Viggen missing feature

Hi Guys,

 

Super impressed with the Viggen, at the moment for it's hands down my best module.

 

However, I read somewhere that the Viggen's vertical stabiliser could be folded (similar to folding wings on carrier-borne aircraft allowing it to fit into smaller hangars. Here's a picture demonstrating it

 

 

This feature seems to be absent in DCS, whilst minor and trivial (seeing as we don't yet have airbases with low hangar ceilings, in the future maybe we might).

 

Regardless, this is a feature on the real aircraft so could we expect to see it some time in the future?

 

Cheers,

 

Ollie

This is something that has to be done by the ground crew I guess and can't be done from the cockpit as it is the case with folded wings on carrier aircraft? So, as cool as this feature is, I don't see its place in DCS.

As stated, it would only be relevant for parked aircraft as it has to be manually lowered and raised.

This is something that has to be done by the ground crew I guess and can't be done from the cockpit as it is the case with folded wings on carrier aircraft? So, as cool as this feature is, I don't see its place in DCS.

 

Yeah but we get wheel chocks for the MiG-15Bis? Something done by the ground crew. I get that you don't see it in DCS at the moment. But consider this if we ever got the ability to set-up improvised areas, which may have hangars with low ceilings (like some of the ones actually associated with the Viggen, you can find pictures of them with a quick google) or got maps with airbases with mentioned low ceilings for hangars, operating out of those airbases isn't possible unless the tail folds because it simply doesn't fit. With wheel chocks, operation is possible regardless no matter where the aircraft is based, they only apply to parked aircraft as well.

 

This is a feature request just for the not so near future, I'm not saying it's something super important, I'm just saying it's a feature on the real aircraft, DCS aims to be as true to life as feasibly possible, so why should this feature be excluded? I know currently we have no ability to set-up improvised airfields or anything related - the closest we have is the ability to set up ground crew for it, but maybe in the future we might be able to place down improvised landing fields, improvised hangars (again DCS is a sandbox at it's core, I believe such items have been put in the wishlist at some point) which may facilitate the need for the folding tail mechanism - like the ones used by the Swedish armed forces to operate their aircraft. If anyone is interested though here are some pictures that I found with a simple search of the mechanism and access hatch.

 

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/101-200/walk200_viggen/images_Anders_Nowotny/13Jagdviggen_vikfena_ho.jpg

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/101-200/walk200_viggen/images_Anders_Nowotny/47vikfena_sida.jpg

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/101-200/walk200_viggen/images_Anders_Nowotny/46vikdetalj_bak.jpg

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/101-200/walk200_viggen/images_Anders_Nowotny/48vikmekanik_framifran.jpg

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/101-200/walk200_viggen/images_Anders_Nowotny/18lucka_fram_vikfena.jpg

 

 

Again, not something totally important, currently has no affect on use, but if improvised fields and sneaky hiding spots for aircraft ever become a thing, and they were used irl, then this becomes more of an important feature.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Northstar98

Well, the folding/erecting of the fin doesn't involve the pilot, at all. It would always be in the flight position when the pilot arrives. The folding/erecting procedure is always conducted by the mechanics, with the engine off.

 

Removing chocks is commanded by the pilot, after engine start. See the difference?

 

A fin fold feature would add nothing to the simulated pilot experience in DCS.

 

But it would be cool to see static aircraft parked with the fin folded, or aircraft being towed with folded fin.

Its been kept too long in captivity inside the bunker, so its dorsal fin has now collapsed :)

Well, the folding/erecting of the fin doesn't involve the pilot, at all. It would always be in the flight position when the pilot arrives. The folding/erecting procedure is always conducted by the mechanics, with the engine off.

 

Removing chocks is commanded by the pilot, after engine start. See the difference?

 

A fin fold feature would add nothing to the simulated pilot experience in DCS.

 

But it would be cool to see static aircraft parked with the fin folded, or aircraft being towed with folded fin.

 

Simulated pilot experience in it's strictest sense yes.

 

You know what also doesn't involve pilots? Aircraft being moved from below decks or hangar to a flight deck of an aircraft carrier or similar vessels such as amphibious assault ships. That doesn't involve pilots at all, but... (taken from DCS news 29th June 2016)

 

This has even less to do with pilots and yet we're still getting them. Aircraft in aviation hangars aboard ships always have engines off, moving them from hangars to the flight deck is always coordinated by mechanics, engineers and aircraft handlers. Pilots always enter their aircraft from the flight deck, aircraft are always started from the flight deck, aircraft are always armed on the flight deck and aircraft are always refuelled from the flight deck. The hangar is there for maintenance, not storage. Only in certain situations where more deck space is required, especially for smaller aircraft carrying ships such as HMS Ocean are aircraft moved into the hangar for anything but maintenance. [To avoid confusion I would love to see working elevators and simulated hangars implemented on applicable vessels].

 

Like I said, minor trivial thing with not much relevance with DCS currently, I just thought that if the real aircraft can do it why shouldn't the DCS aircraft be able to do it? Like I said not really that important.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Northstar98

Its been kept too long in captivity inside the bunker, so its dorsal fin has now collapsed :)

 

My Viggen is never in captivity :)

the model was not built to support this feature. 3d modelling does not work like reality where you can whip out the dremel, separate a section, and slap in some filler without it affecting anything else.

 

you are requesting a non-trivial amount of effort for what even you admit to be a trivial feature, and although i wouldnt mind seeing this either, i believe it would end up so far down the queue as to be practically beyond expectation.

Edited July 24, 2017 by probad

the model was not built to support this feature. 3d modelling does not work like reality where you can whip out the dremel, separate a section, and slap in some filler without it affecting anything else.

 

you are requesting a non-trivial amount of effort for what even you admit to be a trivial feature, and although i wouldnt mind seeing this either, i believe it would end up so far down the queue as to be practically beyond expectation.

 

Would it or would it not be more difficult that a working aircraft elevator?

 

Again

 

 

While that maybe less of task when starting more or less from scratch, we're getting this and involves the pilot less so than what is being described above.

 

I'm not saying it's hugely important, only that it might be important if we ever get improvised landing areas or get maps, with airbases with low hangars - the folding v.stab. is one of the key components facilitating the Viggen's ability to operate from improvised areas.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Northstar98

Would it or would it not be more difficult that a working aircraft elevator? The latter we are getting.

 

Apples to tangerines. The aircraft elevators are in development, the Viggen is a completed rigged 3d model.

the matter of difficulty is a non-issue. things get done according to priorities, and working elevators are a mechanical imperative for the entire naval aviation environment being pushed.

Apples to tangerines. The aircraft elevators are in development, the Viggen is a completed rigged 3d model.

 

And that was precisely the reason why I said this:

 

...less of task when starting more or less from scratch...

 

Granted this is maybe more ambiguous and not very explicit buuut... :music_whistling:

 

the matter of difficulty is a non-issue. things get done according to priorities, and working elevators are a mechanical imperative for the entire naval aviation environment being pushed.

 

Agreed, things do and should get done according to priority. I knew long in advance before even thinking about requesting it that this should be low priority in any sense, there are more pressing issues with the Viggen than a non-folding v.stab.

 

Matter of difficulty, a non-issue? Sorry, gonna have to disagree with you there - I mean it's kind of one of the deciding factors that govern module development - what gets implemented, what doesn't get implemented (realistic IFF anyone?) :music_whistling: I mean I may not be a developer, but I've been on the forum long enough to know this is the case. Plus and I'm not having a go but I thought you said this:

...you are requesting a non-trivial amount of effort for what even you admit to be a trivial feature...

What you're saying here is that the difficulty (and thus effort) involved in implementing this feature doesn't balance with the gain of having the feature present, right? Which fair enough and if that's the case, which it probably is, then I agree. But this means that difficulty is in fact an issue, because if this was like an overnight fix, requiring minuscule effort then difficulty wouldn't be a principle factor in deciding whether or not the feature gets implemented. You have told me in the above quote that the difficulty and effort required to implement the feature doesn't balance out the gain we get from having the feature (which again, I agree with if that's the case, which it probably is), but now you're saying difficulty is a non-issue? I think some clarification is in order...

 

I sense a drifting away from topic and yes I know, I started it, my apologies. Buuuuut... you say elevators and hangars are a "mechanical imperative" for the naval environment in DCS. How exactly? Sorties begin on the flight deck, moving aircraft into hangars is done by 'ground crew' - engineers, mechanics and aircraft handlers. As far as pilots are concerned aircraft start missions on the flight deck, they end their missions on the flight deck. In normal operation aircraft are not stored in the hangar, they go there when being maintained or under special conditions, where more deck-space needs to be freed up or there is no point having the aircraft out on deck if there is space below (keeps aircraft out of the weather) Just so we're clear I know this from experience. [To avoid confusion I'm all for hangars and working elevators, I'm super glad ED are planning on implementing them, since I believe that if it's the case and is possible irl it should ideally be possible in DCS where feasible - this is the only thing I'm trying to say].

 

Now you were a late comer but this exact same argument - no benefit from pilot's perspective is exactly the same argument I was first faced with when I proposed this.

 

Don't get me wrong but as far as imperatives for the DCS naval environment is concerned we're missing an entire subset of warfare that's an integral part of naval aviation and naval warfare - anti-submarine warfare. Currently in DCS:

• No underwater in any shape or form, crossing small rivers with ground vehicles is the best you get and even from a basic standpoint that's immersion killing as it is.
  
• No ASW sensors (SONAR, MAD etc).
  
• No sub-surface weaponry - torpedoes, depth charges, anti-submarine rockets, mines etc.
  
• Even amphibious vehicles aren't amphibious yet
  
• Even without ASW, ships don't even have countermeasures or AI tactics. There is little we can do with current ships apart from having an armed, mobile FARP, when in reality ships are so much more than that.
  

 

Surely an entire naval warfare branch being near totally absent as well what I've listed above being absent are more "mechanical imperatives" and higher priority for the naval environment than aircraft elevators and aviation hangars? I mean, in the grand scheme of things functioning lifts and aviation hangars actually do very little to improve the naval environment in DCS at all. I mean without ASW in any form a whole type of naval combat aircraft are pretty much alienated, and it's a big group at that - practically every naval helicopter I can think of with few exceptions. Pretty much every naval helicopter I can think of, with few exceptions is designed to at the very least have the capability to perform ASW. Some helicopter's principle niche is ASW. But in DCS ASW is one of, if not the only branch of combat not possible. The closest you can get is attacking a surfaced submarine that has no capability to dive or retaliate defensively in any way. I mean it's maybe not for the current or planned scope of aircraft, but having it absent alienates pretty much every naval helicopter, with few exceptions. And at the same time we have very well modelled Kilo and Improved Kilo class submarines, fully animated, with an SLCM to go with it. But in DCS underwater is a place that doesn't exist, so it's almost pointless apart from looking cool, it's totally useless in combat at the moment. But then again what do I know?

 

Ultimately and more importantly back on topic, all I'm trying to say is that if something irl has a feature, I believe it should be implemented to DCS at some point in time if feasible. Yes this is super low priority, I don't disagree with that - it is and yes it is a very trivial request. But again, the real aircraft has it, in real life it's one of the key components that allows it to be deployed in improvised areas.

 

Oh well whatever, I'll certainly be thinking 2-3 times prior before suggesting anything else again.

 

And on that note good day, or night, or whatever time of day you read this really...

 

Ollie

Edited July 26, 2017 by Northstar98

You know what also doesn't involve pilots? Aircraft being moved from below decks or hangar to a flight deck of an aircraft carrier or similar vessels such as amphibious assault ships. That doesn't involve pilots at all

 

Sure. I was just pointing out the difference between what's a pilot controlled action and what's not. And as I wrote; seeing Viggens being towed or parked with the fins folded would be nice. Because that's actually something you might see on or about an airfield.

Just like you would see the elevators operate, and maybe get a peek inside the hangar, of an aircraft carrier.

But having some sort of player control of the fin fold, or carrier elevator, would be unnecessary and unrealistic.

Sure. I was just pointing out the difference between what's a pilot controlled action and what's not. And as I wrote; seeing Viggens being towed or parked with the fins folded would be nice. Because that's actually something you might see on or about an airfield.

Just like you would see the elevators operate, and maybe get a peek inside the hangar, of an aircraft carrier.

But having some sort of player control of the fin fold, or carrier elevator, would be unnecessary and unrealistic.

 

Oh yes of course I totally agree. I should've made it more clear that I don't mean for it to be a pilot controlled thing - that's not realistic in the strictest of senses, but rather have it as a ground crew option, same as ground power, rearming, repairing and refuelling. I just want to our DCS Viggen as true to life as it can possibly be, that's all. I understand it's low priority like it should be, but it was just a suggestion, for the more distant future. I'd also like to apologise for making my replies sound like they originated from a total grumble monster from the tone they convey - I'm sorry.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Northstar98

I am almost certain that the folding fin was only implemented in the JA-37 Viggen, the interceptor version. Apart from looking similar, it was a completely different aircraft compared to the AJ and AJS.

 

I'd be happy to have this confirmed or corrected by those who know the Viggen.

I am almost certain that the folding fin was only implemented in the JA-37 Viggen, the interceptor version. Apart from looking similar, it was a completely different aircraft compared to the AJ and AJS.

 

I'd be happy to have this confirmed or corrected by those who know the Viggen.

 

If that's the case, fair enough. I don't want to disrupt realism if that's the case.

 

Again this is super low-priority, seeing as we don't have proper improvised airfields with low hangars. I don't expect it to be implemented any time soon, I'm just making a suggestion for it to be implemented.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Northstar98

Yes please, folding fin and caves (bergrum in plain Swädish).

 

All Viggens could fold the fin to be used with the infrastructure that was built for J 35 Draken.

I am almost certain that the folding fin was only implemented in the JA-37 Viggen, the interceptor version. Apart from looking similar, it was a completely different aircraft compared to the AJ and AJS.

 

I'd be happy to have this confirmed or corrected by those who know the Viggen.

 

No it was not something unique to the JA 37.

 

Especially if you look at the Photo on page one of the Viggen with the folded Fin you can see that its not a JA 37.

 

Its a SH/AJSH 37 (Which is based on the AJ with only minor differances when it comes to radar and the ability to carry Camera pods as well as some cockpit changes etc but overall airframe should be more or less identical to my knowledge)

Edited July 26, 2017 by mattebubben

I had no idea the Viggen had a folding fin. While it's a fun fact, implementing it brings nothing to the sim. Sounds like the jet would be pulled out of it's makeshift hanger, fin extended, and armed before the pilot even stepped to it. I for one would like to see the time and effort put into BK-90's in multiplayer.

I am almost certain that the folding fin was only implemented in the JA-37 Viggen

 

Oups! Maybe I shouldn't have folded all those AJ 37 fins, back when I was a Viggen mechanic..! ;)

 

All Viggen versions could fold the fin. :)

I had no idea the Viggen had a folding fin. While it's a fun fact, implementing it brings nothing to the sim. Sounds like the jet would be pulled out of it's makeshift hanger, fin extended, and armed before the pilot even stepped to it. I for one would like to see the time and effort put into BK-90's in multiplayer.

 

I'm absolutely not trying to steal away any development on more pressing issues, such as the BK90 (which doesn't even have submunitions modelled unlike every other submunition dispenser in DCS). This is and will always be a minor suggestion, at the moment it simply isn't needed because we don't have any improvised airfields or airfields with hangars with low ceilings (as operated by the Swedish). I only suggested it because it's a feature present on the real life Viggen.

 

As for it bringing nothing to the sim for the pilot, hangars and aircraft lifts aboard ships also have nothing to do with the pilot - implementing them also doesn't bring anything to the sim using your argument. Let me explain - aircraft are always armed, refuelled and started from the flight deck never ever from the hangar or on a lift. The pilot always enters and exits the aircraft from the flight deck. Engineers, mechanics and aircraft handlers are always responsible for moving the aircraft from below decks to the flight deck. Aircraft are always brought up to the flight deck a good while prior to the beginning of a sortie. As far as we're concerned our sorties and missions begin on the flight deck and they end on the flight deck.

 

Yet we're getting hangars and functioning aircraft lifts. In reality aircraft only go to the hangar for maintenance or on other rare occasions. Typically aircraft are stored on the flight deck - not the hangar, it's not what it's there for - it's used for maintenance pretty much exclusively. Of course on vessels with much smaller flight decks such as frigates, cruisers, destroyers and other surface combatants the hangar is used for storage. But on ships that are specifically designed to carry aircraft (such as aircraft carriers, assault ships etc). the only time you'll see aircraft in hangars is if deck-space needs to be freed up or there's no point having them on deck when there's space in the hangar (which means aircraft will be kept out of the weather, which is always better than being in the weather). At least this is what happens on HMS Ocean

 

[Once again, to avoid confusion I'm super glad ED are implementing this into the new ships, not only because naval operations is my principle interest from a warfare perspective and I love more and more fidelity and complexity, which is why I'm super glad they're being added. Also because that's how it is in real life, ships really do have hangars and functioning lifts so we should ideally see the same thing in DCS where feasible, allowing us the freedom to pretty much do as we please - DCS is after all a sandbox simulator. We should ideally be able to do everything possible, where feasible. This is the same argument I use for the Viggen's folding v.stab. - it's present in real life, so it is my belief in an ideal world it be implemented in DCS if feasible that doesn't mean to say it should be anywhere close to high priority - it doesn't, there are more pressing issues with the Viggen than a non-folding v.stab.]

 

Oups! Maybe I shouldn't have folded all those AJ 37 fins, back when I was a Viggen mechanic..! ;)

 

All Viggen versions could fold the fin. :)

 

That clears that up :lol:

Edited July 26, 2017 by Northstar98

As for it bringing nothing to the sim for the pilot

 

Well, to be honest; you're the one comparing it to wheel chocks :)

That's what triggered my response that the fin fold can't be compared to other pilot commanded features.

But I'm all for any feature that increase the immersion and realism. I'd like to see ground crew scurrying about, starting up aircraft, loading weapons, towing aircraft, etc. Not sure I would like to pay the FPS penalty though ;)

Well, to be honest; you're the one comparing it to wheel chocks :)

That's what triggered my response that the fin fold can't be compared to other pilot commanded features.

But I'm all for any feature that increase the immersion and realism. I'd like to see ground crew scurrying about, starting up aircraft, loading weapons, towing aircraft, etc. Not sure I would like to pay the FPS penalty though ;)

 

ssshhhhhh wheal chocks was the first thing I thought of :)

 

Besides I have even bigger ammunition now that the carriers have been brought up ;)

 

slideshow is saying that it would bring nothing to the sim, using the same situation revolving around pilot's perspective. Pilot's not involved in procedure = no benefit to DCS, no benefit to simulated experience.

 

Using the above argument, which now you and slideshow have both used with different examples. Aviation hangars and functioning aircraft lifts on new carrier modules, also don't involve pilots in any way, so following the same reasoning that also = no benefit to DCS, no benefit to simulated experience, and yet we're getting those and not the folding v.stab. That's my argument. In that sense the folding v.stab. and the aircraft hangars and lifts offer the same benefit to DCS as each other using the above argument.

 

probad said that aircraft lifts and hangars are a mechanical imperative, when I'm sorry probad, they just aren't, especially compared to the other features missing from the DCS naval environment. (The big one being underwater simulation). In terms of imperatives and what they offer for DCS, they are in exactly the same boat (ya see what I did there? :lol: (I'm sorry)) as the folding v.stab. providing of course all we care about is strictly pilot experience, which at least for me is not the case.

 

Again just to reiterate, I'm super glad ED are implementing hangars and working lifts, I'm every bit for them - they bring ships closer to the real world so I'm very glad they're being implemented.

 

The truth is, the Viggen's folding v.stab. was one of the integral components allowing it to be deployed from bases that had hangars with low ceilings right? When/if we get said said bases, then the folding v.stab will be more important.

 

About the ground crew, we already have infantrymen, some properly animated, if they could be animated to perform ground crew tasks and be triggered via the radio menu then you're pretty much half way there - though I imagine it would be time consuming. It would certainly liven up the airfields a bit :) I wouldn't think it would impact FPS too much though on the basis of what they are, then again I'm no developer.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Northstar98

ssshhhhhh wheal chocks was the first thing I thought of

 

That, and folding wings of carrier aircraft, which are also pilot controlled, as they taxi with the wings folded, and then unfold on the cat.

 

slideshow is saying that it would bring nothing to the sim, using the same situation revolving around pilot's perspective. Pilot's not involved in procedure = no benefit to DCS, no benefit to simulated experience.

 

Using the above argument, which now you and slideshow have both used with different examples.

 

Well, having a super detailed and animated fin fold on the player aircraft wouldn't bring anything to the sim. Watching ground crew opening the hatches, removing the bolt and start hand cranking the hydraulic pump and then mount a support strut... :)

 

Having static aircraft being parked with the fin folded is another matter. That's how Viggens could look at an airbase, although it wasn't a common sight. On major airbases, the hangars were big enough to keep the fin up. On war bases the ground crew fetched the aircraft at the cave hangar, pulled them out and towed them to a place where they would perform the turn-around duties, arm the aircraft and otherwise prepare it for the mission on order.

 

From a developer standpoint, I would imagine that making a lower detailed static 3D model is a lot less demanding than adding it to the full detail player aircraft.

 

So, yeah, I think Heatblur should att static aircraft with folded fins. But having them spend time making this for the player aircraft would be a waste of resources, really.

But considering their attention to detail, it wouldn't come as a surprise if they implemented it..! :)

 

About the ground crew, we already have infantrymen, some properly animated, if they could be animated to perform ground crew tasks and be triggered via the radio menu then you're pretty much half way there

 

Heatblur is making carrier deck crew for their F-14 module. Will be really interesting to see how this will look and function! :)

Edited July 27, 2017 by Goblin