F-16 A, B, C, MLU

mS-RK0_xZvQ

HqIB2yORhMI

Well, if I may be blunt, How come that there is so much resistance for the F16 in DCS?

It's always baffled me too. Anyone who's completely honest about wanting a top-notch realistic military flight sim with 4th-gen fighters is forced to acknowledge how essential an F-16 module is in accomplishing that. For the most part I think it's just that the people with a personal agenda that puts the F-16 as a lower priority are louder about it than the rest. edited. If we live long enough, I'm sure we'll see a DCS: F-16C. It's just an absolute necessity in the subject matter which DCS gives the most attention and whether it's ED or 3rd party, someone is going to do it. We know they have the information to make it, we know it will instantly be one of the most popular modules (if not the most popular outright), there's too much common sense involved that's supports the idea. My bet is once the F/A-18C is out with its A/G radar and the other basic foundations of multirole airflcraft, an F-16 announcement won't be too far behind. Everyone here who wants to tear down the F-16 in the hopes of a MiG-31 or something will just have to live with it.

I'm another one who would love to see an F-16 in DCS!

Me too.

Just imagine, Oculus Rift and this glorious cockpit view !

I to would have nothing against a F-16.

I would probably want to see multiple F-16 Variants though.

Both a F-16A and a F-16C.

The F-16A being a either a "older" F-16A Block 15 or a later

F-16A OCU

(The OCU having a New improved hud aswell as the ability to use the Aim-120 and was able to carry other weapons the other F-16As were unable to carry)

And the C being anywhere between Block 30-50.

Id probably prefer a Block 30/32 or Block 40/42 over a 50/52 but a MLU would also be very nice.

(id prefer the C not to be a 50/52 since i think all other F-16 simulations are of block 50/52s)

And maby a Block 30/32 or 40/42 would be easier to get Permissions for.

(My prefered for the most modern F-16 variant would be probably be a F-16C Block 40/42)

But yea i would love to see both an early and later F-16 model.

And who can resist This cockpit xD.

No interest here either.

I to would have nothing against a F-16.

 

I would probably want to see multiple F-16 Variants though.

 

Both a F-16A and a F-16C.

 

The F-16A being a either a "older" F-16A Block 15 or a later

F-16A OCU

(The OCU having a New improved hud aswell as the ability to use the Aim-120 and was able to carry other weapons the other F-16As were unable to carry)

 

And the C being anywhere between Block 30-50.

 

Id probably prefer a Block 30/32 or Block 40/42 over a 50/52 but a MLU would also be very nice.

 

(id prefer the C not to be a 50/52 since i think all other F-16 simulations are of block 50/52s)

 

And maby a Block 30/32 or 40/42 would be easier to get Permissions for.

 

(My prefered for the most modern F-16 variant would be probably be a F-16C Block 40/42)

 

But yea i would love to see both an early and later F-16 model.

 

And who can resist This cockpit xD.

 

Just wanted to add:

F-16 block 15, 20 OCU, MLU can be referring to the same aircraft depending on the country and the year. I mean the same serial number specific aircraft. There are so many countries and so many different updates and every country choose different updates and different times so it gets confusing quickly. Every OCU or MLU is different and most block 15 where updated to block 20. Same applies to block 30 to 52. They all different capabilities added over the years and different countries got different updates and capabilities.

Some (but not all) example;

- Turkish AF Block 40 where converted to block 50 (still using older GE-100 instead of the block 50 GE-129). Visually you can tell because a block 40 serial number will have Advance IFF fins and block 50 HUD.

- 180th FW is the only block 42 user with F100-PW-229 engine IIRC.

- Republic of Korea block 52 have different HUD mix, some have normal block 52 HUD while others have block 40/42 wide HUD.

- Hellenic AF, Israel AF, etc. block 52/52+ can carry the AN/AAQ-13. Not the same on the USAF. By the way, the block 52 is only used operationally (in combat) by the 169th FW in the US AFAIK.

- Republic of China block 20 where made from the factory with AIM-120 capability and their MLU might include AESA radar update, different that the Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal MLU (which differentiate among each other as well)

- AFAIK, some of the F-16 sold from one country to another get modified, changing their capabilities (upgrade or downgrade)

Here is a good list of different updates that aircraft got at different time

http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Lockheed_Martin_F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Depends on the country, year and specific aircraft. In general terms, some blk 50/52 can now carry several different TGP.

And welcome to the problems.. I followed this thread over weeks and everybody has another idea of which version with which weapons should be made. I stopped counting at 8 versions...

How should do ED this? Hm wait, a module with 10 subversions for 400 bucks :megalol:

If you choose one model you will disappoint many fans of the other versions (and countries). Remember the numerous demands in the LNS forums for more modern MiG-21 versions.

I can only speculate what the developers have in mind but I won't touch such a tricky subject

And welcome to the problems.. I followed this thread over weeks and everybody has another idea of which version with which weapons should be made. I stopped counting at 8 versions...

 

How should do ED this?

We ( the community, all of us in some way or other) have demonstrated that no matter what module ED or ED partners release, we would have something we do not like. Mig-21, Mirage 2000, A-10C, KA-50, P-51etc. People always complain, from the weapons to the avionics systems.

So on the question; How ED should do this?

My guess,

Anyway they want to. People will complain no matter what, so whom ever makes an F-16 module can make an amalgam or they can make a specific version (i.e. USAF block 30, circa 1998 with X, Y and Z capability but without this or that)

Does not matter.

Possible F-16 acquisitions

Pakistan

Iraq

Bahrain

Republic of Korea (ROK)

Singapore

Belgium

This are just some of the ones that mention the F-16 directly. If we look at weapons (AIM-9X/120C-7, JADAM, etc.) and systems (TGP, JHMCS, etc.) there is even more updates, upgrades and sales related to F-16 around the world.

If only it wasn't private!!!!

[ame]

Guys please do not bring BMS into the discussion. Thank you

Bignewy...why?

I'm not trolling...and I'm not trying to be difficult...but it's a fair question. There are people on these forums who are of the opinion Falcon BMS is the end all to beat all of flight sims. Others disagree. Whenever someone brings up the F-16 for DCS were told BMS has done it already and it's not needed. Why? As long as the discussion is constructive why is mentioning BMS so strictly forbidden?

Sierra99

If you choose one model you will disappoint many fans of the other versions (and countries). Remember the numerous demands in the LNS forums for more modern MiG-21 versions

I think a Block 30-50 range would best compliment the other aircraft in the sim. They could also do an "Early" and "Late" version. The basic airframe is the same...slight differences here and there but not show stoppers.

If only it wasn't private!!!!

 

Amazing video. My love for f-16 is going insane day by day

Bignewy...why?

 

I'm not trolling...and I'm not trying to be difficult...but it's a fair question. There are people on these forums who are of the opinion Falcon BMS is the end all to beat all of flight sims. Others disagree. Whenever someone brings up the F-16 for DCS were told BMS has done it already and it's not needed. Why? As long as the discussion is constructive why is mentioning BMS so strictly forbidden?

 

Sierra99

+1

click on image to enlarge

Beverly Pack 16-2: Wolf Pack maintainers execute rapid exercise ops tempo

Senior Airman Brandon Brantmeier, 80th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron crew chief, works on removing a rudder servo actuator on an F-16 Fighting Falcon during Beverly Pack 16-2 at Kunsan Air Base, Republic of Korea, Feb. 3, 2015. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Dustin King/Released)

I honestly, don't see why not. I mean people point at BMS and say that's good enough. But BMS is a totally different game, you can't exactly join a DCS server on BMS in multi, not to mention better graphics, sound, different maps (Strait, Nevada, Georgia,) and also the graphics make me queasy, (it sort of shifts weirdly, as you travel forward, as if what was being rendered in was slightly off and the game corrected it by shifting all the pixels by one, if that makes sense)

It's not like DCS: F-16 release = No more BMS ever for anyone that loves the game.

keoMXA83xtE