JF-17 Thunder Discussions

Why are people trying to hold the proper simulation back just because the other modules are underdeveloped in that sector? Why not go to your favourite module devs and tell them to improve their product since the competition is moving forward?

 

 

 

I dont think anyone here wants to hold a proper simulation, I think a great majority here are all about simulation. On the contrary some people are raising a concern regarding if the effectivenes of the BRM1 againt a specific type of vehicle, in this case a MBT, is actually a proper simulation. That is the question. I dont know the answer TBH.

 

Regarding DCS I think the most clever approach would be to, 1-keep the rockets, 2-gather as much public information as possible regarding its operational use and manufacturer claims, 3-Adjust as necessary.

On the contrary some people are raising a concern regarding if the effectivenes of the BRM1 againt a specific type of vehicle, in this case a MBT, is actually a proper simulation. That is the question. I dont know the answer TBH.

 

 

I completely understand that point. My real concern is that MBT damage is not properly done in this game. While other developers have also made sure that rockets do not kill MBT easily, that resulted in rockets becoming usless against pretty much all the other units as well.

 

My main concern is that Deka seem to be providing the rockets that can actually be used in missions but some people want it nerfed because they kill MBTs as well. I dont think the effectiveness of rockets against other units should be compromised just to cater for one vehicle type that ED should have fixed.

 

 

From what I noticed is that people are concerned about these rockets being overpowered in multiplayer, but if you look at those missions, they have the units clumped in one area with no real strategy or purpose so it's just SU-33 or A-10 just bomb spamming them.

 

 

For majority of people who design and play single player missions, these rockets can be really effective against realistic scenarios where there are more medium to light armor present than a clump of MBTs.

 

My biggest concern is how loopback is replying to these people with weird answers where sometimes it is oh we removed them, then we didnt remove them but if people ask we will remove them and then they were not even suppose to be in there, it was a coding error.

 

Sounds more to me like they are planning to removing them for sure.

На Русском:

Скажите пожалуйста. Неужели у самолета действительно такое низкое качество текстур кабины ?

Или это просто из за того, что кабина еще не была показана в полном качестве (я не нашел никаких видео)?

Или версия релиза будет такой же крутой, как у f-18 или f-14 ?

То, что мы видим сейчас, хуже, чем Су-25 три года назад.

То, что мы сейчас видим на предрелизном видео-пиксель с рыбий глаз !

 

On English:

Tell me, please. Does the plane really have such a low quality of interior textures ?

Or is it just that the cabin hasn't been shown in good quality yet (I haven't found any videos)?

Or will the release version be as cool as the f-18 or f-14 ?

What we see now is worse than the su-25 three years ago.

What we now see on the pre-release video-a pixel with a fish eye !

 

在中国:

请告诉我 这架飞机真的有这么低质量的内部纹理?？

或者只是机舱还没有显示质量好（我还没有找到任何视频）？

或者发布版本会像f-18或f-14一样酷?？

我们现在看到的比三年前的苏25更糟糕。

我们现在看到的预发布视频是一个鱼眼像素！

Despite what's been said, this issue is taken care of by the missile team. It's AP head would pack some punch against light/medium armor but that's it. I don't see anything got removed.

Despite what's been said, this issue is taken care of by the missile team. It's AP head would pack some punch against light/medium armor but that's it. I don't see anything got removed.

 

 

Thanks, good deal. :)

Despite what's been said, this issue is taken care of by the missile team. It's AP head would pack some punch against light/medium armor but that's it. I don't see anything got removed.

 

 

My idea is providing HE version and AP version(with reasonable AP effect).

Leave the choice to players and server admins.

 

 

It will please most of guys here.

 

:)

Tell me, please. Does the plane really have such a low quality of interior textures ?

Or is it just that the cabin hasn't been shown in good quality yet (I haven't found any videos)?

Or will the release version be as cool as the f-18 or f-14 ?

What we see now is worse than the su-25 three years ago.

What we now see on the pre-release video-a pixel with a fish eye !

 

The 3D artist was in hospital for several months. They decided to finish the exterior model first, the cockpit is still WIP and will be improved (soon) after release.

My idea is providing HE version and AP version(with reasonable AP effect).

Leave the choice to players and server admins.

 

 

It will please most of guys here.

 

:)

 

 

I agree with this decision. The more options, the better. If people do not like it, they should not use it or allow it in their servers. The single player community should not be punished for some vocal people.

 

 

If you can make the AP rockets kill medium and light armored targets but require more hits on MBTs then I have no problem. I was under the impression that the ground armor units do not have directional armor values modeled so the only solution was to make the rockets useless against all armor like the rest of DCS modules' rockets.

My main concern is that Deka seem to be providing the rockets that can actually be used in missions but some people want it nerfed because they kill MBTs as well.

 

I can't speak for others but I don't want the BRM1 nerfed because it can kill MBTs, rather the current WIP AP seems over done.

 

A Ka-50 firing S-8 KOM Armor piercing rockets can't touch the front armour of a M1 Abrams and it takes 2 side hits plus 2 rear hits to kill it.

 

 

I dont think the effectiveness of rockets against other units should be compromised just to cater for one vehicle type that ED should have fixed.

 

If you have information that the BRM1 is an effective anti-armour weapon, please share.

 

From what I noticed is that people are concerned about these rockets being overpowered in multiplayer, but if you look at those missions, they have the units clumped in one area with no real strategy or purpose so it's just SU-33 or A-10 just bomb spamming them.

 

With realistic values I expect the BRM1 will be effective vs lightly armoured vehicles inc. Shilka, etc. as it guides to make a direct hit (rather than rely of AoE).

 

For majority of people who design and play single player missions, these rockets can be really effective against realistic scenarios where there are more medium to light armor present than a clump of MBTs.

 

With BRM1s to deal with light vehicles, that'll leave a valuable role for C-701, cluster bombs, etc.

 

My biggest concern is how loopback is replying to these people with weird answers where sometimes it is oh we removed them, then we didnt remove them but if people ask we will remove them and then they were not even suppose to be in there, it was a coding error.

 

I agree, I'm a little confused by the tone and mixed messages but perhaps something is being lost in translation.

 

Sounds more to me like they are planning to removing them for sure.

 

BRM1s have been a listed JF-17 loadout for a while, I don't think they'll be removed, rather their effectiveness vs MBT adjusted - I'd be happy if they were similar to the S-8 KOM but only Deka know how realistic that would be.

Edited December 2, 2019 by Ramsay

Here is an image of a Mi-28 UB Havoc A/G Radar with two diferent modes. Red dots are cars moving towards the helicopter and green dots are cars moving away from it.

It seems to me that this radar works just as "DCS virtual pilots" expect it to work and even better.

 

 

 

Those are latest tech, not that comes to Hornet or Viper.

 

And those cars are not military vehicles camouflaged by trained crews from radars and FLIR, and those even moves on road, not on terrain with more complex structure.

to be fair, the AG radar host aircraft is also not driven by a crop duster farmer who just read chuck's guide before jumping in.

My idea is providing HE version and AP version(with reasonable AP effect).

Leave the choice to players and server admins.

 

 

It will please most of guys here.

 

:)

Perfect solution. The AP should still need at least 2 to 3 hits in the same location to disable a modern MBT.

A perfect hit to a weak spot everytime is way too much. Against APC, scout tanks and armored cars, trucks and vehicles one direct hit with AP round should do the job.

Despite what's been said, this issue is taken care of by the missile team. It's AP head would pack some punch against light/medium armor but that's it. I don't see anything got removed.

Great! That sounds reasonable.

My idea is providing HE version and AP version(with reasonable AP effect).

Leave the choice to players and server admins.

 

 

It will please most of guys here.

 

:)

 

Good deal. From the descriptions it sounded like there is some kind of HEAP warhead on the rockets by default - so it's good against light armor or at least soft targets, and personnel. It wouldn't be great against heavier armor but you can still always do damage - you can take out sensors, tracks, etc.

 

A dedicated AP warhead would obviously be more effective at taking out armor but it I would expect it to lose a lot of anti-personnel capability as most of the weight would be dedicated to some sort of penetrator.

 

Do you have any information on the warheads, BTW? I can't find much in public about BRM1. There is a lot of information about US and Russian rockets, which always show a combination of the basic rocket motor + desired warhead, and I expect BRM1 to be the same.

Isn't this an ED problem? I would go out on a limb and guess the rockets are not set to do a ridiculous amount of base dmg but the tank dmg model is too crude to dissipate whatever it is properly.

Since 90's at modern warfare, infantry life expectations in combat in Northern Europe environments is 7 seconds....

 

 

 

A MBT is the safest place to really be. As since cold war era when M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger became to west inventory, they got better than T-64 and T-72A armors, and again further developments lead to T-80 and T-90 as well M1IP etc, that survivability ain't just armors but as well all technology and tactics to avoid getting hit.

 

 

 

In the DCS a MBT, or any tank or other armored vehicle, or non-armored, are completely unrealistically presented. A pilot would be incapable to detect those vehicles by using FLIR or A-G radars as all those are in first command to be concealed such manner that only visual or audible detection reveals them. And that means that pilots would need to spot their tracks on terrain or them moving or otherwise located in stupid manner, or simply spotted by ground troops that inform their general position etc. But that ain't easy, as MBT company does very well know all the methods a MBT can be detected and they get not just trained, but as well tested with equipments to show how effective all concealment tasks are to hide those vehicles from enemy detection.

 

 

 

And that is an problem in DCS that virtual pilots has these illusions that they just need to point a targeting pod at general direction and every vehicle just glows in there. Or that future A-G radar just pinpoints all vehicles without problems.

 

 

 

While in reality, a competent military can hide a huge amount of troops such a way that they do not get detected. And you can even very well walk in a forest and hit yourself to an tank, as you can't spot them easily.

 

 

 

It is totally different thing to fight in area where there are foliage, trees, rocks, forests, bushes etc. Than it is on the flat sand desert.

 

 

 

And attack aircrafts can't use radars, radios, datalink or anything emitting devices as their location is detected very likely by the electronic warfare ground units. Laser designators reveals to MBT their directions and actions, why one just doesn't fly to drop a bomb and expect that targeting pod designator is like a silent surprise.

 

 

 

It is always easy to fight against enemy that doesn't know how to fight back, or doesn't have equipment to fight back. And sitting in most armored vehicle is safe place, as it has around it a such a defense that one doesn't get to drop bombs at then or fire missiles so easily as it is in DCS.

Sorry, but that 7 seconds is for a nuclear attack scenario orba joke for sure. A simple food for thought: Taliban fighters regularly survived barrages of small arms fire, Mk-82/83 bombs and or rocket attacks for hours in drainage ditchs, bushes and small woods and fought back. I believe a tank hit by a GBU-12 does not survive that long.

Infantry, if not standing in a clump of 40 people waiting to get a bomb dropped upon them or mowed down by a 50 cal., is very hard to hit effectively. For one you need to identify a single soldier and then you need to take him out. The amount of bombs required for carpet bombing even a small field effectively to take out 60% is immense.

I know our commanders were giving us this prep talk stories about "Your Leo 2 is the safest place on the battlefield" bla bla, but the detailed reports on weapons effects against tanks and what to expect painted a very different story, unless you expect the enemy to solely rely on small arms and pitchforks in their attacks on battle tanks. Where a plane has a hard time to find ground troops from the air a huge metal beast sticking out like a sore foot on the IR screen is far easier to hit with a bomb or AT weapon than spraying 20mm into a wood or field in the hope to hit all soldiers lying in their foxholes. ;)

oh man fully developed JF17 and the Halo franchise coming to PC within one day of each other. What a time.

Isn't this an ED problem? I would go out on a limb and guess the rockets are not set to do a ridiculous amount of base dmg but the tank dmg model is too crude to dissipate whatever it is properly.

 

It certainly is an 'ED Problem' with respect to creating a better damage model and effects for ground and naval units.

 

Until then, it's good for weapons to have similar behavior wtr each other, otherwise (in this situation) you'll basically be loading up a rocket pod which effective, in game is the same as carrying multiple AGM-65s (or choose other heavy anti-tank weapon) in a tiny package. And I'd go out on a limb and say that this would even less realistic than whatever's happening now.

 

With this change, you might need several rockets to take on an MBT, which at least somewhat matches up with the fluff description of the weapon by the manufacturer.

Those are latest tech, not that comes to Hornet or Viper.

 

And those cars are not military vehicles camouflaged by trained crews from radars and FLIR, and those even moves on road, not on terrain with more complex structure.

 

No one said that they where not cars on a road, but at least we can agree that an A/G radar will show a tank, that I suppose has a bigger radar return than a car, moving over flat terrain. There even seems to be a tractor in that image.

It certainly is an 'ED Problem' with respect to creating a better damage model and effects for ground and naval units.

 

Until then, it's good for weapons to have similar behavior wtr each other, otherwise (in this situation) you'll basically be loading up a rocket pod which effective, in game is the same as carrying multiple AGM-65s (or choose other heavy anti-tank weapon) in a tiny package. And I'd go out on a limb and say that this would even less realistic than whatever's happening now.

 

With this change, you might need several rockets to take on an MBT, which at least somewhat matches up with the fluff description of the weapon by the manufacturer.

 

 

You just want the rockets to be nerfed because the american and russian variants are not as capable while also denying the manufacturers information by calling it "fluff". Also constantly asking Deka to give you weapon specifications because you yourself do not agree with whatever is available publically.

 

Just by defining other weapons in detail does not mean that this one should behave like those. Deka even said that they will make it so the AP rockets take multiple hits from the weak point to destroy the MBT but you keep comparing them to HE variant of american rockets.

 

 

Please, explain to me exactly how these rockets should behave against Heavy, Medium and Light armored units. I am curious what vehicle types and scenarios you have in your mind.

No one said that they where not cars on a road, but at least we can agree that an A/G radar will show a tank, that I suppose has a bigger radar return than a car, moving over flat terrain. There even seems to be a tractor in that image.

 

Wait WHAT? How the hell could you be identifying a tractor in that image?

 

And that's why one of the rules of product development is: Listen to your customers, but don't listen too much (or too literally). Otherwise your product will end up absorbing all the crap that uninformed people loves to spew about things they don't have a clue about.

You just want the rockets to be nerfed because the american and russian variants are not as capable while also denying the manufacturers information by calling it "fluff". Also constantly asking Deka to give you weapon specifications because you yourself do not agree with whatever is available publically.

 

1) I am actually following the manufacturer's fluff ... and it is fluff, as in text without a lot of specifics

2) I want the specs because I'm curious, and unlike them, and they might have that information publicly available but I cannot search for it since I do not know the language

 

Just by defining other weapons in detail does not mean that this one should behave like those.

 

Yeah, it should behave like magic instead. No, really. Launch photon torpedos. Fusion warheads on rockets.

 

Deka even said that they will make it so the AP rockets take multiple hits from the weak point to destroy the MBT but you keep comparing them to HE variant of american rockets.

 

No, you're failing to read, comprehend, or both. The manufacturer seems to be talking about either a plain HE or some form of HEAP warhead. Deka is adding a dedicated AP which quite find and plausible, virtually every other rocket system in the world does it.

And I'm quite happy with what they are doing.

 

Please, explain to me exactly how these rockets should behave against Heavy, Medium and Light armored units. I am curious what vehicle types and scenarios you have in your mind.

 

For the use of this rocket, you'd use it against forces that have very little anti-air protection. Anything else is really asking for it - unless you're desperate (think Fulda Gap where the idea was to throw A-10s shooting mavericks at enemy tanks. They were expecting huge losses).

If you're not desperate, you'll aim this at troops, revetments, into trenches, at light vehicles or buildings. With the AP warhead you might be looking at APCs and IFVs, and some older tanks. You could in a pinch throw a bunch of these at an MBT and possibly cause it to be out of action, though for MBTs I'd expect LBGs or the 701s to be the armament of the day, especially since I expect MBTs to be accompanied by more modern GBAD.

Wait WHAT? How the hell could you be identifying a tractor in that image?

 

And that's why one of the rules of product development is: Listen to your customers, but don't listen too much (or too literally). Otherwise your product will end up absorbing all the crap that uninformed people loves to spew about things they don't have a clue about.

 

I said there "SEEMS to be", no that there IS, please don twist the arguments. Nevertheless, If you saw the documentary you will realise that they where in a farm area. I mark on the image a moving object in the middle of a field, so it SEEMS to be a tractor, maybe is was a star wars speeder bike, but I think that the most probably thing to think would be of a tractor.

 

"Listen to your customers, but don't listen too much"... I agree 100%, there are people here that wants to make DCS sort of an arcade game where things are balanced.

 

Edited December 2, 2019 by mikel.132

1) I am actually following the manufacturer's fluff ... and it is fluff, as in text without a lot of specifics

2) I want the specs because I'm curious, and unlike them, and they might have that information publicly available but I cannot search for it since I do not know the language

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, it should behave like magic instead. No, really. Launch photon torpedos. Fusion warheads on rockets.

 

But ultimately you agree that the AP rocket (even though it is a photon torpedo to you) should be able to disable light armored vehicles, APCs and medium armored anti air units.

 

No, you're failing to read, comprehend, or both. The manufacturer seems to be talking about either a plain HE or some form of HEAP warhead. Deka is adding a dedicated AP which quite find and plausible, virtually every other rocket system in the world does it.

And I'm quite happy with what they are doing.

 

I am simply failing to read, comprehend your reasoning beyond the issue of MBT destruction, which they said will be corrected, that these are not realistic. All you provide is explanation about other weapons in defense.

 

For the use of this rocket, you'd use it against forces that have very little anti-air protection. Anything else is really asking for it - unless you're desperate (think Fulda Gap where the idea was to throw A-10s shooting mavericks at enemy tanks. They were expecting huge losses).

If you're not desperate, you'll aim this at troops, revetments, into trenches, at light vehicles or buildings. With the AP warhead you might be looking at APCs and IFVs, and some older tanks. You could in a pinch throw a bunch of these at an MBT and possibly cause it to be out of action, though for MBTs I'd expect LBGs or the 701s to be the armament of the day, especially since I expect MBTs to be accompanied by more modern GBAD.

 

I completely understand these scenarios, but DCS does not simulate trenches, enemies in buildings, or realistic structure destruction where most of the battles takes place. Most of the times the enemes are clumped somewhere in the open so, easy to destroy.

 

 

Additionally, Since the vehicles in dcs do not receive damage to their engine, tracks, turrets or ammo, the closest thing we have is the vehicle it blowing up. So I think it is quite normal if the rocket "destroys" the unit.

 

I agree that tanks or "MBT" should not be destroyed with these rockets but a salvo should disable them in some form BUT that is also not simulated.

 

We cannot expect Deka to nerf the weapon to such degree that it becomes a joke why the military would even bother developing or using it.

But ultimately you agree that the AP rocket (even though it is a photon torpedo to you) should be able to disable light armored vehicles, APCs and medium armored anti air units.

 

No, you're suggesting that it should be a photon torpedo. Again, comprehension - you did not follow from the start.

 

I am simply failing to read, comprehend your reasoning beyond the issue of MBT destruction, which they said will be corrected, that these are not realistic. All you provide is explanation about other weapons in defense.

 

You're not comprehending because you did not follow. And yes, all we HAVE is explanation about other weapons, and the manufacturer's blurb.

 

I completely understand these scenarios, but DCS does not simulate trenches, enemies in buildings, or realistic structure destruction where most of the battles takes place. Most of the times the enemes are clumped somewhere in the open so, easy to destroy.

 

That's right, DCS does not simulate these. What it does do IN GAME is encourage a choice of armament caused by the weapon's own behavior, among other things.

If you had 16 rockets in one pod, each of which as powerful as an AGM-65 IN GAME, would you not take that pod over the 65s? I think that's not realistic for reasons that are hopefully obvious.

 

Additionally, Since the vehicles in dcs do not receive damage to their engine, tracks, turrets or ammo, the closest thing we have is the vehicle it blowing up. So I think it is quite normal if the rocket "destroys" the unit.

 

Already discussed and no, it is not quite normal if a single rocket, less powerful than other anti-tank weapons, destroys the tank.

 

I agree that tanks or "MBT" should not be destroyed with these rockets but a salvo should disable them in some form BUT that is also not simulated.

 

We cannot expect Deka to nerf the weapon to such degree that it becomes a joke why the military would even bother developing or using it.

 

Again already discussed.