comfortable implementing such a thing. Perhaps they were told that such weapons would be a no go for them as part of their relationship with Boeing and the like.

 

If it is just about licensing, then it is that. But discussion is not anymore about licensing but logic that would it be implemented when it is a backward compatible weapon without any changes to the older weapons systems at all.

The only difference is really that the ground crew does the conversion, programs the laser code to each rocket, and then pilot has minimal training (knows they can use laser designator to guide rockets).

 

But as it is already known, APKWS is coming to DCS. But it is only for specific module, while it should be to all compatible systems (all that are capable to carry and launch standard 2.75" rockets).

 

It is easy for us to say "it would be easy! Why don't they just do it already!" but there may be more to it than simply ED not giving you what you want for the fun of it.

 

It is easier to say "It is easy to say "it would be easy".

 

It is easy for modders already implement existing weapons to other platforms.

It is easy for developers with the SDK to create a wrong laser guidance weapon (beam rider instead spot tracking).

It is easy to take the existing 3D model, and add the extra part and animate it, as there is all the exiting material for the 3D modeling, that almost anyone could basically learn to do in few hours regardless ever touching 3D modeling softwares (animation is slightly more challenging thing to learn).

 

The most challenging part really would be implementing the laser guidance. If the SDK allows to copy example the Hellfire LOAL function, tweak it to known parameters (FOV, Range etc), then it will work.

As the hard part is already done, the propulsion, the damage, core flight modeling etc.

There are some informations that needs to be made, like what is the turn rate of the rocket, but as the 3D model is known, it can be fairly accurately calculated with CFD if not otherwise found.

 

 

The weapons in the DCS are under heavy changes at the moment. Lots of old wrong data is being changed and all kind other things are done. There are lots of new weapons as well added, but as well some policies done like there are no WMD for effects, like AFAIK ED has denied to create the effect for the MiG-21Bis nuclear bombs, so developers needs to use just larger normal bomb effect.

 

Meaning, rockets like APKWS doesn't need to be perfect to begin with because no others are either. Be it a AIM-54 acting like AIM-120C etc. Problems are known and they take to get fixed, but overtime such backward compatible weapons should be implemented by ED and not by third party studios. Just so that we can get them same to all platforms than different.

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

Its not a simple as that. Nothing is slapped on without first being testing, and a official manual being revised to document new procedures for new integrated weapons so other pilots can be taught how to use it.

 

Using such line of reasoning to justify any weapon is a quite a slippery slope to getting totally speculative fiction genre of loadouts.

 

So you are just against it because the pilot flight manual before 2012 when the APKWS was taken in service doesn't mention the future weapon?

 

Okay....

 

THEN UPDATE THE MANUAL TO 2020!

And then again next year you update it to 2021! And again and again and again!

 

Pilots goes through lots of training and procedures that are never mentioned in any of the flight manuals etc. That is the life! Not everything is documented!

 

The laser guided rockets are exactly like the any other rocket. The only difference really is that pilot is trained to know that now they can use their targeting pods to designate laser first and then launch rockets at that target.

 

The rocket does all by itself. It is completely autonomous without anything from pilot to do!

 

1) Pilot knows the laser code that rockets were set (again, mission briefing, not in the cockpit through kneeboard or MFCD, something that is cheated in many weapons in DCS!).

2) Pilot knows that they are carrying converted rockets instead ordinary (Duh!).

 

If you think that it takes new manual to explain pilot that how to use a targeting pod (that they anyways has received their training) with laser guided rockets instead laser guided missiles, then you are just demanding that >50% of the DCS gets scrapped straight out as nothing is so accurate and detailed as you demand.

 

 

That is already one of the major arguments in the Harrier forum, that people like you are saying that Razbam can't do a AV-8B+ Harrier because it is completely different than N/A variant, because it has F/A-18C radar (smaller radar just), AIM-120 and all other missiles etc.

Yet they completely miss the fact, that AV-8B N/A and AV-8B+ share the identical flight manual! Because they are so identical, that only thing really different is that Harrier pilot gets a radar screen from F/A-18C to their MFCD and new weapons. The pilots goes through the conversion training that is minimal, because they have already learned to use radars previously, and then they are good to go.

The pilots are not idiots who doesn't realize that they don't anymore have ARBS system and so on DMT, but they need to use the TPOD (Litening), that some has already custom to use anyways.The laser guided rockets is even simpler than that.

 

And those has been tested already. Even if things works in tests, there can be one politician that says "No, you can't have that because it costs more money per rocket, regardless that you would use 50 times less rockets to kill the same target and that way save money, but we have already 500 000 rockets in warehouse and we need to keep paying to weapons manufacturers so they stay in business, so we are going to waste those rockets so we can buy more of them".

 

There are officers whose task is to approve something in service to their squadron, they just say "No, we are not going to load those things because I believe that we are not needing them". So it is just one guy thinking so, and it takes time until that guy gets replaced by someone else regardless what the pilots or other squadrons would say.

 

ED is already in tough place with F/A-18C Hornet, trying to stay just in their USN version, regardless that other countries flying that same exact aircraft would have other weapons loadouts etc. But they have given up in many places by giving it option for mission designers to select specific adapter and loadouts.

 

These are things that shouldn't be so exactly strict that because old flight manual doesn't say something, or some politician says something by money, that it is then so. As that is against the Simulator in the DCS. It is against the idea of the sandboxes. And if you take either one of those away, you can go back to demand that mission editor is removed from the DCS, that only historical missions are possible be fly that are made by ED with strict rules etc.

 

You have gone now through multiple loops to just be against the idea, by not knowing what the laser guided rockets are and how they are used etc. Just by inventing what ever block you can come up with, and your last ones seems to be "It is not in the manual, it can't be!".

 

Those are in active service, just like I have told and with even older aircrafts than we have in DCS like UH-1B! Problem is that militaries in the world doesn't anymore even use the oldest possible platforms because no one is flying A-10A anymore or Su-25A! Things has got upgraded and updated that everything that could be used to launch those is just in scrap yard. But they would work there.

 

 

So what the Polychop is doing, is develop a OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, that is upgrade to OH-58D AHIP (Advanced Helicopter Improvement Program) and it is from 1991. with some updates up to 1997.

And they add the APKWS weapons to it, that is from 2012, as that is perfectly backward compatible to every FFAR pods using platform without any modifications.

What the mission designer is tasked is to make the selection does they allow APKWS to be used on missions that are before 2012, or even past 2002 when development started with some fictional reasoning, or simply disallow all together.

For multiplayer it is easy task for server mission designer to simply deny APKWS access to OH-58D just like now some cold war servers deny AIM-120 missiles to Hornet etc.

 

If ED would offer these laser guided rockets, it would then be compatible with everything and third party studios has easier way to get compatible rockets. But now it seems that different studios are implementing their own version of the same weapons, likely behaving differently between (considering that there are separate versions for fixed wings and rotary wings).


Edited by Fri13

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

Well, if what Fri13 says is true (and from the looks of it it is), then its as easy as plugging in a USB 1.1 cable into any USB 1-3 port - itll work. If the launching aircraft can self designate or can pick up a buddy lase, then there doesnt need to be any special mods to use the rockets. The F-5E can drop LGBs just fine without the use of a pod; Im fairly sure an F-18 can do the same with no problems whatsoever, alongside the F-14. Just because they've never been fitted to the aircraft before doesnt mean they cant be fitted to it now IRL.

 

ED has never said they would add it. And its unreasonable to expect it. we have a 2005 era hornet. It doesnt matter how simple it is. even if it requires no modifications. Plug and play typically referes to more modern aircraft. It can be a sometimes misleading statement You can't or e "plug and play" a Litening 2 or ATFLIR to an F14. Remember that old Lantirn integration was not and easy plug and play ordeal due to the analog nature of the A and B versions of the tomcat. They literally had to create a unique lantirn Control panel for the TGP specific for the cat, and install necessary wiring to a pylon that was going to have the LAntirn carried.

 

There are plenty of other weapons that could be added that require no modifications yet we dont have them such as AIm9X block 2, or a newer iteration of the Litening 2 targeting pod with purely better image resolution ( IE litening 2 G4).

 

BUt in 2018 when APKWS is cleared for USMC hornets i dont think any hornet is operating same avionics or software suite a 2005 era hornet is, purely because all are updated to newer standards.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

IM pretty sure if they wanted to they will model the av8b plus any time soon they would have already said so. Any plans for av8B plus were loosly mentioned as considerations long ago when av8B was not yet even in EA, and at a time when Razbam was't trying to be overly ambiguous in planning to model every aircraft in existence, that theyl never have the time to do. At this point however perhaps its not worth the time and $$ spent on developing it unless they make it a paid DLC.

 

Even the ED simple NS430 GPS was not free but as a paid for DLC type modification. for mi8 and L39C just to have it directly integrated into the 3d cockpit . there far more effort than a single piece of avionic for the harrier plus. Integration of a multimode Radar, radar based delivery procedures and time spend adjusting the flight model. So given such a comparison

 

 

So when you consider this, and also note that Razbam has thier plate full with a ton of other projects, i wouldn't be surprised if its either becomes paid upgrade, or they abandon their original plans for the plus because they are busy with so many other things. Alot has changed since initial av8B project was annouced.

 

 

So learn to manage your expectations even if you think its "so easy"


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED won't add it. we have a 2005 era hornet. It doesnt matter how simple it is.

 

So now you talk behalf of the ED. Okay.

Two simple questions for you.

 

1) Do you know how to fire 2.75" rockets in Hornet?

 

2) Do you know how to designate target with Litening in Hornet and fire its laser?

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

 

.

 

 

Wrong.

 

Anyone should be able to tell from cockpit screenshots alone that this OH58D is definitely not just " 1991 model with some 1997 updates". It has much more recent features.

 

HInt Hint

 

AN/AAR47 V2 MWS, and LCD based colour cockpit displays.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today's dev stream hosted by the Kiowa developer showcased (among other things) APKWS weapons employment, with community streamers as pilots.

 

Laser designate and release weapon.

 

My thinking in earlier posts in this thread was whether there are any technical or coding obstacles to including this specific weapon/guidance system in current DCS. I didn't (and don't) think so, but I'm always interested in the knowledge of this community and an opportunity to learn.

 

Seeing that a 3rd party developer has included this in the module confirms that there is no software reason preventing its use.

 

I won't speculate as to if or why ED would choose to include or reject it; I have no knowledge of ED's decision making.

But if they decide to make it available to compatible/approved aircraft, it seems they can.

 

I'm looking forward to using this in the Kiowa. Should be fun.

 

Sounds about right considering the Kiowa they are modelling is representative of a 2012 + version.....

 

so its not out of the question for them to decide to to also include APKWS for Oh58D. Not anachronistic at all. AS the developers even stated, when other forum user asked about other systems ( specifically about AN/AAR47) not referenced in their copy of a manual the response was something along the lines of "you have very dated manual. The ones our team is using you won't find online."


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not referenced in their copy of a manual the response was something along the lines of "you have very dated manual. The ones our team is using you won't find online."

 

Latest manual you find for Su-27 is SK... The very first manual to Su-27S export version.

You don't find in online any newer one.....

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

Wrong.

 

Anyone should be able to tell from cockpit screenshots alone that this OH58D is definitely not just " 1991 model with some 1997 updates". It has much more recent features.

 

HInt Hint

 

AN/AAR47 V2 MWS, and LCD based colour cockpit displays.

 

Hint hint, services since 2003 for a legacy Kiowa Warriors that has fielded AN/AAR47 since 1987.... Some models upgraded, some maintained older with the 1997 D model.

And what you see in the video, it is the AN/AAR47.

 

aar-47v-mws-control-1-jpg

 

And Kiowa Warrior is all LCD...

 

But you are still missing the fact, APKWS is backward compatible to any platform that can launch standard FFAR rockets. Limitation is, do you fly those legacy platforms anymore....

 

The OH-58D Kiowa Warrior is a single engine reconnaissance helicopter, developed by Bell. It represents a further development of its predecessor, the OH-58 Kiowa scout helicopter. It is a result of the Army Helicopter Improvement Program or AHIP. The first OH-58D prototype made its maiden flight in 1983. Deliveries began in 1985, and the first deliveries to a Europe-based unit took place in 1987. Under Operation Prime Chance, 15 OH-58Ds were modified from 1987 for operations against Iranian fast patrol boats in the Persian Gulf. These helicopters were fitted with hardpoint for weapons. Provision was made for Stinger air-to-air missiles and Hellfire anti-tank guided missiles in addition to 12.7 mm machine-gun pods and rocket launchers. These helicopters were designated as OH-58D(I) Kiowa Warrior. Later all previous OH-58Ds have been upgraded to this standard. By 1998 a total of 424 helicopters, including some older OH-58, were upgraded to the Kiowa Warrior standard. As of 2013 a total 368 of these helicopters were in service. This reconnaissance helicopter has saw action in Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Taiwan is the only export operator of new-build full-standard OH-58Ds, receiving 26 examples from 1993. Saudi Arabia operates 15 of the simplified Model 406CS Combat Scout variant.[/Quote]

 

The Kiowa Warrior is VERY OLD platform. It has been FAR AHEAD in technology, like MWS and LCD screens etc from the late 80's. First western helicopter to have glass cockpit etc.

 

Digital cockpit etc made it very futuristic system.

But you are still dancing around fact, APKWS is backward compatible for anything that you can operate since 2012....

So if you would still fly AH-64A or A-10A or even a UH-1B from 1962, you could arm them with APKWS and use them.

No modifications or changes or anything to hardware or software. As long you have a standard FFAR capability, you are capable launch those since 2012...

 

You can't take future back in time, but you can bring past to this date.

 

You can continue discussing about OH-58D in their forum, but fact still stands that APKWS is compatible with oldest systems that can just launch standard FFAR. As long you can fly it in mission from 2012+. And that is up to mission designer to decide what year their mission is and what weapons they allow.


Edited by Fri13

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

Latest manual you find for Su-27 is SK... The very first manual to Su-27S export version.

You don't find in online any newer one.....

 

 

 

Last time i checked you can't find a 2007 USAF F16C blk 50 flight manual, similarly dated dash 34, or its CCIP program supplemental manual via google. Nor Luftwaffe Euro-fighter manuals for that matter.

 

 

Guess what? Just because you can't find something online via google search doesn't mean a software company that has signed a license agreement with a defense contractor to make a simulation of their aircraft won't be provided documentation that are non classified but still restricted in distribution have not yet been leaked to the internet.......


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hint hint, services since 2003 for a legacy Kiowa Warriors that has fielded AN/AAR47 since 1987.... Some models upgraded, some maintained older with the 1997 D model.

And what you see in the video, it is the AN/AAR47.

 

aar-47v-mws-control-1-jpg

 

And Kiowa Warrior is all LCD...

 

But you are still missing the fact, APKWS is backward compatible to any platform that can launch standard FFAR rockets. Limitation is, do you fly those legacy platforms anymore....

 

 

 

The Kiowa Warrior is VERY OLD platform. It has been FAR AHEAD in technology, like MWS and LCD screens etc from the late 80's. First western helicopter to have glass cockpit etc.

 

Digital cockpit etc made it very futuristic system.

But you are still dancing around fact, APKWS is backward compatible for anything that you can operate since 2012....

So if you would still fly AH-64A or A-10A or even a UH-1B from 1962, you could arm them with APKWS and use them.

No modifications or changes or anything to hardware or software. As long you have a standard FFAR capability, you are capable launch those since 2012...

 

You can't take future back in time, but you can bring past to this date.

 

You can continue discussing about OH-58D in their forum, but fact still stands that APKWS is compatible with oldest systems that can just launch standard FFAR. As long you can fly it in mission from 2012+. And that is up to mission designer to decide what year their mission is and what weapons they allow.

 

Wrong again. The Kiowa warrior never had colour LCD displays until more recent years. The original displays are Monochrome green CRT monitors.

 

 

Yes i know what AAR47 control panel looks like. Thats why i called you out on your prior incorrect claim of the kiowa being a 1997 model. If i didn't know what AAR47 looked liked then i wouldn't have been able to call you out.

 

Just because AN/AAR47 may have been available in 2003 for some other helicopter platforms but OH58D's still didn't get them at that time. There are improved version of the AAR47 in circulation since.

 

 

This is a research paper from 2008. You can see images At this point OH58D still has NO AAR47 and still sporting old monochrome displays.

 

https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1524&context=utk_gradthes

 

 

Also this a presentation from 2008 regarding AAR47 integration. Does not list OH58D as a platform that using this system.

 

https://manualzz.com/doc/36209088/an-aar-47-v-1-2-sensor-upgrade-program

 

 

You also will see any deployment videos with pilot cockpit footage from this time frame. Kiowas don't have updated avionics you see in the polychop simulation until about 2012 which coincides with the completion of WRA program. The era of simulations based on these updated avionics is very much circa 2012 or later Oh58D.

 

 

It doesn't matter if you assume it can theoretically be used with older systems. These OLDER systems are no longer around in their respective branches, let alone tested to verify compatibility!

 

So yos it would be anachronistic to have APKWS for AH64A or A10A, or for that matter if we hypothetically had pre 2012 OH58D ( which I demonstrated we obviously don't). Certainly not a Uh1B. since it a totally analog platform and has no means to self designate targets. Therefore it is still an assumption made on your behalf that it can work with the "oldest systems".


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED has never said they would add it. And its unreasonable to expect it. we have a 2005 era hornet. It doesnt matter how simple it is. even if it requires no modifications. Plug and play typically referes to more modern aircraft. It can be a sometimes misleading statement You can't or e "plug and play" a Litening 2 or ATFLIR to an F14. Remember that old Lantirn integration was not and easy plug and play ordeal due to the analog nature of the A and B versions of the tomcat. They literally had to create a unique lantirn Control panel for the TGP specific for the cat, and install necessary wiring to a pylon that was going to have the LAntirn carried.

 

There are plenty of other weapons that could be added that require no modifications yet we dont have them such as AIm9X block 2, or a newer iteration of the Litening 2 targeting pod with purely better image resolution ( IE litening 2 G4).

 

BUt in 2018 when APKWS is cleared for USMC hornets i dont think any hornet is operating same avionics or software suite a 2005 era hornet is, purely because all are updated to newer standards.

If ED says they arent doing it then thats that. But....

 

The F/A-18C models are going to be phased out soon. The navy has already retired them from active service in support for the F-35C. The Marine Corps will be retiring them soon too as they cant keep them in the air for much longer, and from what Ive read somewhere - not sure if its correct or not - moving to use the older -18E/F models the navy is retiring. So the fact that they will never get upgraded is kind of a moot point; but hypothetically speaking, its not really a big issue to say they can be certified to shoot those rounds in its current configuration. If all it takes is a test flight to tick that box on the weapons loadout then its only a formality. If you want to get technical about it, then we should have the B-57 or B-61 can of artificial sunshine in the loadout too. Semantics.


Edited by Hammer1-1

Intel 13900k @ 5.8ghz | 64gb GSkill Trident Z | MSI z790 Meg ACE| Zotac RTX4090 | Asus 1000w psu | Slaw RX Viper 2 pedals | VKB Gunfighter Mk3 MCE Ultimate + STECS/ Virpil MongoosT50+ MongoosT50CM | K-51 Collective + custom AH64D TEDAC | HP Reverb G2 | Windows 11 Pro | |Samsung Odyssey G9 | Next Level Racing Flight Seat Pro

The Boeing MQ-25A Sting Ray = Dirt Devil with wings
 My wallpaper and skins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ED says they arent doing it then thats that. But....

 

The F/A-18C models are going to be phased out soon. The navy has already retired them from active service in support for the F-35C. The Marine Corps will be retiring them soon too as they cant keep them in the air for much longer, and from what Ive read somewhere - not sure if its correct or not - moving to use the older -18E/F models the navy is retiring. So the fact that they will never get upgraded is kind of a moot point; but hypothetically speaking, its not really a big issue to say they can be certified to shoot those rounds in its current configuration. If all it takes is a test flight to tick that box on the weapons loadout then its only a formality. If you want to get technical about it, then we should have the B-57 or B-61 can of artificial sunshine in the loadout too. Semantics.

 

The navy still uses legacies with reserve and aggressor units. The USMC is not phasing out F/A18C's they are going to operate C models ( the ones that can fly) along with the D models until 2030.

 

 

Then there's a matter of export users. F/A18C's are still in operation by Finland, Switzerland, and various foreign F/A18A models have been upgraded to comparable USMC F/A18A++ standards such as the CF18 hornets, Aussie Hornets. They use all the stuff that current era F/A18C has but with the exception of retaining OLD analog engine/fuel indicators but in turn sport newer displaye due to having replaced the old school DDI's with LCD color displays, and a more ergonomic MPCD thats tilted at an angle upwards for easier viewing. Otherwise same weapons and software specs.

 

Even Wag's said said they they were still asked to make small modification the Flight model just enough so it would not 100% reflect the performance charts.

 

Yea we should have B61 ( i would be happy to have nukes just for the novelty of messing around in single player even if they would be banned from most MP servers like R24/R28 ), but ED have their reasons for not doing nuclear weapons outside of " oh nuke effect suck atm". IT is what it is. Those arent going to happen for any ED made product.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what Ive read, the navy has retired all C models as of 2019. The Aggressor units I believe yes they still have them, but I doubt any reserve units keep them at all. I dont know much about USMC units other than they are having a hard time keeping theirs airworthy even scavenging museums for spare parts. That could have been for their A models though...

 

As far as ED keeping the time frame for specific aircraft though, it could be said that they dont really keep hold on that tradition all that tightly as seen with the Ka-50 and the Su-25T as very few models exist, and even fewer models have seen actual combat...and fewer still with the loadouts we see on these airframes in the sim now. Its entirely in the realm of possibility to add laser guided rockets to the inventory of every NATO aircraft we have that can fly with these rocket pods. And with that said, if Razbam is going to add them to their aircraft it wont be too long before a modder out there adds them to the Hornet too.

Intel 13900k @ 5.8ghz | 64gb GSkill Trident Z | MSI z790 Meg ACE| Zotac RTX4090 | Asus 1000w psu | Slaw RX Viper 2 pedals | VKB Gunfighter Mk3 MCE Ultimate + STECS/ Virpil MongoosT50+ MongoosT50CM | K-51 Collective + custom AH64D TEDAC | HP Reverb G2 | Windows 11 Pro | |Samsung Odyssey G9 | Next Level Racing Flight Seat Pro

The Boeing MQ-25A Sting Ray = Dirt Devil with wings
 My wallpaper and skins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sitting somewhere in the middle here. I understand "backwards compatible" and "no integration required" but we get these discussions come up time and time again. There is a ticket open for the Mig-21 with the picture of a Cuban BiS with R-73's, the F-5 sidewinders, the Ka-50 igla story, Iranian F-14 changes and so on.

Honestly I believe this is more about limiting the software product to a fixed deliverable than it's IRL possibility more than half the time. Else why would you see Ka-50's BlackShark III, as a paid module?

 

 

I can only see this as a software restriction and a budget constraint, and not as a real practical limitation, the excuses about "was it in existence in 1998 on block XYZ version Blah?" don't really wash, and neither do the choices the modules are made with about what systems the aircraft registration had at the date time IN THE PAST. But monetry, project and practical limits, yes, these make sense to me from a software side. For example, we can't expect our X labeled module from 2019 to have future updates of weaponry from 2021, that's not a supportable situation. What you get is what they set out to do and if it didnt include laser riding rockets, then it's tough shit tbh. I'm sure you can ask and fund the addition yourselves, but what you bought from a module does in fact have an end of development sunset, as sad as that might be. DCS is an open development continual improvement platform. DCS modules are not. If you get additions to what they set out to do, you are... lucky, or there is money involved.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sitting somewhere in the middle here. I understand "backwards compatible" and "no integration required" but we get these discussions come up time and time again. There is a ticket open for the Mig-21 with the picture of a Cuban BiS with R-73's, the F-5 sidewinders, the Ka-50 igla story, Iranian F-14 changes and so on.

Honestly I believe this is more about limiting the software product to a fixed deliverable than it's IRL possibility more than half the time. Else why would you see Ka-50's BlackShark III, as a paid module?

 

 

I can only see this as a software restriction and a budget constraint, and not as a real practical limitation, the excuses about "was it in existence in 1998 on block XYZ version Blah?" don't really wash, and neither do the choices the modules are made with about what systems the aircraft registration had at the date time IN THE PAST. But monetry, project and practical limits, yes, these make sense to me from a software side. For example, we can't expect our X labeled module from 2019 to have future updates of weaponry from 2021, that's not a supportable situation. What you get is what they set out to do and if it didnt include laser riding rockets, then it's tough shit tbh. I'm sure you can ask and fund the addition yourselves, but what you bought from a module does in fact have an end of development sunset, as sad as that might be. DCS is an open development continual improvement platform. DCS modules are not. If you get additions to what they set out to do, you are... lucky, or there is money involved.

 

Exactly this is also something to take into consideration software has a deelopment cycle end.

 

ED didn't set out to make APKWS, because when they started the project not only were they aiming for a certain time frame of aircraft, APKWS simply didnt even exist on Hornets until 2018. The reason they choose a specific timeframe and the weapons associated is because thy choose what they can get data on. IF you recaall early WIP screenshots from around 2013 -2015 of the Hornets showed an earlier lot with 1990s avionics ( no HMD and older MPCD display), and that it was only expected to get old Nitehawk TGP.

 

 

 

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=113681&d=1425053341

 

 

 

 

When the project was approached closer to release they revealed a much more updated Lot 20 Hornet, with "mid 2000's" or circa 2005 features that we are now familiar with. However even due to lacking some information the screenshots and some of WAG's early hornet videps still had a Hornet with the older AN/ALE39 countermeasure suite, and at the last second prior to release they remodeled the Hornet yet again to have AN/ALE47 CM system ( which was the correct system for lot 20 production) because they found enough necessary information to model it. This was explained in wag's hornet mini updates.

 

 

c6nlynr.png

 

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3350852&postcount=26

 

 

AS another example many people were disappointed that F16C would not get JASSM for example, and BIGnewy constantly reminded everyone that it was omitted because they only had enough documentation to model a 2007 viper and not any more modern features.

 

IF ED could , they would have made even more recent iterations of the Viper and Hornet, as we have seen they had in the past revised some features mid development

 

AS such relating to APKWS They have no motivation to add it, unless, they are a upcoming module that uses such weapons system and maybe then they might have a reason to "port it over" to earlier modules

 

But i basically said as much. The only module i see ED looking at APKWS is the upcoming Warthog 2.0, as the promised improved capabilities ( implying a later software suite) and from a more modern time frame may decide to include APKWS for the HOg. WHen ED makes thier own APKWS, maybe then we can actually have a serious conversation about having it included for the hornet.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that DCS doesn't have to absolutely restrict unrealistic payloads. There just needs to be a clear separation of what is realistic or not. In this case, a checkbox that the player has to click to allow for loadouts that the plane is not cleared for.

 

 

ED have limited resources, so this is a good stand in for something like additional versions of an aircraft, or simulating a modified test plane. It may not be a 1:1 match with reality, but it would hardly be the first thing in the sim to be that way. And if it's clearly labeled for what it is, ED can't be accused of being unrealistic, nor would end users be confused.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
+1

 

We need laser corrected unguided rockets for all dcs platforms.

 

Need?

 

Personally, the aircraft like the F/A-18 and the F-16 are supposed to represent aircraft that preceded a time when APKWS was implemented. Implementing them would mean the aircraft represents a more modern version, but with one weapon only, a kind of pick 'n' mix. And pick 'n' mixing has been a problem when it comes to DCS as it is. I think we need to be consistent here.

 

If we're doing an aircraft that represents a more modern version with APKWS, it should ideally have all the other features the modern version has, otherwise we're not being consistent.

 

Yes you can do blah blah whatever with scenarios. That's because the point of DCS is to have assets that are representative, but leave the scenarios up to you, which is exactly the way it should be. Doing otherwise would mean doing away with the mission editor.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not a simple as that. Nothing is slapped on without first being testing, and a official manual being revised to document new procedures for new integrated weapons so other pilots can be taught how to use it.

 

Using such line of reasoning to justify any weapon is a quite a slippery slope to getting totally speculative fiction genre of loadouts.

 

The difference between a hydra 70 and an APKWS is an added small section to the missile.

 

It is comparable to the F-5 dropping GBU-12 instead of a Mk-82.

 

Does the F-5 have any software to support the GBU-12? .. no .. heck no .. to it .. it's just the same drop system as with a Mk-82 .. the rest is done in the bomb .. There is no interface that you need, no connector, no special HUD symbology.

 

But .. maybe that's even too far .. the difference between Hydra 70 and APKWS are smaller. It could be compared to the impact fuze in your bomb being changed to a different type with the same aerodynamics, same interface to the plane, etc.

 

 

 

The one thing I could think of though is that the missile is slightly longer and potentially needs type approval for the airplane you want to stick it on for that reason alone.

 

Otherwise, I hope that ED just makes the missiles available for all Hydra-capable planes and helos by adding it as a new ammunition type for the launcher.

Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Do not expect a reply to any questions, 30.06.2021 - Silenced by Nineline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But .. maybe that's even too far .. the difference between Hydra 70 and APKWS are smaller. It could be compared to the impact fuze in your bomb being changed to a different type with the same aerodynamics, same interface to the plane, etc.

 

 

Bad example, since the AKPWS has more aerodynamic drag than a regular Hydra...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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