closed 4 HARMs for the Viper

If they found a reliable source to back up the technical possibility of loading and employing HARM's on stations 4 & 6 for the exact F-16C simulated in DCS World then nothing points against it's implementation.

 

 

Even then, 1:1 correspondence with one particular jet is too strict for purposes of DCS World and multiplayer design. I like a little flexibility in how I can configure each aircraft, which is why I will keep asking for the Aim7 on the Viper.

 

Other modules have been similarly victimized by the 1:1 approach.

True, but its not consistent. This sim is rapidly devolving into another Ace Combat/Air Quake. The unrealistic loadouts of 8 JSOWS on the Hornet (you cant go far or high enough with that weight), the LAU-88 for the Viper and now this debate. [/Quote]

 

If it is technically possible in some, then it should be possible, but if it is not, then it is not possible. Technicality rules, not politicis or "this one special side can, but 99% others couldn't".

 

I get that people want to play their way, but the premise behind this sim is being watered down.

Leave the mega loadouts for MAC.

 

They can't play in their way, they will need to pay for their idea to carry 8 JSOW.

The core philosophy in this game should be that politicis, religion and history is left outside, and only technicalities are used to model something.

 

If there is wiring for 4x LAU-88 in major part of F-16C Blk50's and it is technically possible to carry 12x AGM-65 and launch them, so be it.... But make it properly. Huge drag, weight, launch damages on specific stations can occur etc.

 

No politics, history or religion should be there to be saying otherwise in any other things than in mission designers goals to simulate something.

 

It is already unrealistic to fly Hornet and Viper same time in a same mission by same logic as some people argue for "this module simulates I my very specific unit in specific year" so they have nothing to say what is really possible.

Stations 4&6 are not wired for video. The only stations that can transmit video are 3&7. I'm saying this as a guy who ran those video lines the AGM-88 uses. I started on BLK 30s in 2001 and worked 16s for 13 years. Never saw a video line going to or from stations 4&6. Not sure who changed your mind, but it's worth taking a second look.

 

Edit for clarification: The station comm lines exist. Meaning jettison commands and such will go through and work. However there is no video, so the WPN page on the MFD will be blank. The 88 and LAU-118 will send the video, but there is no pin in the pylon disconnect on the wing to receive it on stations 4 & 6. Can't use a 88 without video. 65s and 88s use the same video line. Meaning that United States F-16s (can't speak for other countries) cannot support 65s or 88s on sta 4&6.

If that is the case i would argue to not include it.

 

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

All based on assumptions. You seem to assume ED went the "easy road"

Nope. Just the wrong road.

and did not really check the facts?!

They obviously didn't. (or willfully ignored it?)

Pretty bold statement. How do you know that? Are you in their team of testers or SMEs?

I am indeed a kind of SMEs. Not for ED though.

But this is unfounded as long as you won't come up with a document of some sort that proves your claim.

And to this point you didn't.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4492530&postcount=118

 

Which is, so far, more than you (and/or ED) provided. ;)

 

Regards.

If that is the case i would argue to not include it.

 

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

 

And what if some other country or air force can use it? This is the most widely exported aircraft in the world.

It is already unrealistic to fly Hornet and Viper same time in a same mission by same logic as some people argue for "this module simulates I my very specific unit in specific year" so they have nothing to say what is really possible.

 

And here we go again...

 

If you follow this same line of logic, ED would have to delete the mission editor and only let you fly historical missions where it's impossible to deviate from what actually happened IRL. Sound like a good idea? Or does this sound like a straw man?

 

If ED are basing a module on a specific airframe, I would want the module to accurately represent what that specific airframe physically can or can't do, provided it's feasible to implement. Why? Because that's the whole freaking point. That's it. You do you with whatever scenario you want to do with it.

 

Regarding the HARMs on the inner stations.

 

Is our F-16, i.e the one it is supposed to represent, wired to employ the AGM-88 on the inner (i.e 4 and 6), not just can the pylons carry it, are they capable of being utilised?

 

If yes, then fine, go ahead.

 

If they aren't, then no - going by what Scrape is saying, no they are not wired for it, so it's impossible to fire HARMs from those stations. Note this isn't policy or operational guidelines or whatever, it is physically incompatible with those stations.

 

Maybe ED could allow you to load HARMs onto these stations, but only allow firing from 3 and 7.

 

And what if some other country or air force can use it? This is the most widely exported aircraft in the world.

 

The module is built on a specific airframe, it is supposed to represent, that airframe, so it should reflect what that airframe can and can't do. If that airframe can't employ HARMs from station 4 and 6, then neither should the DCS World version.

 

The solution is to ask for variants, that represent different aircraft to be implemented.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Northstar98

He isn't a Viper pilot, but I trust his knowledge more than a Viper pilot because he confirms everything through as many sources as possible.

 

Never mistake the person saying something, to what is being said.

Person saying something is least valuable evidence for anything, but evidence that is provided doesn't make a difference who is the person who provides it.

 

 

DCS should be about everything else than two bottom (least valuable) evidence categories, but the two least valuable categories can provide something that is otherwise difficult to find or have and can open up something.

Nope. Just the wrong road.

 

They obviously didn't. (or willfully ignored it?)

 

I am indeed a kind of SMEs. Not for ED though.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4492530&postcount=118

 

Which is, so far, more than you (and/or ED) provided. ;)

 

Regards.

 

 

Yeah, I did read your post. But this is still some kind of loose text you typed. This is by no means a scientific approach to the topic nor is it some kind of document. You even failed to quote where you obtained this info from. Not good. I would expect more from an actual SME.

You even failed to quote where you obtained this info from.

 

Normal. This is not allowed by forum's rules (1.16).

 

Make you opinion with what you have.

You are free to believe what you like or prefer.

 

Kind regards.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Dee-Jay

Anyway, I am glad we will be able to carry 4 HARMs on the Viper. Thank you ED!

 

For all the people who posted, thx for the great discussion!

 

If you don't like this, please just carry 2 HARMs on staions 3/7 :)

 

If you don't like this, please just carry 2 HARMs on staions 3/7 :)

 

Please keep in mind there is smaller number of us who like the change of Multiplayer... where it is not your choice, but the other guys choice... so not a valid feedback or solution. Thank you!

Stations 4&6 are not wired for video. The only stations that can transmit video are 3&7. I'm saying this as a guy who ran those video lines the AGM-88 uses. I started on BLK 30s in 2001 and worked 16s for 13 years. Never saw a video line going to or from stations 4&6. Not sure who changed your mind, but it's worth taking a second look.

 

Edit for clarification: The station comm lines exist. Meaning jettison commands and such will go through and work. However there is no video, so the WPN page on the MFD will be blank. The 88 and LAU-118 will send the video, but there is no pin in the pylon disconnect on the wing to receive it on stations 4 & 6. Can't use a 88 without video. 65s and 88s use the same video line. Meaning that United States F-16s (can't speak for other countries) cannot support 65s or 88s on sta 4&6.

 

I'm curious now, perhaps the PB equivalent mode (idk the viper names) doesn't require the video feed. Meaning HARM can only be HAS'd from 3/7, but can be fired from 4/6 using a known location or the HTS.

 

This might explain why there is a such a contradiction, with the video cables definitely not being run to 4/6, but the SCL saying that HARM can go there. I don't know enough about PB modes and HTS to say for certain though.

And here we go again...

 

If you follow this same line of logic, ED would have to delete the mission editor and only let you fly historical missions where it's impossible to deviate from what actually happened IRL. Sound like a good idea? Or does this sound like a straw man?[/Quote]

 

Why are you enforcing my point?

 

If ED are basing a module on a specific airframe, I would want the module to accurately represent what that specific airframe physically can or can't do, provided it's feasible to implement. Why? Because that's the whole freaking point. That's it. You do you with whatever scenario you want to do with it.[/Quote]

 

Yes, that is the point of mine. I would even extend it that if there are cases like F-16C blk50 that one airbase can have 50 of them parked on and none of them are identical with another, then going strictly for only very one specific model is little restrictive if not trying to have little freedom to consider if something else is possible on multiple others than just one.

 

Regarding the HARMs on the inner stations.

 

Is our F-16, i.e the one it is supposed to represent, wired to employ the AGM-88 on the inner (i.e 4 and 6), not just can the pylons carry it, are they capable of being utilised?

 

If yes, then fine, go ahead.[/Quote]

 

Exactly. But if there is 50 aircrafts and 45 can do so, but 5 can not and our is exactly one of those fives, what should be done? Would it be logical to allow such support because 45 of 50 could do it, or have a hard line "our modeled model is one of 5 that can't do it".

What if it is 1 of 49 that can't do it? 23 of 50 can't do it? 48 of 50 can't do it?

 

It is case by case that needs to be found what would be feasible.

 

If they aren't, then no - going by what Scrape is saying, no they are not wired for it, so it's impossible to fire HARMs from those stations. Note this isn't policy or operational guidelines or whatever, it is physically incompatible with those stations.[/Quote]

 

Exactly. But it becomes politics and history when someone says "their official loadouts were without HARM at all" regardless what is technically possible, and it should be avoided. As it should be then mission designer decision to stick to historically or politically accurate loadouts if wanted to do historical or other alternative history missions, but it would be possible for some other mission designer to scrap the history and politics and just use technically possible loadouts and simulate scenario with it, and all the drawbacks that comes doing so.

 

Maybe ED could allow you to load HARMs onto these stations, but only allow firing from 3 and 7.[/Quote]

 

Again, if weapon is technically possible be hanged on station but not fired, and so on it is illogical to hang any weapon on such station and no one in reality would do so for other than fooling around on weapons expo or something, then should it be allowed to be carried but not launched? I would say Yes. Just make it noted in weapons loadout option in mission editor that "You can not launch these weapons as they are not wired there" and not hold hands for stupidity etc.

 

The module is built on a specific airframe, it is supposed to represent, that airframe, so it should reflect what that airframe can and can't do. If that airframe can't employ HARMs from station 4 and 6, then neither should the DCS World version.

 

The solution is to ask for variants, that represent different aircraft to be implemented.

 

That is one solution and I would welcome that gladly. I have suggested this previously multiple times, have a base model ($79) and if you own it, then you can purchase additional variants with small differences for small fee ($9.99) that are different enough (not just a different seat cushions) but not too much so it is too much work related to model it and maintain it.

 

But this way studio could keep income for future to release a another slightly different variant that people would be willing to pay little extra to get access to.

 

IMHO Mi-24P and Mi-24V are like these, it is said that everything else are identical except the front cockpit where front dashboard is changed and gunner has a extra movable gunsight for the 12,7 mm gun. And there is a new flight modeling change when firing etc. For a such variant I would pay gladly extra $19,99 after P variant $79,99 as it is such a different variant to be flown but not major rework as if someone would want to do a Mi-35M.

 

As I would like to as well see studios to have little more income from different variants, instead give all away for free. Like L-39C vs L-39AZ or Gazelle few variants, Huey variants and so on. F-14A vs F-14B etc. Some are major work and some are smaller. So one could pay less for a "base model" and then little more to get other extras.

 

This would as well open up in some cases to provide some other experimental variants like what was with KA-50 case.

Normal. This is not allowed by forum's rules (1.16).

 

Make you opinion with what you have.

You are free to believe what you like or prefer.

 

Kind regards.

 

 

I got your message. I see. Please forward this to ED if you haven't already done so. Coming from a military background myself and still being active in the GAF I very well understand what you are saying. The only question that remains is if ED has gotten hold of something more "recent". We will have to see, I guess.

 

 

Kind regards

To sum this up,

 

 

so far in this thread there is only proof that HARM can be loaded on stations 4 and 6, there is no proof they cant be fired from those and there is no proof that they can be fired either, only people saying I worked here and there and I know this and that.

 

 

Also the fact that F16 never operationally carried 4 HARMs doesn't mean that it can't carry them operationally at all, it only means that 2 harm config was enough or 2 extra fuel tanks were needed for that mission or whatever the reason might be,

 

the reason might be that it can't fire HARM from stations 4 and 6 and thats why it never went on a mission with 4 HRAM, but we don't know that 100%.

Nice discussions. Let`s se what ED is making.. the F-16 as they told or again a so called "Frankenstein" Viper :D :D :D

Exactly, people complain about the Frankenviper but then feature creep for cool toys!

Never mistake the person saying something, to what is being said.

Person saying something is least valuable evidence for anything, but evidence that is provided doesn't make a difference who is the person who provides it.

 

DCS should be about everything else than two bottom (least valuable) evidence categories, but the two least valuable categories can provide something that is otherwise difficult to find or have and can open up something.

You are ignoring every source that has said it would not work. Scratch saying they aren't wired and a couple others I have no personal experience with. Dee-Jay specifically stated that he got his information from an manual but due to forum rules can't cite more. You are saying basically because you don't like the messenger. I know Dee-Jay has gone to the top of that pyramid on all of his research. What makes you an SME that I should trust? The only sources for 4 HARMs is a ED test code Viper that does lots of capative testing before launches but they take publicity photos early in this stage. There is a statement that one PACAF manual states 4 HARMs is a valid loadout, this is probably the most compelling proof you have and Tomsk did a good job explaining it. But I would like another source since there are multiple on the other side that don't support it. I used to write aviation manuals and know how the sausage is made and would like an Avonics expert to kick in knowledge, from documentation if possible (even though this is what Dee-Jay is claiming he is doing. There are multiple reasons it could get added to a manual and still not be launchable as mentioned.

 

Yeah, I did read your post. But this is still some kind of loose text you typed. This is by no means a scientific approach to the topic nor is it some kind of document. You even failed to quote where you obtained this info from. Not good. I would expect more from an actual SME.

Again, he said the info is gathered from avonics documenting that he can't quote due to forum rules. I did not find it loose text but very aviation manual style in the parts that were italicized...
Edited September 19, 2020 by Snake122

Again, he said the info is gathered from avonics documenting that he can't quote due to forum rules.

 

 

He can send them to ED for review, he doesn't have to quote anything on the forum

 

 

 

I can say I have documents that say f16 can carry 8 aim120 and fire them but I cant post from where I have this info, would you believe me?

Yes, that is the point of mine. I would even extend it that if there are cases like F-16C blk50 that one airbase can have 50 of them parked on and none of them are identical with another, then going strictly for only very one specific model is little restrictive if not trying to have little freedom to consider if something else is possible on multiple others than just one.

 

Agreed it's restrictive, but also this is highlights exactly, to the letter, why variants should be a thing.

 

It also highlights why we should be careful about which specific airframe to model.

 

Exactly. But if there is 50 aircrafts and 45 can do so, but 5 can not and our is exactly one of those fives, what should be done?

 

The solution would be to model one of the 45 that can in the first place.

 

Would it be logical to allow such support because 45 of 50 could do it, or have a hard line "our modeled model is one of 5 that can't do it".

What if it is 1 of 49 that can't do it? 23 of 50 can't do it? 48 of 50 can't do it?

 

Same thing applies IMO. If we pick a variant we should accurately represent, that variant. If our variant can't do what 96% of the total fleet can, then we've made a pretty poor decision, and we'd be better modelling one of the 96% in the first place.

 

If you want variants or want a specific variant, that can do x and x is something the current variant doesn't allow, then that is exactly what we should be doing, making variants with different capabilities.

 

We shouldn't IMO be making modules made to accurately depict a specific aircraft and then pick 'n' mix its capabilities.

 

Exactly. But it becomes politics and history when someone says "their official loadouts were without HARM at all" regardless what is technically possible, and it should be avoided. As it should be then mission designer decision to stick to historically or politically accurate loadouts if wanted to do historical or other alternative history missions, but it would be possible for some other mission designer to scrap the history and politics and just use technically possible loadouts and simulate scenario with it, and all the drawbacks that comes doing so.

 

Agreed, I'm interested in what the aircraft physically can or can't do as opposed to what it did or didn't do. And the consequences and drawbacks should obviously be modelled.

 

Again, if weapon is technically possible be hanged on station but not fired, and so on it is illogical to hang any weapon on such station and no one in reality would do so for other than fooling around on weapons expo or something, then should it be allowed to be carried but not launched? I would say Yes. Just make it noted in weapons loadout option in mission editor that "You can not launch these weapons as they are not wired there" and not hold hands for stupidity etc.

 

Fine by me.

 

That is one solution and I would welcome that gladly. I have suggested this previously multiple times, have a base model ($79) and if you own it, then you can purchase additional variants with small differences for small fee ($9.99) that are different enough (not just a different seat cushions) but not too much so it is too much work related to model it and maintain it.

 

But this way studio could keep income for future to release a another slightly different variant that people would be willing to pay little extra to get access to.

 

IMHO Mi-24P and Mi-24V are like these, it is said that everything else are identical except the front cockpit where front dashboard is changed and gunner has a extra movable gunsight for the 12,7 mm gun. And there is a new flight modeling change when firing etc. For a such variant I would pay gladly extra $19,99 after P variant $79,99 as it is such a different variant to be flown but not major rework as if someone would want to do a Mi-35M.

 

Exactly and a perfect example too.

 

The other reason I'm so in favour of variants is because our current ones literally fit nothing else in DCS apart from other BLUFOR assets, but that's another discussion entirely.

 

As I would like to as well see studios to have little more income from different variants, instead give all away for free. Like L-39C vs L-39AZ or Gazelle few variants, Huey variants and so on. F-14A vs F-14B etc. Some are major work and some are smaller. So one could pay less for a "base model" and then little more to get other extras.

 

This would as well open up in some cases to provide some other experimental variants like what was with KA-50 case.

He can send them to ED for review, he doesn't have to quote anything on the forum

 

 

 

I can say I have documents that say f16 can carry 8 aim120 and fire them but I cant post from where I have this info, would you believe me?

 

And apparently he has sent it to them. That's the thing, I know Dee-Jay has done the work and doesn't just throw out info. Yes, he or anybody else may have overlooked or has outdated info. But within the Viper knowledge base of anyone I've seen here, Dee-Jay is so far the overall best from the years I've known him on message boards. Don't get me wrong, there have been many times I've been frustrated by his knowledge of why something wasn't realistic and there has been debates of which contradictory data source to believe (like this time), but I know he forms his information from as many sources as legally possible where most people find one source and then sometimes stick to it despite other sources to the contrary. Now sometimes that one source is the correct one due to circumstances and we may not actually know that. But when it has to be one of those best guess situations, I trust his background and use of logic that has ripped some arguments to shreds (the point of the pyramid cited earlier) to make the best available call. I wouldn't trust him as deeply for say, A-10 info, but I don't think I've seen him speak to that because he knows it's not his wheel house.

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

Edited September 19, 2020 by Snake122

It seems we can not win either way.

 

 

Of course not. This is the internet. There are always people "who think they know better", no matter what... :music_whistling:

The module is built on a specific airframe, it is supposed to represent, that airframe, so it should reflect what that airframe can and can't do. If that airframe can't employ HARMs from station 4 and 6, then neither should the DCS World version.

 

The solution is to ask for variants, that represent different aircraft to be implemented.

 

I'm not sure if it is realistic or feasible to ask for more variants. Is it? I love ED but they have a lot on their plate.

 

I have to disagree with the idea of limiting the DCS module to represent one specific airframe. I can't change it, but I remain utterly unconvinced by the approach. ;)

 

Better to let the users/customers decide which exact type of Viper they want in their mission.

I know Dee-Jay has gone to the top of that pyramid on all of his research....

 

I would just balance a little bit: Information present in documentation are usually reliable (fortunately) ... but ... not always 100% correct.

 

But in that case, I would bet a good and expensive restaurant, no prob. ;)

I have to disagree with the idea of limiting the DCS module to represent one specific airframe. I can't change it, but I remain utterly unconvinced by the approach.

While we can argue about the LAU88 and triple AGM-65s on pylons, the AGM-88 not being usable on stat 4/6 is not a matter of F-16 version.

He can send them to ED for review, he doesn't have to quote anything on the forum

 

 

 

I can say I have documents that say f16 can carry 8 aim120 and fire them but I cant post from where I have this info, would you believe me?

 

 

 

 

He (Dee-Jay) indeed has documentation that shows the problem of these stations and he PM'ed me an excerpt. However, I do not know how "recent" his or ED's infos are. I guess we just have to wait and see.

And indeed it is true that there are cases where NATOPS/USAF flight manuals have certain errors or do not explain certain things in full magnitude. That is why such info needs to be checked extra careful.

He (Dee-Jay) indeed has documentation that shows the problem of these stations and he PM'ed me an excerpt. However, I do not know how "recent" his or ED's infos are. I guess we just have to wait and see.

And indeed it is true that there are cases where NATOPS/USAF flight manuals have certain errors or do not explain certain things in full magnitude. That is why such info needs to be checked extra careful.

 

Well since we're not flying a "Frankenviper," circa 2007 would be perfect .

 

And for sure when it comes to manuals needing to be cross checked!

 

 

 

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk