Realism versus fun

I agree that a 20km threat radius would upset the balance, for a small very hard to detect helicopter. if not only for the fast movers, but it would make operating any of the other helos currently in the sim a nightmare.

But - and there's always a but.

20km threat circle and all that - but the factual threat radius would be a lot less, wouldn't it?

With only visual spotting and all?

And why go all the way? Why not implement the same stingers we already have in game on MANPADS and Avenger etc?

Mistral is already on the Gazelle and is comparable, IIRC?

I get it, that the GAU-19 had issues you are not allowed/willing to model, as it is more trouble than benefit. Ok, that is not what I hoped for, but reasonable, but the self-defense Stinger SAM?

Realism out the window in favor of balancing, to make the air-quake guys happy? Well, it is your call, after all. I just can't see the point... basically we will miss a self-defense system actually implemented for the purpose of not being a sitting duck like in other helos and the only reason is "jet pilots would be annoyed", when the easy prey had teeth?

Why can't the mission designer make that choice?

If your concern is realism, in the particular time period that Polychop is designing their Kiowa there wouldn't be a stinger option at all. By 2013 the wiring was removed.

Quote from the -10 "4. Removed all Air-To-Air Stinger (ATAS) wiring."

The real question is, was it tested successful or not?

Yes, it was tested and qualified. The GAU-19B was intended to be fielded to the OH58F, the upgrade to OH58D. Same airframe, hardpoints, etc.

Only difference to 58F was a new cockpit suite, new sensor, and lightened/modernized components.

The weapon was tested on the 58D because no 58Fs were available yet.

As for application though - aside from looking cool, providing better reliability, and a somewhat more precise beaten-zone, the GAU19D provided no increase in firepower or capability.

It fired the same .50cal ammunition, and used the same ammo-handling system, so carried the same amount of rounds.

So no difference in application/firepower.

If your concern is realism, in the particular time period that Polychop is designing their Kiowa there wouldn't be a stinger option at all. The wiring was removed.

True statement, but it was a fully developed and functional weapon system the KW used for many years.

No replace the AGM-86 with a AIM-9 or R-60/R-73, what happens?

How about if you swap it to some ATGM?

 

All the ridiculous ideas are easily to be dropped by the logic.

I think with the latest comment by borchi it is quite clear now, that the GAU-19 was not combat ready on the Kiowa.

That is what I said, if someone has it tested, found it working but not taken in operational use because politics or simply no requirement in missions = possibility to be implemented in DCS & up to mission designer to decide is it available in DCS.

Same with the AMRAAM on the Tomcat. It was tested, but never put into operational service due to politics and budget considerations.

You mean somebody decided, that they won't buy them for the Kiowa, as there was no operational need.

Again, same with the Tomct and the AMRAAM. It was tested, but never put into operational service as the operational need wasn't big enough to justify the costs. Should we now get the AMRAAM for the Tomcat in DCS, because mission designers might want to make scenarios where it was decided to equip operational Tomcats with AMRAAMs?

...and I would still like to know your opinion on aircraft flying fantasy missions with "true to life" loadouts on maps that never, ever saw these planes in real life?

Seems you are a bit hypocritical about that whole realism thing... it needs only to be "true to life" when it suits you, else it can be the weirdest shit.

That's OT here. If you would like to discuss that either send me a PM or open a thread for that topic.

Ok, to maybe get the salt out of the topic a bit, I might link in here ?

 

Why are we not integratging the GAU19. Simple, we talked tot he SMEs. The GAU19 was tested, even one of the SMEs did test it. Another one has seen the maintenance reports as crew chief. There were numerous reasons why it was not fielded. The fact it was not fielded and used in an operational manner and has not been deliverred to any operational unit for anything else then testing stuff, made me call, with the vote of the team, that the M3P 50 cal was the gun to go with only, cause it was the ine that was used for many years reliable in combat. I will not go into further details about the GAU19 what issues were occuring in RL why it did not make it into the field, but there were reasons.

Very interesting, thank you. That shows pretty nicely that just because a weapon got tested on a certain airframe it doesn't mean that it is operational. The purpose of tests and trials is to see if there are any issues and sometimes issues arise that might not be very obvious, but are big enough to prevent operational use.

If we talk about realism, we then would have to integrate the FIM92 STINGER block 2 with a head on range of more then twice the block 1 has.We made the call, NOPE, cause the fast jet fanboys would be super upset to be shot down by KIOWAS, although in reality, this would very very likely happen easily within a 20km circle. So to speak, we made the call on our side, that we will not integrate systems that either were only tested or never made it to the field, although the block 2 was fielded as far I heard. In case of the blcok 2 we simply are not making it for the sake of the community and balance it there for the fast jet fans, as I am one myself.

While I agree to not implement the GAU-19, as it was never operational, I don't agree with this decision to not implement the Stinger Block 2 due to balancing. I totally agree with shagrat here, that balancing considerations should be up to the mission designers. If a system was opertional in the aircraft IRL then it should also be implemented in DCS.

Please stick with realism not with arcadic "game fun". DCS is a simulation!

Again, same with the Tomct and the AMRAAM. It was tested, but never put into operational service as the operational need wasn't big enough to justify the costs. Should we now get the AMRAAM for the Tomcat in DCS, because mission designers might want to make scenarios where it was decided to equip operational Tomcats with AMRAAMs?

Nope. Tomcat with AMRAAM would have required basically a change of radars and large parts of the mission computer. That's exactly where I draw the line. No, magical AWG-9 can't guide AIM-120C... it couldn't without a complete redesign. I am not sure if the tests used an existing AMRAAM compatible radar or were just launch tests, but this would not work on a Tomcat B model, without ripping it apart and plug in different avionics.

The GAU-19D on the other hand is just another gun, using the same feeder mechanism, wiring and trigger. Only thing that needs to be switched is the weapon and may be the mount.

TLDR Tomcat with AMRAAM needs a different Tomcat. GAU-19D for KW does not need any changes to systems or cockpit model.

EDIT found it. That AMRAAM was planned and tested for the F-14D with its modernized systems and APG-73 radar. F-14B was not even planned.

Canceled because... budget.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-12/html/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-95-12.htm

Nope. Tomcat with AMRAAM would have required basically a change of radars and large parts of the mission computer. That's exactly where I draw the line. No, magical AWG-9 can't guide AIM-120C... it couldn't without a complete redesign. I am not sure if the tests used an existing AMRAAM compatible radar or were just launch tests, but this would not work on a Tomcat B model, without ripping it apart and plug in different avionics.

The GAU-19D on the other hand is just another gun, using the same feeder mechanism, wiring and trigger. Only thing that needs to be switched is the weapon and may be the mount.

TLDR Tomcat with AMRAAM needs a different Tomcat. GAU-19D for KW does not need any changes to systems or cockpit model.

Similar to the AMRAAM-Tomcat, the OH-58D (the one we're getting) was just a testbed for the GAU-19, as the GAU-19 was supposed to get implemented on the OH-58F as burundus said.

Similar to the AMRAAM-Tomcat, the OH-58D (the one we're getting) was just a testbed for the GAU-19, as the GAU-19 was supposed to get implemented on the OH-58F as burundus said.

Anyway it is Polychop's decision and they made the call to not implement it. It's just not because of "realism" rather than redundancy... and personally I am still interested in having loadout options, as long as it does not require magical workarounds/different avionics etc. or are implemented correctly like the F-14B LANTIRN or MiG-21bis nuke etc.

I am not a fan of trying to balance things in a sandbox sim other than by the mission designer. A sensible Mission developer will create a specific scenario and can decide if he wants a SATAL rules based Dogfight tournament with "penalties" for leaving the engagement zone, balancing weapons and matching planes or recreating an accurate WW II encounter in 1944 over Normandy. These artificial limitations don't necessarily mean DCS is more realistic, just that mission designers are more limited in their ideas for scenarios/missions.

Ok, to maybe get the salt out of the topic a bit, I might link in here ?

 

Why are we not integratging the GAU19. Simple, we talked tot he SMEs. The GAU19 was tested, even one of the SMEs did test it. Another one has seen the maintenance reports as crew chief. There were numerous reasons why it was not fielded. The fact it was not fielded and used in an operational manner and has not been deliverred to any operational unit for anything else then testing stuff, made me call, with the vote of the team, that the M3P 50 cal was the gun to go with only, cause it was the ine that was used for many years reliable in combat. I will not go into further details about the GAU19 what issues were occuring in RL why it did not make it into the field, but there were reasons.

 

If we talk about realism, we then would have to integrate the FIM92 STINGER block 2 with a head on range of more then twice the block 1 has.We made the call, NOPE, cause the fast jet fanboys would be super upset to be shot down by KIOWAS, although in reality, this would very very likely happen easily within a 20km circle. So to speak, we made the call on our side, that we will not integrate systems that either were only tested or never made it to the field, although the block 2 was fielded as far I heard. In case of the blcok 2 we simply are not making it for the sake of the community and balance it there for the fast jet fans, as I am one myself.

It should be optional to enable the block 2. Balancing destroys Games like DCS

Waiting.....

for the most technologically advanced chopper in dcs world!

WAITING........ for another Polychops first.

Gonna have me some fun with this complex girl..... perfect post to OP!

Ok, to maybe get the salt out of the topic a bit, I might link in here ?

 

Why are we not integratging the GAU19. Simple, we talked tot he SMEs. The GAU19 was tested, even one of the SMEs did test it. Another one has seen the maintenance reports as crew chief. There were numerous reasons why it was not fielded. The fact it was not fielded and used in an operational manner and has not been deliverred to any operational unit for anything else then testing stuff, made me call, with the vote of the team, that the M3P 50 cal was the gun to go with only, cause it was the ine that was used for many years reliable in combat. I will not go into further details about the GAU19 what issues were occuring in RL why it did not make it into the field, but there were reasons.

 

If we talk about realism, we then would have to integrate the FIM92 STINGER block 2 with a head on range of more then twice the block 1 has.We made the call, NOPE, cause the fast jet fanboys would be super upset to be shot down by KIOWAS, although in reality, this would very very likely happen easily within a 20km circle. So to speak, we made the call on our side, that we will not integrate systems that either were only tested or never made it to the field, although the block 2 was fielded as far I heard. In case of the blcok 2 we simply are not making it for the sake of the community and balance it there for the fast jet fans, as I am one myself.

I fail to see how this ''balance'' aspect is relevant in any way shape or form. If server operators don't want it available, they'll disable it, just like they already do on some with the AiM-54 and AiM-120... it's your module, do as you please of course, however I don't see why YOU on the DEVSIDE need to worry about something the players can and DO do on their servers already. If Heatblur didn't need to do it for the F-14, why do you for the Kiowa?

...snip...

 

If we talk about realism, we then would have to integrate the FIM92 STINGER block 2 with a head on range of more then twice the block 1 has.We made the call, NOPE, cause the fast jet fanboys would be super upset to be shot down by KIOWAS, although in reality, this would very very likely happen easily within a 20km circle. So to speak, we made the call on our side, that we will not integrate systems that either were only tested or never made it to the field, although the block 2 was fielded as far I heard. In case of the blcok 2 we simply are not making it for the sake of the community and balance it there for the fast jet fans, as I am one myself.

You either stand by your simulated result or you walk away from simming for good. It's not your problem what people do with your product, that's for server admins to control. Your problem, is to produce a simulation of a helicopter that stands up to scrutiniy and testing against it's real life counterpart and performs as it should do. Now that I heard you don't want to upset jet pilots you have thrown your entire credibility away. You dont care for the truth, you only care for a perceived balance. Wow.

Either your sim is accurate and your words are accurate "although the block 2 was fielded as far I heard" or it's not.

If I recall any similar conversation with HeatBlur regarding the long range Phoenix, did you hear them say that they would alter the performacne to fit with the DCS pvp metagame? No, probably because HeatBlur settled any question with the simple answer to every single question on this topic... "we model it real or not at all."

Same answer for the presence of a Eurofighter in DCS. Balance does not exist in war. It's a fallacy. No one called a war quits because it was unfair! This is a simulator. The server admins make the rules.

So, a Polychop representative doesnt want to get shot down by a Kiowa? And cites that as one of their reasons! And uses subjectivity to base their simulation one? According to a perception of what DCS PvP is? I've never heard such craziness.

Balance does not exist in war. It's a fallacy. No one called a war quits because it was unfair! This is a simulator. The server admins make the rules.

+1

about the block 2, it is not going to happen.

One of the reasons is, that last time we had a missile in the game that was superior, and we used infos from people that knew more about it then the community, we got a shit ton of flag for it.

My reason to not give the community a block 2 is based on the behavior of people in the community. What my heart wants does not matter, but I do not want any discussion later on from people that think they know more abput the weaponsystems then our SMEs and start thier hate war on us. Sorry, enough is enough at some point which results sometimes that the super cool stuff can not be integrated. sorry, at the end I have to also protect the product and the company plus the people behind all of this, which include the protection from peoples opinions based on nothing then assumptions. Maybe this is to open for some, but I did not want to hold a matzre reason, why i said no, back. Sorry for maybe disappointing someone.

That's disappointing indeed, as DCS modules should model the real life capabilities of an aircraft. :(

If people think it's too powerful they can restrict weapons and such in missions and on MP servers.

I don't agree, but I clearly see your reason here. Too bad sometimes limits are not set by technology, knowledge or classification... but due to customers.

Well, realistically, you're going to catch flak from jerks and know-it-alls anyway. I mean... look at any thread here. I understand it's frustrating, but unfortunately that's just the reality of the situation. People are going to gripe and complain. It's what they do... I don't care one way or the other what you choose to do, only pointing out that

A. It doesn't matter. You're going to deal with rancorous community members either way.

B. If you put out laser death rays that instakill everything within 100nm server admins will ban them, most people won't use them, a few will, people will argue about whether the laser death ray is TRULY propogating at the speed of light, declaring digital combat SIMULATOR and how the lack of true light speed weaponry is clearly a sign of degradation of the community.

C. Neither A nor B really matter. I just don't really see how either balance or community kneejerking is of amy significance whatsoever. That's what ''ignore'' is for.

But whatever. As I said, I don't really care one way or the other. Merely pointing out how silly it is from a neutral perspective.

My understanding was that ED was now in charge of integrating new weapons into the game, following discussions about SD-10, AIM-54, etc. added by third party devs. Would that not also apply here? In which case the big discussion about how accurate it is falls onto ED’s shoulders, not Polychop. But maybe that statement was only specific to certain types of weapons (like Fox3’s) or misunderstood entirely.

In the plane side of things we are seeing another third party promise über–weapons for their über–plane (EF2000) and not many seem to mind...

I completely understand wanting to protect your company though. Most of us here never tried to sell anything to the DCS community, so it is difficult to put ourselves in your shoes. Either way (block 2 or not) you would still have a day-1 buyer for that module in me. I appreciate the hard work and dedication you guys put into this module, and I love to see more helos in DCS. In VR they are freakin’ awesome to fly.

Well, realistically, you're going to catch flak from jerks and know-it-alls anyway. I mean... look at any thread here. I understand it's frustrating, but unfortunately that's just the reality of the situation. People are going to gripe and complain. It's what they do... I don't care one way or the other what you choose to do, only pointing out that

 

A. It doesn't matter. You're going to deal with rancorous community members either way.

 

B. If you put out laser death rays that instakill everything within 100nm server admins will ban them, most people won't use them, a few will, people will argue about whether the laser death ray is TRULY propogating at the speed of light, declaring digital combat SIMULATOR and how the lack of true light speed weaponry is clearly a sign of degradation of the community.

 

C. Neither A nor B really matter. I just don't really see how either balance or community kneejerking is of amy significance whatsoever. That's what ''ignore'' is for.

 

But whatever. As I said, I don't really care one way or the other. Merely pointing out how silly it is from a neutral perspective.

“The world according to Kettle “.

Love always, Pot

That's disappointing indeed, as DCS modules should model the real life capabilities of an aircraft. :(

If people think it's too powerful they can restrict weapons and such in missions and on MP servers.

The "problem" was that Polychop's Mistral out performed all similar "Manpad" class IR missiles in DCS, had longer burn times / range than MDA's specs. and launch videos i.e. Poly's 20 kg Mistral performed like a 70 kg RIM-116 ...

Initially the IR sensor under performed compared to the Igla, etc. and the Mistral had very limited range in DCS, once that was fixed however, the missile's over performing FM became apparent.

PC's missile .lua is encrypted, so it couldn't even be checked for basic physics/logic errors.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4040675#post4040675

about the block 2, it is not going to happen.

 

One of the reasons is, that last time we had a missile in the game that was superior, and we used infos from people that knew more about it then the community, we got a shit ton of flag for it.

AFAIK Stinger Block 2 is a sensor upgrade i.e. it can detect incoming targets at longer ranges, it didn't get a super lightweight rocket motor/propellant with boosted thrust to chase down supersonic aircraft.

Personally, if I was given the choice between a FIM92 STINGER block 2 with a 20km "all aspect" NEZ

... fanboys would be super upset to be shot down by KIOWAS, although in reality, this would very very likely happen easily within a 20km circle.

... that had to be taken "on trust" or a block 1 that's similar to a AIM-9, 9M311-M1, Igla, etc. with known physics and FM - I'll take the later.

This is especially true as it seems PC still don't accept that ED's Mistral FM is accurate.

My reason to not give the community a block 2 is based on the behavior of people in the community. What my heart wants does not matter, but I do not want any discussion later on from people that think they know more about the weapon systems then our SMEs and start their hate war on us.

Whatever your "heart" and/or SME's tell you, you still need balance F=MA, specific impulse, drag, etc. - if a FM doesn't make "sense", you should expect people to ask "why".

The "problem" was that Polychop's Mistral out performed all similar "Manpad" class IR missiles in DCS, had longer burn times / range than MDA's specs. and launch videos i.e. Poly's 20 kg Mistral performed like a 70 kg RIM-116 ...

 

Initially the IR sensor under performed compared to the Igla, etc. and the Mistral had very limited range in DCS, once that was fixed however, the missile's over performing FM became apparent.

 

PC's missile .lua is encrypted, so it couldn't even be checked for basic physics/logic errors.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4040675#post4040675

 

 

 

AFAIK Stinger Block 2 is a sensor upgrade i.e. it can detect incoming targets at longer ranges, it didn't get a super lightweight rocket motor/propellant with boosted thrust to chase down supersonic aircraft.

 

Personally, if I was given the choice between a FIM92 STINGER block 2 with a 20km "all aspect" NEZ

 

 

 

... that had to be taken "on trust" or a block 1 that's similar to a AIM-9, 9M311-M1, Igla, etc. with known physics and FM - I'll take the later.

 

This is especially true as it seems PC still don't accept that ED's Mistral FM is accurate.

 

 

 

Whatever your "heart" and/or SME's tell you, you still need balance F=MA, specific impulse, drag, etc. - if a FM doesn't make "sense", you should expect people to ask "why".

Actual flight parameters of mistral were changed, so the post you are relating to is outdated, the actual has a very similar flight than its IRL counterpart. I checked it myself. Anyway, there is more reasons to not use ED weapons than just not accepting accuracy.

Maybe I can add a little bit to the discussion, and alleviate some miss-perception.

Stinger was fielded on KW through the "E" version - that is FIM-92 RMP Blk I.

Blk II did not exist in the time that ATAS hardware was removed from 58Ds in the 2003-2005 timeframe.

Had the requirement still existed through 2017, I'm sure the Blk II could have been integrated, but as stated above it did not exist in those days.

In the same vein, the GAU-19B was tested and qualified on the KW, but never fielded.

Whether that affects the argument about balance; I'll leave it up to you guys to discuss.

In terms of pure "fielded systems only" realism, I think this answers that aspect.