Heatblur A-6 Intruder

I think this thread has gotten nuked. I mean it is about Heatblur's A-6 and now it is bogged down and side-tracked whether there should be nukes in DCS. (boooo)
The voice of reason says it would be nicer to the see discussion back on the A-6 more and nukes a lot less - split that (nukes) in to another thread or something.... Have a great day, y'all. 

It's been talked about at length, to be honest. It isn't happening in the foreseeable future. It's best for the people that want their instant sunrises to just accept that.

3 hours ago, Vampyre said:

 

Historical Fidelity- The fact that a weapon was never used in anger should not preclude its inclusion. There are instances of weapons never used in combat that are in DCS already which effectively nullifies that argument. My position remains that if it was in service, actively trained to by its crews and has enough information to be modeled it should be included. As far as the scope of DCS is concerned the tactical weapons being proposed for inclusion fit well with the size of the maps and add to the variety of mission sets, both offensive and defensive, within DCS. The political side, if it is mentioned at all, is usually a generic afterthought and is also not really considered within DCS at all. Carl von Clauswitz said that "war is a continuation of politics by other means" and the only attempts at the inclusion of this aspect are usually generic blurbs in the mission briefings. There are no political factors built into the game at all so it is up to the user to assign purpose to the missions they fly. In its current state, DCS is primarily a single sortie simulator. This is evidenced by the fact that multiplayer servers have to use mods to enable respawnability of aircraft slots so they are not permanently lost when a user loses the aircraft. A single sortie can have any type of storyline attached to it to justify the use of nuclear weapons. The dynamic campaign, if they so decide, could limit or exclude the use of any weapons but being that it is not yet released that is just speculation on my part, but it could be designed in. The gravity of using such weapons within a campaign should be an integral component of the campaign and similar to real life, the release for use of the weapons should be dictated by higher authority. I see it as an end game weapon. Understand that there are no winners in war, only losers. That is a good lesson to learn in a simulated environment don't you think?

 

So you would then agree that, as a single-sortie game, that political forces and thus the political dimension of these weapons is outside the scope of DCS? Weapons of mass destruction cannot really be separated from the political gravity of their usage, so in this single-sortie environment, we cannot be taught the lesson that there are no winners in a nuclear war. Players only learn that the bigger the bang, the higher the score, the more quickly you win the mission. If we cannot then separate the political dimension from the weapon and cannot teach with it, why include it at all? 

By the way, the original with von Clauswitz is "mit anderen mitteln," "with other means" not "by." And it may seem semantic, but replacing "with" for "by" in the translation has a profound impact on the interpretation. The implication of "with" is that politics, diplomacy, and economic interaction do not cease once the shooting starts, but continues in parallel. The general state of the war doesn't really change drastically with the employment of a conventional weapon, one among hundreds of conventional weapons that have been or will be expended during the conflict. The employment of WMDs drastically changes the board and the considerations. There are more consequences to their use than just more kills with fewer weapons. Without that, whatever lesson we might choose to teach in a single-sortie game is lost. And if all you can really simulate about these weapons is their delivery, then an inert training round works fine.

So what, exactly, do you gain from a functional nuke, fully realistic effects and everything, that you wouldn't get from the training round, that matters in a single-sortie sim. What's there for you if the potential consequences don't matter?

3 hours ago, Vampyre said:

 

 So, one side are psycho's and the other side are just whiners. If you were being completely fair you would call one side sociopaths or psychopaths and the other side dictatorial or authoritarian. The truth is those types are the minority, the extreme fringes of the userbase. I don't see this debate that way. I view this as a scale of emotional maturity where both of the fringe elements you mention are on the same end of the spectrum. The real problem is that some here cannot separate fact from fiction and wish to impose their ideas on others for their own moral purposes. The problem lies with the fact that no two people have the exact same moral code they live by. This is a simulation and it is up to you, the user, to draw the moral line where you see fit. That shouldn't involve imposing your will on others because of how you feel about something in a simulation. Besides, to your only real point in this paragraph, I posit that we already don't have the minority you think we would lose if nukes were included because there are already two nukes in DCS already.

I was using these examples in a facetious attempt to specifically highlight the spectrum fringes. I might have whiffed on that one, but it doesn't change the message that both ends are squeaky wheels that tend to make the most racket and have the most obnoxious and presumptuous things to say about the other. The final decision ultimately is up to the devs. They've said no. They will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. As to the two existing nuclear weapons in the game, they don't really behave like nuclear weapons, which is one of the existing complaints about them. My only feeling about that is "too bad."

I think the inclusion of fully functional nuclear weapons are going to draw in those people with the emotional maturity of a stump for whom their employment has no gravity other than a bigger kill count, and that in turn probably will drive away those who are repelled by the gleeful detonation of nukes, who have the same emotional maturity as the neighboring stump, and I'm betting that this side has bigger numbers, not that they are morally superior.

3 hours ago, Vampyre said:

 

 A rhetorical question is meant to make a point. Turning the question around means that you missed the point because you didn't think about it. The point being made was that it is a simulation. Simulation means not real life. Not real life means it does not matter so there are no moral consequences. That is where emotional maturity enters the equation. If someone can't separate fact from fiction then they need to pay more attention to that aspect of their personality for their own personal growth. That is why I found that reaction interesting.

 

Oh, no. I well understood that it was a rhetorical question, but I chose to answer it anyway so that I could specifically show where I stand on simulating combat and I stand by it. Even in the case of a simulated environment, the more realism we're shooting for (no pun intended) then the more realistic the behavior should be. It shouldn't be about high scores and points. It should be about the enemy surrendering the battlespace. How much simulated killing is required to pass that marker. If we're just after more birds with fewer rocks, kill all the dots of the opposite color, then we aren't really simulating combat conditions. We're just playing a game, and we're doing a disservice to whatever we hope to learn about combat. That makes anyone who cries for more realism a hypocrite of sorts, which I can safely count myself among regardless of my own wishes (in 1.5, I taught myself how to hit moving targets with PGMs by flying around and engaging cars on the road). In that way it does matter, but thanks for, y'know, getting down on your knee to look me in the eye and explain this one slowly, like you might a very dull child. I really am precisely that stupid. Within a micrometer. I'm not kidding.

3 hours ago, Vampyre said:

 

The last paragraph on unit morale is a universal AI problem in DCS and is far less relevant to your argument. Morale and suppression are non-existent within DCS and that has been pointed out in many threads in these forums. It affects the employment of all weapons within DCS not just nukes.

No, it's not anything at all to do with my argument for nuclear weapons. That's why there is a "speaking further on..." which works just as well as "by the way." What it is related to is my answer to your oddly answerable rhetorical question. Funny how questions on subjective matters are. So it's a simulation. It's not reality. But it tries to replicate it and our behavior in the simulated environment is one of the vital components of that simulation. I mean, it's a hard line to draw because in the end, this is a game for the purposes of entertainment. In order to judge success or failure in a mission, there has to be a gate to pass. It gets less fun for some people if they don't get to splat the enemy soldiers because they've dropped their weapons and fled, which means that the player is victorious without the maximum body count. They might choose to blow away these simulated soldiers anyway, and then yeah... they actually have a specific number of bodies that they set out to create, and they'll be able to answer your rhetorical question as well. They'll point to all the enemy units and say "this time, that many." In the end, and precisely because it doesn't actually matter, it's still a moral question. They've already won, so all that remains is "I haven't satisfied my virtual bloodlust yet."

So here we circle back to wondering what is gained from a fully simulated nuclear weapon other than neato effects and a more efficient weapon?

Edit: And here I am now, guiltily holding my hat and recognizing my part in ripping up the rails of this thread. But in my own defense, I think that discussion of the A-6 Intruder should also include what weapon systems we want it to carry and a lively debate on why. Preferably without devolving into name-calling. We've hit a disagreement on this one that is interesting to say the least. It's part of the minutia, and this discussion is fantastic.

On 4/10/2021 at 12:37 PM, Iron_physik said:

not true, ED said that they dont plan develop it themself

third party devs are not ED, so when a third party make a nuke its likely to be added (as seen with the Mig-21)

 

here the official statement I found from a older thread:

 

ED has no plans of making nukes themself.

 

and?

lets be serious about nukes

 

proper implementation may actually be a good thing, because it opens a very large set of possible missions for "cold war gone hot" and maybe "war with china escalates"

it also adds stakes to intercept missions

 

right now its: oh no this bomber with some small bombs may get through

with nukes you actually have to worry about something, and for the person flying the aircraft: you need to do more pre planning for the attack, a nuclear bomb is not just your typical MK.82, it needs to be set to the proper burst alt, you need to decide if you want to use a parachute or not and you need to decide on attack patterns more than you do with conventional bombs.

nukes require a very different skillset compared to conventional bombs

https://vimeo.com/341822377

 

 

 

also there is very little games where you personally can control nuclear bombs and use the power of them

I thought people like blowing virtual things up, so why not use the biggest bombs imaginable? large bombs are fun to use

the best kind of kill is overkill.

 

there is some kind of enjoyment in droping large bombs on small targets in DCS, like using a GBU-10 on a single guy with an AK, why not go bigger and turn our Pixel people into dust?

 

as someone who just likes messing around with the mission editor nukes would be a great tool, not only for cool visuals, but also as basis for great missions (lonely and brave)

 

 

 

 

 

3rd party can´t go to make nukes with that need implement that effects into the core as fire, napalm, etc. And ED, from some problems with some weapons build by 3rd parties, has put them under your control. All equipment, weapons and othes need get to ED to add to DCS, 3rd parties dont have ability to update DCS free.....

In fact, the Mig-21Bis Leatherneck nuclear bombs has only a bomb with a big conventional explosion, nothing more.

I found some detailed explaination on the function of the A-6's nuclear panel in this 1979 Stores loading manual

I got it from here

http://www.aircraft-reports.com/grumman-a-6-ea-6-ka-6-aircraft-airborne-weapons-stores-loading-manual-navair-01-85ad-75-1979/

what I noted is that you set in all values for fuzing on the outside of the plane into its ballistic panel, so aircrews have no control about it mid flight

they can only select "airburst" or "ground burst" and not the height of that burst.

I think this also applies to iron bombs with VT fuzes and propably cluster bombs as well

That's interesting. I wonder if that will then have to be something we set in mission editor then if we're not able to set the fuse altitude for the GPs and CBUs in the aircraft.

So now that this thread is hopefully back on topic, any word from HB they can pass down about the A-6?

11 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

So now that this thread is hopefully back on topic, any word from HB they can pass down about the A-6?

I wouldn't expect anything in the next 2 years quite frankly (in terms of the FF one).

would be cool to get some info, considering today its the 61st B-day of the A-6

While I'm excited for the A-6, realistically I'm not expecting that we'll get much in the way of news, especially for the full fidelity one, for a while. HB are a fairly small team and they seem pretty focused on their other projects for the time being (at the moment they seem more focused on the Viggen and Tomcat).

The AI intruder alone has been in the making for years, and a FF module was only confirmed fairly recently; there's also the J-35 (which seems forgotten about). HB also recently stated that the Forrestal was going to receive a large upgrade to the 3D model (even though that isn't out at all). 

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

The AI intruder alone has been in the making for years, and a FF module was only confirmed fairly recently

Yeah but they said back then that they do the AI A-6 with the FF module in mind, granted that will only help with the 3D model i guess but atleast....

6 minutes ago, unknown said:

Yeah but they said back then that they do the AI A-6 with the FF module in mind, granted that will only help with the 3D model i guess but atleast....

True, though I thought that was more of a long term 'hope to' - it was only officially confirmed semi-recently (around the time the 2021 and beyond video came out IIRC).

As for the commonality, yeah, I would've thought that the 3D modelling would be the main thing they'd have in common, the FF module is obviously way more involved. I don't think HB have even decided on a variant/timeframe yet (though I imagine it would be late 80s/early-to-mid 90s - in keeping with the current F-14A/B and AJS 37).

Not sure if these videos have been posted before but if you are an A6 nerd, Periscope has some great videos.

With Heatblur taking on the Eurofighter/Typhoon project does that mean that the A6 will be significantly delayed?

4 minutes ago, Bog9y said:

With Heatblur taking on the Eurofighter/Typhoon project does that mean that the A6 will be significantly delayed?

Here's what IronMike had to say about it:

Quote

To all of you who are concerned that the EF will impact the development of other modules, or our passion, dedication to complete existing one, etc: it won't.

Of course each thing that we do impacts everything else that we do in a way, but when we announced both the a-6 and roadmap, this was already a planned thing for us. The A6 will likely come last in the new badge of modules, and it was planned like this from the get go. We always said: please do not expect the a6 to come anytime soon. We usually would not have announced it, if it wasn't for the fact that you guys were clever enough to know that we wouldnt make only an AI asset of it. So why lie to you? We hate doing it, and so we revealed it way, way ahead of time. But it was never meant to come before the EF, or, yes you are hearing right, the other two modules that are to come as well. Which are these? Well: we will tell you in due time. But all of them are being worked on in a way that none of the modules impacts the work that is being done on the other modules, also existing ones, beyond what is normal.

Of course we have to expand our portfolio, as we need to grow our business along with our passion. This is the very reason why we started expanding our team as well (to manage the workload ahead of us), and why we would have never touched the Eurofighter, if we did not have TrueGrit as partners. Rest assured, partnership or not, for both TrueGrit and us, the Eurofighter will continue to be a work of passion, and both teams meet on eye level regarding what drives us to do what we do. We could not be happier than having a partner like them. Thank you for your kind understanding.

So technically the A-6 won't be delayed. It has already been behind the Eurofighter (and two modules that are still unkown).

Cool, thanks guys. I wonder what the other 2 modules could be? Tornado and F-4 maybe? 

1 hour ago, Bog9y said:

Cool, thanks guys. I wonder what the other 2 modules could be? Tornado and F-4 maybe? 

I reckon there'll be a navl Phantom done by Heatblur - it makes sense as it would fit on the Forrestal.

Given that they're working with TrueGrit, perhaps a Tornado IDS is on the table, though I'd prefer the British GR.1 variant, but I'll take any 80s Tornado IDS.

The other one is possibly the F-111 (hopefully an 80s F-111F). But who knows?

18 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

I reckon there'll be a navl Phantom done by Heatblur - it makes sense as it would fit on the Forrestal.

 

Given that they're working with TrueGrit, perhaps a Tornado IDS is on the table, though I'd prefer the British GR.1 variant, but I'll take any 80s Tornado IDS.

 

The other one is possibly the F-111 (hopefully an 80s F-111F). But who knows?

Whatever the other modules will be, you know that it will be good - and worth the wait. 

2 hours ago, Bog9y said:

Cool, thanks guys. I wonder what the other 2 modules could be? Tornado and F-4 maybe? 

I would say, considering HB forum wishlist, there could be two of J35 Draken, F-111, Tornado IDS or F-4 Phantom II. Good thing is you can't go wrong with any of them.

Guys, this is the A-6 Intruder thread. Other HB aircraft speculation it better suited here:

This is great news.  I must admit, I was a little bumed to hear the Intruder was so far out, however knowing it is coming and being worked on is more than good enough for me.  I am absolutely intrigued with the two unknown modules coming before the Intruder, including the EF2000.  Fired up they are committed to the community.  We have some good stuff inbound.  With the A-7 and F-8 also being developed by two other devs, we have a great Naval Strike Force coming.  

I tell you what I would love to see HB do someday, the Skyraider.  Man could they do a superb job with that.  Not only would it fit the Naval assets, but also the Korean and Vietnam Era.

Has there been any updates or ETA on this?

9 minutes ago, Godric said:

Has there been any updates or ETA on this?

The A-6 has the last module after two more before A-6 release.

https://trello.com/b/HsMiJggJ/heatblur-public-roadmap