Jump to content

can we have the Aim9p5?


Nero.ger

Recommended Posts

reading throu the PocketGuide i realized the Harrier seem to only be able to carry the aim9M.

 

Adding the 9p5 as an option would be great for Scenarios with the F5/Viggen/Mig21 so the MissionDesigner can choose to restrict one as desiered and the playingfield would be more leveled.

 

 

edit: added Aim-9L into the title because i wasnt aware that AF and Marine Plane use different Missles and they seem to be an option for the Harrier


Edited by Nero.ger

'controlling' the Ka50 feels like a discussion with the Autopilot and trim system about the flight direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK the AV-8B is not equipped to carry the AIM-9P series. Only the AIM-9L and AIM-9M.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong tho.

 

 

Seems a lot/most people don't care as much about what the capabilities are for most planes, they just want all of the weapons, all of the time, for a "level battlefield."

 

Least realistic thing ever. I'm just going to change my signature to a link to buy Ace Combat, so those people can be happy with a "flight sim" that gives them superior firepower.

  • Like 3

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems a lot/most people don't care as much about what the capabilities are for most planes, they just want all of the weapons, all of the time, for a "level battlefield."

 

Least realistic thing ever. I'm just going to change my signature to a link to buy Ace Combat, so those people can be happy with a "flight sim" that gives them superior firepower.

 

i was under the impression that the 9p5 was inferiour to the M -version...if thats the case you statement makes no sense to me

'controlling' the Ka50 feels like a discussion with the Autopilot and trim system about the flight direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how superior/inferior a particular variant of a missile might be, if the aircraft was not equipped to fire that missile it should not be included in the module. There is more to firing a missile other than if it fits on a pylon or not. Avionics and equipment need to be compatible as well, and while I understand the appeal of balanced game play I have to point out that what we get are simulations of aircraft, their capabilities, and equipment and sometimes that means the playing field is uneven and unbalanced. If the missile was ever used by the Harrier then by all means include it. if it wasn't, then leave it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the 'Simulations' argument falls flat on its face if you for example use anything but the propper Stick and Throttle. Also only countrys that operate a certain aircraft in real life should be allowed operate one inGame. And of course no mission should be allowed that has Harriers(a10c...etc) on both sides because that would be unrealistic. (unless you can provide a real life example that are NOT training scenarios)

i could go on and on about things that are allready totaly unrealistic from a "simulations" point of view...

'controlling' the Ka50 feels like a discussion with the Autopilot and trim system about the flight direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was under the impression that the 9p5 was inferiour to the M -version...if thats the case you statement makes no sense to me
Irrelevant. Even if the 9P family could be loaded (not a huge stretch), if the Harrier never used it operationally then it should not be available.

 

If you want balance, give everyone the same aircraft, same payload and allow no deviations. Only allow fighting over the sea.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the amount of..."heated opions" on the subject is disturbing.

anyway most sources either only talk about AIM-9 variants or about AIM-9M/L (as previously mentiond by AL53***)

 

So i also take those AIM-9L

'controlling' the Ka50 feels like a discussion with the Autopilot and trim system about the flight direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calm down gentlemen.

 

The request was probably made without 100% operational knowledge by a person wanting to enjoy a game. If you are this defensive about A person having a differing opinion on a hobby on the internet, the I would advice to stay away from these forums.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

DCS Finland | SF squadron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK the AV-8B is not equipped to carry the AIM-9P series. Only the AIM-9L and AIM-9M. Correct me if I'm wrong tho.

 

I presume it would be quite simple to add the necessary support in the WCS, but the main reason the AV-8B doesn't carry them is probably because the AIM-9P series is a USAF variant only AFAIK.

 

Edit: This seems to be a pretty decent reference on the AIM-9 variants. Though the AIM-9P series is based on the older USAF AIM-9 types, internally it seems to have been updated with the similar tech as in L/M so I presume there wouldn't be any fancy cooling system required causing the physical incompatibility (like IIRC in the earlier days where the post-AIM-9B Navy AIM-9's D/G/H required a Nitrogen coolant bottle in the pylon, while the USAF AIM-9 pylons didn't have those as their AIM-9E used the less-effective Peltier effect for cooling apparently so I guess they just needed electrical power from the pylon).


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrelevant. Even if the 9P family could be loaded (not a huge stretch), if the Harrier never used it operationally then it should not be available.

 

"Never used it operationally" is not the same thing as "tested and capable, but never used" as lateral can be very ell just a strategic and tactical decision not to load specific weapon for operations. If the aircraft version is technically capable to carry something, then it should be there regardless has it ever been carried in operational use because then it is up to mission/campaign creators do they add it. If some MP servers just throw there stuff for happy joys to shoot without any limitations, it is simply their unrealistic design for MP environment.

 

There is as well lots of technical details that are not covered in pilots handbooks or any official documents available for most pilots or technicians on ground. Sometimes people receive information only as need to know or even opposite that the designers and main people behind project doesn't get to know all the details.

All kind fancy data is in the official documents but in field use many flaws and features not mentioned but implemented can be found as there are already people prepared for alternative methods.

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

Nero I like you'r suggestion!

So.. Can't the Harrier physically fit and use an Aim 9p'5?

Or were you all just running your mouths at Nero without proper knowledge?

Fri13 hit the nail on the head here.. operationally... pft if we weren't allowed to do anything that wasn't operationally correct then half of the DCS player base wouldn't be allowed to fly lol.

If It fits I sits.. get them on if they do man adds more looses nothing.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that was tested and certified should be included, i dont know if the P5 ever was on the harrier but if it was tested then why not.

 

DCS is full of stuff that shouldn't be loaded on the planes we have but are. Like the triple mav rails which are operationally not allowed, or the kh66 that wasnt carried on the Mig21bis.

 

So guys take it easy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it's pretty simple - it's a USMC plane and a USAF-only missile, so, no, it wouldn't have been tested on the USMC AV-8B and it wouldn't have been supported by its WCS.

 

Why bother with the AIM-9 L/M there anyway?


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

changed the Title to reflect the new information that was given to me by more relaxed posters :)

i was unaware that USMC and USAF use different Aim9s despite beeing from the same Country

'controlling' the Ka50 feels like a discussion with the Autopilot and trim system about the flight direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

changed the Title to reflect the new information that was given to me by more relaxed posters :)

i was unaware that USMC and USAF use different Aim9s despite beeing from the same Country

 

Sorry, should have been more precise about it - I mentioned the AIM-9L in regards to AV-8B in general and being in the USN/USMC stocks, unlike the AIM-9P series.

 

The module we'll get is the N/A standard from the mid 2000's IIRC and the AIM-9L might have been gone by then and replaced with the AIM-9M (which was available since 1982 IIRC). Not really sure when the AIM-9L was withdrawn from the USMC service?

 

If it was used on the N/A before that (itself entering service in the early 90's), I guess it would be nice to have it for earlier scenarios.


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to remain neutral in my post and I'm sorry Nero.ger if you took my comment as an attack against your suggestion I didn't intend it to sound that way. I honestly have no idea what the N/A was able to equip and others have already answered the question about the P. If the L was used in any capacity then i'm happy to see it it on the load out list :). If it wasn't used though, then I would prefer it wasn't included. Just my opinion and Kudos to your pun about "heated opinions"in a thread about heat seeking missiles, whether it was intended or not.


Edited by Repth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There shouldn't be any debate here.

 

The AV-8B Harrier N/A does not have the necessary capacities to carry and make functional use of the AIM-9P5. I have all the documentation, anyone here is welcome to a copy. It's all declassified documentation.

 

As for the person above who said some technical information is not included in official documentation, please ignore that post. That's demonstrably untrue.

Intel i5-8600k | EVGA RTX 3070 | Windows 10 | 32GB RAM @3600 MHz | 500 GB Samsung 850 SSD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the 'Simulations' argument falls flat on its face if you for example use anything but the propper Stick and Throttle. Also only countrys that operate a certain aircraft in real life should be allowed operate one inGame. And of course no mission should be allowed that has Harriers(a10c...etc) on both sides because that would be unrealistic. (unless you can provide a real life example that are NOT training scenarios)

i could go on and on about things that are allready totaly unrealistic from a "simulations" point of view...

 

DCS is a simulation because it models the behavior, equipment and capabilities that were available in a very specific variant of an aircraft - that is, a factually correct aircraft that people actually flew. How the user applies this experience through controllers, displays and so on and the situations it's applied in is up to them.

 

This design philosophy/policy question is so key to module design and comes up so often that it would be great if ED posted a prominent sticky that detailed their approach to this. It would be nice to have an official statement on this key aspect of ED's design approach to refer people to rather than having the same extended conversation repeatedly.

 

 

Modules: [A-10C] [AJS 37] [AV8B N/A] [F-5E] [F-14] [F/A-18C] [FC3] [Ka-50] [M-2000C] [Mig-21 bis] [NTTR] [PG] [SC]

Intel i7-12700F, Nvidia GTX 3080, MSI MPG Z690 Carbon WiFi, 32GB DDR4 @ 1600 MHz, SteelSeries Apex Pro, Razer Basilisk 3

VKB Gunfighter 3 w/ F-14 grip, Thrustmaster Warthog throttle, Thrustmaster MFD Cougars x2, MFG Crosswind,

DSD Flight Series button controller, XK-24, Oculus Rift (HM-A)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally different angle but, why ask for a variant just to add more work to the dev team during updates and changes.

 

Not bashing the dev team and what not, but for example say one aim9 breaks one way and the other variant has a problem in a different way. If its smoke trail/color/blah, etc just adds more work for not a lot of difference.

 

How many times in the change logs do you see working again... Just saying I would rather have something that works as it should and if its broke its not 5 variants to fix but 1.

 

In war nothing is equal for both sides. Better to learn your weapons capabilities and use them in the best way possible imo.

i7 2600k @ 4.4 / GTX 470 1.3gb / 8GB DDR3 1600 / TM Warthog #7440 / Toshiba 37" 1080p / OCZ Vertex3 SSD 128GB / Win7-64 / TIR4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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