Jump to content

Litening for Hornet


ebabil

Recommended Posts

ah yes , just as the same sort of vocal minority "customer feedback " resulted in ed caving in and revising plannedmunitions list to include lau88 for f16c blk 50 allowing triple Mavericks, because some people think the f16 a supersonic a10.

 

speaking down to unrealistic requests is they least they can do as it's suppossed to be a study simulation, not an arcade game.

 

If it weren't for the vocal "minority" that you seem to despise, you would not have a TGP on the Hornet nearly 2 years after its release. Additionally, the Hornet is capable of having the LITENING on station 4, so in order for it to be "realistic, study sim", all I have to do is change the skin of my aircraft to a country that does use it that way. This "study sim" is more so than War Thunder, but the core aspect of the game leave a LOT to be desired as far as actual hArDcOrE sIm. From the all seeing eye that is the Eagle's radar, to missile behavior, to how jamming/ECM works (which they shouldn't be able to accurately simulate IMO) still makes this in totality, a game. How many times have you seen/been affected by wonkey, unrealistic aircraft/missile/AAA behavior in this study sim? You also aren't forced to use triple rack Mavs on the Viper, nor the fourth station for the TGP. The negative impact to you if others do on an MP server is minimal (viper guys get 4 more kills if they make it to the target, and you "have" to see a TGP on the fourth station of a Hornet). You can also elect to play on servers that restrict their use, giving you back that realism you seek.

 

Lastly, speaking down is definitely not a great approach to community interactions. If they want to deny a specific weapon, weapons rack, or some other thing in the game because of how they envisioned their product, then that's fine. But an antagonistic approach is neither warranted nor helpful, and does not bode well for the health of the developer/customer relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think people just mostly want to use the cheek station so they can use tanks/stores on the centerline. It's all about min-maxing for aeroquake IMO.

 

 

 

If this were the case, then why bother with the ATFLIR which will be cheek mounted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with ED adding this specific option to the game (LITENING on 4), However it makes me wounder about future decisions to include "game-play" concessions before/in lieu of actual operational and realistic equipment.

 

i.e. Lets have a complete realistic experience before we start branching out to other operators/variants/time-frames. ect. That's my only concern moving forward.

 

In this case I understand the decision and it seems pretty reasonable to change a load out and model-in an adapter. But if we consider the F-16 for a moment. USAF/ANG block 50 F-16CMs from 2007 NEVER carried LITENING at all. That capability was added in DCS because they were concerned source material for SNIPER was unavailable and so they went with an unrealistic scenario, instead of scrapping the pod or the jet all together. I understand now we may end up getting SNIPER after all which is great, but considering we almost got stuck with a system that the aircraft they chose to model didn't have, concerns me. Makes me feel that we're dipping into crowd pleasing as Kev2go mentioned. Before long DCS is IL-2, then warthunder, Ace Combat yadda yadda. Adding hypothetical or out right unrealistic equipment is IMHO a VERY slippery slope, and quite contrary to DCS' sterling reputation for realism and high fidelity. That's why I personally chose this platform over other "simulators" out there. Its more expensive but it's worth it. But IF they start to go down that road, I'm not so sure.

 

 

 

Just my two cents


Edited by Wizard_03

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that "at some point" it did carry BRU-55.. the problem was that this was after ED's time frame for the aircraft. A slight concession, but not too far of a reach.

 

We never carried AGM-62? Operationally, or not possible?

 

The single wing pylon mounted AIM-120's are also not a realistic (possible) loadout by my research (no pics, no drag index value). I consider this as big of a problem as the LAU-88's on the F-16C.

 

 

I wish at the very least there was guidance in the manuals what elements or configurations are "gameplay" and for what reason... I flew the A-10C for a very long time with 6x AGM-65 without understanding the problems with this loadout, and how to treat it.


Edited by randomTOTEN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how people complain because the TPOD can't be mounted on the cheek station, then ED adds the capability, and people complain again that it shouldn't be mountable on the cheek station. ED really can't win with this community.

 

 

It's not the community - it's humanity in general. You can never please everyone - ever. Reminds me of an old story of a guy and his son walking through a village with a loaded donkey. Some people make comments about that poor donkey who must be so tired carrying all that baggage. So they change things around. At the next village the father is riding the donkey and the son is walking carrying the bags. Villagers say "what a cruel man making his son do all the work while riding the donkey". So they swap around, son rides donkey while father carries bags - "look at that selfish kid, he has no respect for his elderly father making him suffer so". Next village the kid and the father are both carrying the donkey and the baggage. Villagers go "Did you get a load of those idiots?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people just mostly want to use the cheek station so they can use tanks/stores on the centerline. It's all about min-maxing for aeroquake IMO.
...more like having flexibility with loiter time/range and ordnance for strike or CAS missions. I doubt someone would sacrifice an AIM-120 for a TGP for "Aeroquake".

Anyway, in my opinion "options", that don't include magic MFD pages or keyboard commands in the jet and can be managed in the real jet, yet have not been used for "budget/operational needs/decision" reasons, but are technically possible should be added.

I mean I really doubt "our" Hornet flew with 10 AIM-120 on real missions other than evaluation and testing scenarios, speaking of Aeroquake?

Just my opinion.


Edited by shagrat

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before long DCS is IL-2, then warthunder, Ace Combat yadda yadda. Adding hypothetical or out right unrealistic equipment is IMHO a VERY slippery slope, and quite contrary to DCS' sterling reputation for realism and high fidelity. That's why I personally chose this platform over other "simulators" out there. Its more expensive but it's worth it. But IF they start to go down that road, I'm not so sure.

 

 

 

Just my two cents

The good news is, that is why they announced Modern Air Combat. The bad news is, that does not necessarily mean that they will try to "crowd please" the ultra realism faction, that despises concessions to versatility over their personal wants and needs.

Sorry if this sounds offensive, but when I read ideas like "make it standard to lock out a player after being shot down for x minutes/days" for realism, I have problems to understand people asking to matter-of-fact "block access to the game they paid for" to punish players for a lack of luck or may be training?

So while some want to ensure 110% realism on loadouts, available weapons etc. the same people play utterly made up fictional "US vs. Russia in the Caucasus-Wars" or "When Iran attacked the Arabs and US" scenarios with their 100% realistic loadouts, to see what would (have) happen(ed) "if" we ever have/had these kind of scenario?

So why is it so hard to accept that "if" the US would have needed more/different equipment in these fictional conflicts we play, that they "could" have used available Litening pods, uncommon loadouts and bombs, as the situation requires? :dunno:


Edited by shagrat

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that "at some point" it did carry BRU-55.. the problem was that this was after ED's time frame for the aircraft. A slight concession, but not too far of a reach.

 

Just like sta4 litening then, it wasn't carried by USMC hornets in 2007 but it is now.

476th Discord   |    476th Website    |    Swift Youtube
Ryzen 5800x, RTX 4070ti, 64GB, Quest 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like sta4 litening then, it wasn't carried by USMC hornets in 2007 but it is now.

 

USN did though. 18c1 was spiraled in 2005, which added smart rack capability. Operational need due to long flight from north arabian to afgan and high demand for JDAMs.

 

Also, somebody said something about F-16 and litening. That one is pretty absurd I agree. HTS R7 was only compatible with Sniper. Sniper had optics for the range required, but more importantly had the image processing and pod data link and automatic ISR. HTS locates emitter Sniper locates with JDAM/JSOW quality targeting, categorizes threat and shares image & info w/ other pods in flight, or maybe rivet joint. Remember HTS isn't just for guiding HARMs. Actual strike might involve large number of MALD decoys to light everything up, Viper's build picture and start engaging w/ anti-rad while 2nd wave of Vipers engage with stealthy JSOWs, maybe couple JASSM for C3. Then there is the ECM aspect but we don't' usually get much of that, suffice to say even MALD are linked and haver active jamming now. But ya, litening doesn't do that. To be fair I think this is probably at request or documentation related, still, does make you wonder how its going to be simulated?

just a dude who probably doesn't know what he's talking about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it weren't for the vocal "minority" that you seem to despise, you would not have a TGP on the Hornet nearly 2 years after its release. Additionally, the Hornet is capable of having the LITENING on station 4, so in order for it to be "realistic, study sim", all I have to do is change the skin of my aircraft to a country that does use it that way. This "study sim" is more so than War Thunder, but the core aspect of the game leave a LOT to be desired as far as actual hArDcOrE sIm. From the all seeing eye that is the Eagle's radar, to missile behavior, to how jamming/ECM works (which they shouldn't be able to accurately simulate IMO) still makes this in totality, a game. How many times have you seen/been affected by wonkey, unrealistic aircraft/missile/AAA behavior in this study sim? You also aren't forced to use triple rack Mavs on the Viper, nor the fourth station for the TGP. The negative impact to you if others do on an MP server is minimal (viper guys get 4 more kills if they make it to the target, and you "have" to see a TGP on the fourth station of a Hornet). You can also elect to play on servers that restrict their use, giving you back that realism you seek.

 

Lastly, speaking down is definitely not a great approach to community interactions. If they want to deny a specific weapon, weapons rack, or some other thing in the game because of how they envisioned their product, then that's fine. But an antagonistic approach is neither warranted nor helpful, and does not bode well for the health of the developer/customer relationship.

 

 

You seem to confuse the difference between having a Litening 2, and it being offered on a different station. I was never arguing against adding the Litening 2 since the US operated Hornets do actually use said pod.

 

 

2 totally different things. The Litening 2 was quick way to add a targeting pod which didnt in any way infringe on the USN navy / USMC Hornets authenticity aas the USMC actually has F/A18C's in same configurations as the navy in terms of weapons and avionics. and that they actually run with the L2 on the Centerline pod, when operating from land, They too use ATFLIR when sharing the deck with USN Hornets.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this were the case, then why bother with the ATFLIR which will be cheek mounted?

 

Because this is the only TGP the US Navy currently uses, and the pod that the marines switch over to when operating from a carrier deck when not on land.

 

 

AS wizard also clarified earlier ( Rework of new IR imaging AP mechanics aside) the ATFLIR isn't just going to be a copy paste of the Litening 2 AT. ATFLIR is the better pod. NAvy had more stringent requirements due to higher on average operating altitudes . ATFLIR has better magnification, and a more powerful laser designator, allowing for even longer stand off range. in distance and or altitudes than the already pretty impressive performance you get with the L2.

 

The ATflir is also smaller ( 72 inches in length as opposed to 87) and 35 lbs lighter than the L2. So thier genuinely wont be an advantage to using the L2 over the ATFLIR on station 4 anyways, unless for those who really wish to roleplay thier nation's config like the EF18A

 

EDit:

 

Although later generation Litening pods which we don't have in DCS( Like the G4 and later ) are in turn better due to higher image resolution. There is in fact no a requiremnt from the navy to finally have an updated ATFLIR ( or a succesor) because due to lack of follow up its it genuinely is dated relative to the completion in present day.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You align the icon on the S/A page with the target waypoint. Slaving the pod to a WP was WIP and added by mistake. It's now removed.

 

This is the way I do now. I thought that they had implemented a new way to slew directly to the target waypoint.

 

Thanks for your reply! Let's pray to ED implement this in a future update.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to confuse the difference between having a Litening 2, and it being offered on a different station. I was never arguing against adding the Litening 2 since the US operated Hornets do actually use said pod.

 

 

2 totally different things. The Litening 2 was quick way to add a targeting pod which didnt in any way infringe on the USN navy / USMC Hornets authenticity aas the USMC actually has F/A18C's in same configurations as the navy in terms of weapons and avionics. and that they actually run with the L2 on the Centerline pod, when operating from land, They too use ATFLIR when sharing the deck with USN Hornets.

 

------------

 

Because this is the only TGP the US Navy currently uses, and the pod that the marines switch over to when operating from a carrier deck when not on land.

 

 

AS wizard also clarified earlier ( Rework of new IR imaging AP mechanics aside) the ATFLIR isn't just going to be a copy paste of the Litening 2 AT. ATFLIR is the better pod. NAvy had more stringent requirements due to higher on average operating altitudes . ATFLIR has better magnification, and a more powerful laser designator, allowing for even longer stand off range. in distance and or altitudes than the already pretty impressive performance you get with the L2.

 

The ATflir is also smaller ( 72 inches in length as opposed to 87) and 35 lbs lighter than the L2. So thier genuinely wont be an advantage to using the L2 over the ATFLIR on station 4 anyways, unless for those who really wish to roleplay thier nation's config like the EF18A

 

EDit:

 

Although later generation Litening pods which we don't have in DCS( Like the G4 and later ) are in turn better due to higher image resolution. There is in fact no a requiremnt from the navy to finally have an updated ATFLIR ( or a succesor) because due to lack of follow up its it genuinely is dated relative to the completion in present day.

 

 

 

You completely missed the point of both posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with ED adding this specific option to the game (LITENING on 4), However it makes me wounder about future decisions to include "game-play" concessions before/in lieu of actual operational and realistic equipment.

 

i.e. Lets have a complete realistic experience before we start branching out to other operators/variants/time-frames. ect. That's my only concern moving forward.

 

In this case I understand the decision and it seems pretty reasonable to change a load out and model-in an adapter. But if we consider the F-16 for a moment. USAF/ANG block 50 F-16CMs from 2007 NEVER carried LITENING at all. That capability was added in DCS because they were concerned source material for SNIPER was unavailable and so they went with an unrealistic scenario, instead of scrapping the pod or the jet all together. I understand now we may end up getting SNIPER after all which is great, but considering we almost got stuck with a system that the aircraft they chose to model didn't have, concerns me. Makes me feel that we're dipping into crowd pleasing as Kev2go mentioned. Before long DCS is IL-2, then warthunder, Ace Combat yadda yadda. Adding hypothetical or out right unrealistic equipment is IMHO a VERY slippery slope, and quite contrary to DCS' sterling reputation for realism and high fidelity. That's why I personally chose this platform over other "simulators" out there. Its more expensive but it's worth it. But IF they start to go down that road, I'm not so sure.

 

 

 

Just my two cents

 

 

was it though?

 

I myself took part in the discussions and even i myself was able to find some images of US operated F16C block 50 utilizing the Litening 2 AT, even though especially in active duty units Sniper XR is the more common pod, especially in present time frame. IRL Litening 2's were purchased as an interim solution and delivered earlier timeframe than the first operational Snipers, at faster pace.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that "at some point" it did carry BRU-55.. the problem was that this was after ED's time frame for the aircraft. A slight concession, but not too far of a reach.

 

We never carried AGM-62? Operationally, or not possible?

 

The single wing pylon mounted AIM-120's are also not a realistic (possible) loadout by my research (no pics, no drag index value). I consider this as big of a problem as the LAU-88's on the F-16C.

 

 

I wish at the very least there was guidance in the manuals what elements or configurations are "gameplay" and for what reason... I flew the A-10C for a very long time with 6x AGM-65 without understanding the problems with this loadout, and how to treat it.

 

If its documented and is authorized option in a manual that pertains to the services represented ( in NATOPS manuals in this case for the Navy and USMC ) then i would consider it fair enough game for inclusion.

 

Ironically enough even in the Super Hornet weapons that are no longer in use like AGM45 are still listed as authorized stores.

 

The controversy with LAU88's and triple mavericks on the F16C was because its not authorized for the F16C blk 50. ANd some of the community members here that were maintenance technicians within the USAF for also explained that the 3rd maverick rocket motor would damage the aircraft or something.

 

SO if a given load out can potentially cause critical failure of an aircraft, then no it certainly shouldn't be allowed. That is unless ED wants to troll the community and actually represent some form of structural damage for those who do fire with such loadouts. That would be hilarious.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with ED adding this specific option to the game (LITENING on 4), However it makes me wounder about future decisions to include "game-play" concessions before/in lieu of actual operational and realistic equipment.

 

i.e. Lets have a complete realistic experience before we start branching out to other operators/variants/time-frames. ect. That's my only concern moving forward.

 

In this case I understand the decision and it seems pretty reasonable to change a load out and model-in an adapter. But if we consider the F-16 for a moment. USAF/ANG block 50 F-16CMs from 2007 NEVER carried LITENING at all. That capability was added in DCS because they were concerned source material for SNIPER was unavailable and so they went with an unrealistic scenario, instead of scrapping the pod or the jet all together. I understand now we may end up getting SNIPER after all which is great, but considering we almost got stuck with a system that the aircraft they chose to model didn't have, concerns me. Makes me feel that we're dipping into crowd pleasing as Kev2go mentioned. Before long DCS is IL-2, then warthunder, Ace Combat yadda yadda. Adding hypothetical or out right unrealistic equipment is IMHO a VERY slippery slope, and quite contrary to DCS' sterling reputation for realism and high fidelity. That's why I personally chose this platform over other "simulators" out there. Its more expensive but it's worth it. But IF they start to go down that road, I'm not so sure.

 

 

 

Just my two cents

 

 

another example of crowd pleasing, and a much more controversial one, is the decision to add IGLAS for the paid Ka50 upgrade, in spite it never ever getting such capability.

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What i am concerned with is the aircraft's capabilities , i.e. it's ability to deliver ordinance . If ED is unable to deliver ATFLIR in a timely manner , i am willing to forego rivet-counting , and am all to happy to use the Litening on the cheek . Rivet-counters , (and i mean no disrespect , we need them too) feel it is unrealistic to cheek-mount a Litening on our Hornet . But how much more unrealistic is it to neuter the aircraft's range/payload ?

 

I , too , am getting the impression that the Atflir is yet years away . I don't know how one could conclude otherwise given the Litening , cheek mount for it , and the Jeff already using ED's new FLIR modelling . Possibly a licensing or Itar issue . I hope i'm wrong-especially if the Atflir has a Hud designation !

 

Finally , a tip . I like to load a Sparrow (or possibly 2) on the other cheek to balance the trim , and add some BVR defence capability while moving mud .

 

If this other "sim" i played was researched properly, than highly likely Legacy Hornet wont get HUD symbology to see where the ATFLIR is slewing. In the Super Hornet the ATFLIR had the same HUD limitation with the way the L2 pod currently does in DCS Hornet.

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t get the obsession with HUD symbology, particularly after playing with the (albeit work in progress) implementation before it was removed. The HUD designation and slaving was super easy and very useful. I find it (acknowledging both are unfinished) more useful than trying to slew the marker around the HUD in the viper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If that's so then I wonder who owns these hornets flying over Texas doing V-22 tanker testing for USMC carrying cheek mounted litenings.

 

 

Are those lot 20 hornets from 2005ish? LITENING on 4 for that time period is unrealistic for USMC they may do now, but they certainly didn’t do it back then, for all the reasons skate mentioned.

 

However ED listens so now we can pretend either way. FWIW BRU-55 is also inaccurate for our hornet but we got that too.

 

Boeing; Who Owns Several Legacy and Super Hornets for Testing.


Edited by SkateZilla

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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