Jump to content

Realism versus fun


Nanne118

Recommended Posts

Dear Polychop-Simulations and other readers,

 

I opened this topic because I wanted to ask what sort of approach you would like to take regarding realism versus enjoyability. I think previously you folks have caught a lot of flak regarding realism, some perhaps deserved, some not so deserved.

 

With the release of the Kiowa Warrior drawing ever closer I thought it could be interesting to see how you are intending to tackle "realism": for some folks rivet counting is the order of the day, whilst others rather enjoy the inclusion of elements that perhaps never made it past the prototype stage or were never realistically deployed. For example, the DCS F-16C is not able to carry AN/AAQ-13 Litening NavFlir pod, despite it being fully able to: the reasoning for not including it is that it does not carry it. On the other end of the scale the F14 can enjoy a large quantity of bombs to throw around and the M2000C has its D2M MWS.

 

Whilst such latter items are perhaps not strictly accurate to the real life deployment of the aircraft in question, they certainly add a lot of fun and diversity to the aircraft. The statement could be made that those who wish to enjoy such less-realistic features (perhaps roleplaying as a test squadron) are able to do so, whilst the rivet counters can simply leave these features behind.

 

 

My question to you therefore is how you intended do go about this with the OH-58D? There were a lot of interesting prototypes / test systems that were evaluated on the OH-58D but were never actually deployed / massively used. Items that spring to mind are the GAU-19, ANVIS Symbology system, ATAS, MUMI, SatCom; these are all systems that could provide an interesting and diversified module but that some nitpicker might say should not be implemented because it is not realistic. I'd say that such prototype systems could be really fun to mess around with, but what is your take on this?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Groundpounder extraordinaire

 

 

SPECS: i7-4790K, MSI Z97 Gaming 7, 16 GB RAM, MSI GTX 980ti, Thrustmaster WARTHOG HOTAS, Saitek Pro Combat Rudder pedals, TrackIR 5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm all against implementing systems that weren't integrated IRL, but I'm kinda suprised by the systems you mentioned as examples. I thought stuff like MUMI, SatCom and such were integrated into the Kiowa IRL?

On the other hand I'm not overly familiar with the Kiowa in general, so it's quite possible that I was under a wrong impression there.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are raising an interesting point: the integration of systems into the Kiowa.

Stuff like MUMI, SatCom was integrated and was AFAIK not used all that much operationally: the GAU-19 was also integrated and not used operationally except for trials and trailers.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Groundpounder extraordinaire

 

 

SPECS: i7-4790K, MSI Z97 Gaming 7, 16 GB RAM, MSI GTX 980ti, Thrustmaster WARTHOG HOTAS, Saitek Pro Combat Rudder pedals, TrackIR 5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Items that spring to mind are the GAU-19, ANVIS Symbology system, ATAS, MUMI, SatCom; these are all systems that could provide an interesting and diversified module but that some nitpicker might say should not be implemented because it is not realistic. I'd say that such prototype systems could be really fun to mess around with, but what is your take on this?

 

Only the GAU-19 was a prototype status project. All the others were systems that were fully operational and used in theaters ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the GAU-19 was a prototype status project. All the others were systems that were fully operational and used in theaters ;)

Thanks, that's exactly what I thought as well.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know enough about the Mirage to comment, but F-14s DID carry bombs and perform strike missions operationally, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. As for the F-16, unless I'm mistaken it has its own TPOD.

 

When talking about what certain aircraft have or don't, it's important to note the SPECIFIC aircraft in question. For example the F-16C we have is not a generic one, or even a general block, but specifically a US Air National Guard circa 2006(? Date subject to my sketchy memory of details) all of which influences what's available. As I understand it, some aircraft we have are less specific, but the rule is a very narrow focus.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know enough about the Mirage to comment, but F-14s DID carry bombs and perform strike missions operationally, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. As for the F-16, unless I'm mistaken it has its own TPOD.

 

When talking about what certain aircraft have or don't, it's important to note the SPECIFIC aircraft in question. For example the F-16C we have is not a generic one, or even a general block, but specifically a US Air National Guard circa 2006(? Date subject to my sketchy memory of details) all of which influences what's available. As I understand it, some aircraft we have are less specific, but the rule is a very narrow focus.

 

My point was more that sometimes realism should take a backseat, as sheer realism can be detrimental to being interesting / engaging / fun. As such developers could sway from realism somewhat to get a more interesting and engaging (fun) module experience.

 

The Mirage 2000C module has a set of Missile Warning System sensors called the D2M, which are similar to the MWS we have in the A-10C. Despite the IRL M2000C having the required panel and interfacing for it it is never fielded on it, as it is instead reserved for the M2000D two seater attack variant. A similar "departure" is made on the F14 module as the 14x Mk82 loadout on its belly stations is apparently not an approved loadout, something to do with the bombs not properly seperating out the tunnel between the engines. Ergo these functionalities were never really fielded.

 

Meanwhile ED with its F-16C decides not to implement the Lantirn Navigation and Flir pod (AN/AAQ-13 navigation pod), whilst we do get the Lantirn Targetting Pod (TGP, the AN/AAQ-14). Whilst both togehter are part of the common LANTIRN system, apparantly on the AAQ-14 TGP is realistic to implement given its fielding. Similarly, even the LAU-88 (triple rack) for the Mavericks was not supposed to be coming to the DCS F-16C as not being realistic. Some community backlash eventually reversed that later so that the LAU-88 will now be coming to the F-16C module.

 

 

Only the GAU-19 was a prototype status project. All the others were systems that were fully operational and used in theaters ;)

 

Huh, I did not know that. I thought stuff like the MUMI and the SatCom was only sparingly rolled out to some aircraft, where they put it on *some* aircraft but never made it fully operational. My apologies :S, thanks for your info, I love learning about stuff like this! :)

 

Regarding the GAU-19 I did remember reading a bit about its approvement and certification process in some documents; Wikipedia also had some links to these but apparantly those links are now dead. In the same spirit as my question before, would that then be something that could be implemented on the OH-58D module or is that too contrived as being not realistic? Basically, where would you guys "draw the line" (though that does sound very harsh) in terms of realism?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Groundpounder extraordinaire

 

 

SPECS: i7-4790K, MSI Z97 Gaming 7, 16 GB RAM, MSI GTX 980ti, Thrustmaster WARTHOG HOTAS, Saitek Pro Combat Rudder pedals, TrackIR 5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty simple, a lot of platforms in DCS already use the flexible approach to implement options, that are possible as a loadout, but never "used" in operations, at least none the public(!) knows about. See the MiG-21 for example, never heard about even a test drop of a real Nuke, yet you can put it in , Including the cockpit changes to use it etc.

The line for me is the implementation of fantasy control work arounds, like we mostly have in the A-10C, F-16C or F/A-18C, where you "change" the LGB laser codes on the bombs in-flight, by commanding a little gremlin to crawl onto the wing and set a new laser code on a GBU-12 at 24k ft? Totally "unrealistic", yet if we use it to set the code on the bombs only after reloading/start up to "simulate" the Data Cartridge and the preset codes on the GBUs it's a realistic use.

As long as there is no "made up" switchology, or MFD pages it's fine to add possible weapons/systems that could be used, or may be were already used in "non-public" missions.

If the aircraft is capable of using a weapon/system with the systems modeled, why not? Mission designers can easily limit available loadouts and realism addicts, can simply use stuff they "think" is realistic, if they feel the need.

For example, the CBU-97 is basically a SUU-66/B Dispenser with a specific load, why should it be "unrealistic" to put it onto a compatible wing station? Only because there are no "public" photographs? Or because the NAVY/USAF/USMC don't have this type of bomb (yet)? What if it could be "borrowed"? Or if tomorrow there is public info of a strike mission where, say the F/A-18C dropped CBU-97 on a convoy in theatre? Do we get the CBU-97 in the next patch, or do we have to live with the "unrealistic" version? ;)

Sarcasm aside, I am pretty much in favor, of the implementation of available options, as long as they don't come with made up workarounds for systems and/or panels necessary to employ them. The LANTIRN implementation in the F-14B, or the Nuke panel in the MiG-21, is simply brilliant for example. Realistic controls, that are added in the cockpit if mounted, yet optional so you can leave it as a pure interceptor.


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

It's pretty simple, a lot of platforms in DCS already use the flexible approach to implement options, that are possible as a loadout, but never "used" in operations, at least none the public(!) knows about.

 

Exactly. A some flexibility is required not just for "I want" but "No information" reasons.

 

As long as there is no "made up" switchology, or MFD pages it's fine to add possible weapons/systems that could be used, or may be were already used in "non-public" missions.

 

Let's roll back a 20-30 years, the end of the Cold War. How much information ANYONE could have got their hands on via public sources? We are literally talking about publications like Jane's catalog or various other magazines etc, that sent a specialist on all kind shows and events just to gather public information.

 

And it was all just about the marketing material.

 

Let's roll back 30-40 years, to year 1980. Someone would have walked to ask questions about weapons, performances of just released weapons? You were just getting yourself to a black list of personnel to be tracked for years as potential spy.

 

Even today a lot of information is very well protected, even when we have public materials like NATOPS etc, that even today have lots of information that is purposely made wrong, as it is just normal counter-intelligence.

 

If the aircraft is capable of using a weapon/system with the systems modeled, why not? Mission designers can easily limit available loadouts and realism addicts, can simply use stuff they "think" is realistic, if they feel the need.

 

Exactly.

 

It should be about mission designer to define the parameters of the world the mission it takes place.

 

For that we need a better tools altogether, the DCS editor and encyclopedia should include a lot more information about the weapons than just some basic odd numbers, that is not even for all.

 

Like just in weapons loadout menu there should be more information easily available that what the weapon truly does, when it was taken in service etc. Metadata should include data that what countries has known to be customers to buy and use it.

 

So when mission designer makes a mission, it automatically limits weapons to ones that were available by the mission date. Then limit weapons by the country and available aircrafts. Yes it would limit seriously lot of vehicles for lots of countries, but so be it.

 

And then there to be a "show all" or "allow all" weapons, units etc so mission designer truly can then after all work go and enable it and add the couple unrealistic systems as wanted or make completely what ever wanted in limit of realism (so no AIM-120 for Su-27 etc).

 

For example, the CBU-97 is basically a SUU-66/B Dispenser with a specific load, why should it be "unrealistic" to put it onto a compatible wing station? Only because there are no "public" photographs?

 

It is tiring that someone demands a photograph of something as evidence for something that is not even discussed. Like in the KA-50 case, it was years ago told that manufacturer is made system called President-S available for KA-50. "Do you have photos of it on KA-50? No? Go away". Then came one leaked photo of KA-50 with it. "That is KA-50 #18, we have #25, do you have photos of #25 having it? No? Go away". Then came all kind leaked and official photos etc. And it just kept going and going around how "Our KA-50 is specific #25 prototype from 1990's, it didn't have it at the time.....".

 

It is just crazy that somethings are required with highest level of evidence and documents to be changed by some people, but same time they are ready to defend a completely unrealistic and very simply wrong system that already exist and can't provide any evidence of anything being like that.

 

It is common thing to defend a higher authority or product one likes.

 

Like take as your CBU-97 case with APKWS II for Harrier, Hornet etc, and then similar for Russian side etc. And people demand like engineering documentation for it, as suddenly they don't even accept manufacturer statements, sales material or even photographs and news articles etc.

 

Sarcasm aside, I am pretty much in favor, of the implementation of available options, as long as they don't come with made up workarounds for systems and/or panels necessary to employ them. The LANTIRN implementation in the F-14B, or the Nuke panel in the MiG-21, is simply brilliant for example. Realistic controls, that are added in the cockpit if mounted, yet optional so you can leave it as a pure interceptor.

 

Exactly. Like with the KA-50, I am completely favoring that President-S, IGLA etc systems gets implemented as those has been shown to be equipped or meant for KA-50 from the begin.

But my problem is that how ED is going to implement them in the KA-50 like example President-S is shown to have a own dedicated display, that likely is obsolete for a upgraded K-50 that has full glass cockpit. But instead even adding that display to KA-50, they are making completely new page on KABRIS for it...

 

Like, we know something belongs to it, we know it is meant to work. We know that it has at least this instrument for it, why you go invent something completely new that no one has ever even read about?

 

They have two options:

 

A) Try to apply the known real display.

 

B) Invent completely new graphical system to existing one.

 

Meanwhile we see even Soviet engineers to use zip-locks to attach systems inside cockpit, US engineers use even boxers to fix things in Apache etc etc.

 

The OH-58 I would allow to have things that it has seen even in prototyping or otherwise, regardless has it been in service or not. As if it is technically working, so be it. It is a special feature. I don't want politics to intervene simulation, as we are talking about simulation overall. That we can simulate situations "What if...?" just like a real wargames. There real people simulate possible scenarios, and even very unlikely scenarios. Just in sake that they gain experience for something else than known stuff.

 

So yes, I want as well to see a Indians to attack USA Area 51 with their MiG-21Bisons etc... Unrealistic yes, but so it has done in real wargames...

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh, I did not know that. I thought stuff like the MUMI and the SatCom was only sparingly rolled out to some aircraft, where they put it on *some* aircraft but never made it fully operational. My apologies :S, thanks for your info, I love learning about stuff like this! :)

Well, they don't need to be rolled out to every aircraft to be operational. They could just have been used operationally on some aircraft ;)

 

 

For example, the CBU-97 is basically a SUU-66/B Dispenser with a specific load, why should it be "unrealistic" to put it onto a compatible wing station? Only because there are no "public" photographs? Or because the NAVY/USAF/USMC don't have this type of bomb (yet)? What if it could be "borrowed"? Or if tomorrow there is public info of a strike mission where, say the F/A-18C dropped CBU-97 on a convoy in theatre? Do we get the CBU-97 in the next patch, or do we have to live with the "unrealistic" version? ;)

Sarcasm aside [...]

Actually yes, that's what I prefer. If there is no evidence that weapon X is in use with aircraft Y than I don't want it to be available for that aircraft in DCS. If information appears later, that it is used, then it can of course be implementated in a patch.

I don't see why that would be sarcastic in any way? :huh:

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it operational on a decent number of airframes? Yes? Ok it's nice to have. No? Leave it

/thread

Totally agree :thumbup:

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, they don't need to be rolled out to every aircraft to be operational. They could just have been used operationally on some aircraft ;)

 

 

 

Actually yes, that's what I prefer. If there is no evidence that weapon X is in use with aircraft Y than I don't want it to be available for that aircraft in DCS. If information appears later, that it is used, then it can of course be implementated in a patch.

I don't see why that would be sarcastic in any way? :huh:

So when the weapon is in use on that airframe for covert ops since the 1990ies, but no footage was leaked to the public it is "unrealistic", but if we have picture proof, it's of cause real?

I think we need a Photoshop "Proof the weapons" initiative and flood the internet with pics of weapons on airplanes! Any airplane... ;)

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

So when the weapon is in use on that airframe for covert ops since the 1990ies, but no footage was leaked to the public it is "unrealistic", but if we have picture proof, it's of cause real?

Of course! Otherwise you could just claim everything is real if there is no proof...

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course! Otherwise you could just claim everything is real if there is no proof...
I am more for "Everything that's possible (systems and pylon wise) is realistic", so give us mission designers the option.

As some guys with in depth knowledge stated: "People would be astonished what configurations and weapons were employed in real life operations, but never publicly shown"...

Again, a pylon that can drop a Mk-82, can drop a Mk-82AIR, a Mk-82SE, a GBU-12 and a Mk-81 etc.

A pylon that can drop a canister can drop a canister with leaflets, bomblets, stones and gravel or CBU-97 as the fuzing and configuration is done on the weapons!

A Maverick or modern GPS guided bombs that require the pylon being connected to the MC, to get the initial coordinates transferred to the bomb, is a totally different story.

A rocket pod with Hydra system can launch a multitude of warheads, from Anti-Personnel, HE, Anti-Tank to flechette and illumination... matter of fact, and absolutely real. Can I proof Harriers shot flechette rockets? Can I proof our modern F/A-18C dropped Mk-82SE? Can I proof there was any drop of a leaflet canister? Some yes, some no. I am sure the F/A-18C modelled in DCS did not use a Litening II TGP, but actually, I don't care, as it could use it any time, as well as any of the ordnance named above.

I draw the line, where systems could not manage the ordnance or pylons can't hold the weapons/transfer data etc.

The rest about what ordnance is used in a specific scenario, linked to a specific timeframe is at the discretion of the mission designer.

We can easily limit the availability of weapons in the Mission Editor and we need to, as a 1992 fictional "Gulf incident" would be a bit weird with F/A-18C armed with AIM-9X, AGM-154 JSOW-C and a Litening II TGP, wouldn't it? So we need to lock these tools away, already, to be "somewhat realistic"... :dunno:

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

With weapons, which are absolutely in the missions designers realm of choice, I am way looser than the nerd in me demands.

 

With systems I'm much stricter. I like the idea of bolt on systems in the same module, but you simply cannot switch things on and off when it comes to systems. I can overlook some frankenstein modules in this respect. The Mirage D2M was one of the best "checkbox" optional systems that DCS has seen. I want this stuff, I want it enforceable at a mission level and I want flexibility.

 

But it has to be reasonable.

 

Strapping a certain IR missile on that was not operational, I think can be reasonable. But some of the complex SARH's, nope. There is a better way to look at this:

 

Is it reasonable, is it feasible or imaginable from a technical, not a budget or operational point of view. In this way, if something was trialled somewhere, even in an export version, then it's feasible, operationally possible and then it comes to the final check...

 

Can the mission designer switch it on and off?

 

 

If so, fire on, the more the merrier.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am more for "Everything that's possible (systems and pylon wise) is realistic", so give us mission designers the option.

Well, you just described my worst nightmare. :(

 

It's people like you that make this sim less and less enjoyable to me. People that request unrealistic and/or more arcady features for this sim. Eventually those requests will be fulfilled and we get such features as options. Then people go ahead and use these options and the game gets less and less realistic.

 

We now have a MWS on the Mirace 2000C which never had this system IRL. It's optional, but I can only deactivate it when playing SP. When playing onlin it's activated on most online servers and I can't turn it off on server. Sure, I could just not use it myself, but that's pretty frustrating if all the other players have this advantage available. There isn't even an option for me to filter out what servers have which realism feature enabled or disabled.

 

So for me as someone who likes it realistic it becomes more and more difficult to fly in an environment where this is actually the case.

The next step then is that such features are hardcoded and can't be turned off by anyone. The availabilty of fast alignment (Stored Heading Alignment) for example. With the F-14 this feature was still optional and the server admin can at least disable it for more realistic missions. With the F-16, the devs just didn't even bother to make its availability optional. You can just always fast align the Viper if you like to and not even admins can prevent that.

 

So yeah, it's a slow creep of this sim becoming more and more arcady and that makes it less and less enjoyable for me. I've seen this happening with other sims and hardcore games that I once enjoyed for not being arcady. Then they added more arcady features to attract a wider player base. Then this player base became the majority and arcade features that once where optional become the new norm and eventually replaced the realistic gameplay entirely.

DCS is still very early in this process, but it's getting worse and worse :cry:

 

 

Edit: And no, just because an aircraft can drop Mk-82 doesn't 100% guarantee it can also use GBU-12. There's a reason why so called Seperation Tests are being carried out before a new or even just modified weapon gets implemented.


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it operational on a decent number of airframes? Yes? Ok it's nice to have. No? Leave it

/thread

This particular rule of thumb falls short.

 

Let me work backwards.

 

Had F-18 or F-16 been sold to the UK, would you expect to see Aim9 and AIM-120 only?

Did the Israelis use Sidewinders on their Vipers only, or is the Python a a world first exception?

Do even the US Navy and the US Airforce carry the same inventories of weapon?

 

Artificial restrictions on weapons loadouts are artificial. I'm not talking about a AV-8B carrying AIM-120 and Harpoon, I am talking about a variant of the correct year being able to fire a wider amount of ordnance than what is operationally 'seen'. Example - F-4 Phantom from USAF. Carried AIM7. Would you see Skyflash done? Doubt it. What was Skyflash to an AIM7?

 

Real life, current Weapons manafacturer reference:

https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/asraam/

There is an ASRAAM on a F-18 and its been test fired, as well as F-16.

 

If the Houthis in Yemen can jerry rig weapons to fire at Saudi aircraft, you can bet the CEO of MBDA will give you a quote on rewiring your aircraft to fit his missiles. And it will cost less than a Litening II off the shelf! This is all about cost, politics and very little about technical feasibility. Which in a sandbox simulator, has very little purpose.

 

Example? How many TGP's are sent to units? Anyone care? Nope. It's a simulator, no one cares. Why not? Because money is not part of a the sandbox. So why should it matter that there is one or no TGP's in stock for the skin of the Harrier that never existed on the Tarawa? No one cares, and if someone does, they don't make the mission. But... this is the same argument for some loadouts! Just because it's a US Hornet Lot 20 which never went to any other country, you suddenly cannot get any appropriate and fittable weapons for it for other countries. WHen indeed, there is no difference and an ASRAAM should be possible. Except, ED don't want to develop an ASRAAM or Meteor and kit out other countries because it opens a can of worms and cost.

 

Before this view is percieved as too broad, let me reiterate, the platform must be capable of firing it. It doesn't mean it had to have been tested with any country, but obviously the largest inspiration is from exports and trials, not from operational usage.

 

As a sandbox, DCS is more restricted than you think. In DCS they find it easier to set artificial restrictions on loadout according to Country, fleet, specific Lot, version etc. And it's an entirely artificial restriction that, if money was waved at the problem, would go away. Sadly it costs a lot to add variants to DCS, else believe me, you would have seen F-14A sooner, the Spitfire CW variant would have been done immediately. The Mirage and AV-8B woudlnt have caused so many arguments, the C101CC wouldnt have taken a year, the L-38ZA wouldn't have taken longer. And, to their credit, the Gazelle variants are almost an exception, but how cool wasn't it, to have them? I don't think Polychop got enough praise here, because the effort for variants is quite a lot.

 

Does it hurt anyone to have realistic potential loadouts assuming they can be developed?

 

The only person it hurts is the guy writing the mission unticking the variant in the warehouse. Restrictions shouldnt exist where they are feasible and there are far too many of them occuring naturally that are excused their existence because people can't see the rest of the world outside the United States of America. I really hope to see mor emultinational support for variants and loadouts in the future from ED.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually yes, that's what I prefer. If there is no evidence that weapon X is in use with aircraft Y than I don't want it to be available for that aircraft in DCS. If information appears later, that it is used, then it can of course be implementated in a patch.

I don't see why that would be sarcastic in any way? :huh:

 

If there is no evidence that weapons are in operational use, it is not evidence it can't be equipped.

 

If there is no evidence for one thing, then lack of it is not evidence something being impossible.

 

We are talking about military where many things are technically possible, but politically not. So one might never get access to documentation, but not even to political reasons.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you just described my worst nightmare. :(

 

It's people like you that make this sim less and less enjoyable to me. People that request unrealistic and/or more arcady features for this sim. Eventually those requests will be fulfilled and we get such features as options. Then people go ahead and use these options and the game gets less and less realistic.

 

We now have a MWS on the Mirace 2000C which never had this system IRL. It's optional, but I can only deactivate it when playing SP. When playing onlin it's activated on most online servers and I can't turn it off on server. Sure, I could just not use it myself, but that's pretty frustrating if all the other players have this advantage available. There isn't even an option for me to filter out what servers have which realism feature enabled or disabled.

 

So for me as someone who likes it realistic it becomes more and more difficult to fly in an environment where this is actually the case.

The next step then is that such features are hardcoded and can't be turned off by anyone. The availabilty of fast alignment (Stored Heading Alignment) for example. With the F-14 this feature was still optional and the server admin can at least disable it for more realistic missions. With the F-16, the devs just didn't even bother to make its availability optional. You can just always fast align the Viper if you like to and not even admins can prevent that.

 

So yeah, it's a slow creep of this sim becoming more and more arcady and that makes it less and less enjoyable for me. I've seen this happening with other sims and hardcore games that I once enjoyed for not being arcady. Then they added more arcady features to attract a wider player base. Then this player base became the majority and arcade features that once where optional become the new norm and eventually replaced the realistic gameplay entirely.

DCS is still very early in this process, but it's getting worse and worse :cry:

 

 

Edit: And no, just because an aircraft can drop Mk-82 doesn't 100% guarantee it can also use GBU-12. There's a reason why so called Seperation Tests are being carried out before a new or even just modified weapon gets implemented.

 

 

Quigon says that choices should not be allowed because players on Blue Flag only choose degenerate choices. He's then cited two examples supporting his view:Mirage D2M option

Unenforceable "Fast align" on F-16

 

Except...

D2M was a Razbam mistake. I'm not sure if its your memory or you missed this buddy, but, they had it like that first because they took their data from the later models and screwed up. So as not to annoy people, they made it an option. Thankfully the French AdA helped them with data. No reason to have a riot here, there was nothing devious in the mistake, just incorrect data. On to justification number 2:

F-16 Alignment demonstrates degenerate play in options because its no longer enforceable like other INS.

Hahaha! Have you noticed the state of development of the F-16 recently and for the last year? You understand the terms Work In Progress, why do you assume this is complete? There is no reason to suspect the currently abbreviated INS for the F-16 wont follow the equally long development the F-18 took, right?

 

There's no valid argument from you, that DCS is being developed with less realism in mind. None. Also the fact that Admins choose the setting that you dislike is not evidence this is happening either. BF is popularised, it's not attempting realism, you making a deal out of the D2M setting is actually validating the TF-51 recon missions on Blue Flag!

 

People assume that 'broader loadout options' mean "I'm going to put an AIM-54 on my F-15." Can we be sensible here for just a moment?

 

There is a massively oversimplified look at loadouts that do not consider countries, fleets, moments in time, politics, budgets, embargos and so on.

 

The example I gave was ASRAAM for the F-18. It's there, tested and we are restricted to the US Navy ordnance. Why?

 

 

SkyFlash for UK, Meteor in Europe over AIM-120, Python in Israel, R73's/American stuff in places like India, there is a whole load of examples where loadouts have been reduced to country and fleet purchased ordnance, because "Navy didnt do that", so then people say, well I want a Finnish F-18 and the reply is, "Its a Lot 20 No 1236523 which never went outside the US.

But that doesnt mean it couldnt. And are we really going to say, well, it never flew off the Stennis so you can't fly it in DCS it will not spawn there? Really? I think not. This is the thing, you can only take realism so far. If you want perfect.... tough. Not happening. It can fire Asraam and does, so I want to have the same Hornet, but I want it flying for the UK with ASRAAM because DCS is a sandbox and I should be allowed that because its possible, feasible, reasonable and doable.

 

Hope that makes sense. Not asking for ridiculous things when it comes to Kiowa options. Just feasible things that tolerate the possibilities:

a) The Country is not forced

b) The time period is not ultra fixed to an exact point where weapons that were fitted to the same airframe later on, can be fitted to the Kiowa they have data on.

c) There is a reasonable effort to keep loadouts feasible but not exclude things that were possible but rejected for monetry or country reasons, especially things that can be solved with options and loadouts.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is not evidence it can't be equipped

 

If there's no real-life evidence of airframe X having carried weapon Y, no realism-oriented developer is going to model such a combination either.

The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you just described my worst nightmare. :(

 

It's people like you that make this sim less and less enjoyable to me. People that request unrealistic and/or more arcady features for this sim..

First of all, I was pretty clear on what I consider arcade/unrealistic and realistically we have much(!) more arcade "workarounds" in DCS than most people are aware ( e.g. the Lasercodes on GBUs can be changed mid flight, HoF for CBUs magically switched per MFD buttons). So please be reasonable and don't make up accusations to discredit other people's viewpoint. You should know me good enough to be aware that I am definitely NOT advocating arcade gimmicks like JSOW on the F-5E or AIM-120 on the AV-8B Night Attack...

So for me as someone who likes it realistic it becomes more and more difficult to fly in an environment where this is actually the case.

So because you can't be bothered to create an environment/host a server you can enjoy, it is reasonable to limit anybody else's environment to your view of "realism"? So when I want to create and host a 2024 fictional conflict on the Persian Gulf map with US NAVY F/A-18C employing CBU-97 to take out a convoy of BMP-3 I cannot do it, because you say so? I prefer to have the realistic option based on possible loadouts for the missions I create for our little group and not the "photoproof loadout from the 90ies". I as the mission designer want the flexibility to limit or not limit loadouts for the scenarios I create.

Basically I can't see why I should be limited in mission design, so my mission is more to your liking and based on your preference, as you will never fly it anyway?

The availabilty of fast alignment (Stored Heading Alignment) for example. With the F-14 this feature was still optional and the server admin can at least disable it for more realistic missions.

Sorry, but you are aware that "stored heading alignment" is a very real thing? It's standard for alert 5 and other scramble jets to be set up, pre aligned and ready to go. It's also unrealistic to just jump into the seat and start a plane on the carrier deck without going through exterior checks and preflight, now there are people in this community who have a life, family and work outside the Sim and a realistic(!) 40 minutes Startup with all necessary preparation isn't popular with a lot of them, I am sure. Especially, when you need to do it again, after you lost server connection 32 minutes into the start-up and are back to a cold and dark cockpit.

Edit: And no, just because an aircraft can drop Mk-82 doesn't 100% guarantee it can also use GBU-12. There's a reason why so called Seperation Tests are being carried out before a new or even just modified weapon gets implemented.

Well, let's say if the only reason against a GBU-12 on a particular plane is budget considerations, I prefer to have the option, as budget does not matter in a Sandbox Simulation.

As for the CBU canisters, I can see no reason why a plane that can deliver a CBU-99 can't deliver a CBU-87 or CBU-97... more or less only the canisters payload is different and the markings maybe.


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

If there's no real-life evidence of airframe X having carried weapon Y, no realism-oriented developer is going to model such a combination either.
So the JF-17 is what exactly? I mean where were these weapons employed in a war zone, or could they be employed at all by the JF-17? Do you have proof any of these weapons were ever employed and not just tested?

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

Do you have proof any of these weapons were ever employed and not just tested?

 

Why the hell should I have any proof one way or another? I didn't model the plane and I'm not claiming anything either, so I don't have to prove anything. Go ask the dev if this bugs you.

 

Regardless, they're either realism-oriented or "what-if", not both.

The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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