Jump to content

Appeal for calm in the DCS F-16 community


RaceFuel85
 Share

Recommended Posts

You didn't really say this, did you?! :megalol:

 

 

I believe he is referring to declaration of war & participating in an act of war, two different things. ;)

 

 

Regarding the triple mav thing tho, i'm kinda on the fence about it. I think if the airframe is physically able to load & fire it it's fair to have in game. We all talk about simulation, what if i wanna simulate being the last Iron Eagle to take out an Alien ground invasion and go down in a ball of flame for firing off the inner Mav? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in the three years you were a maintainer world war 3 never happened, good to know thanks.

 

Dude, just...stop.

 

You're arguing with multiple combat veterans based on what?

 

What's your real world involmnent with the jet, incidentally?

 

Stop messing this up for us. We have several people who have real world experience with this stuff and I'd love to keep reading what they have to say.

 

Your comments are likely to drive them out. You wanna make the forum less informational?


Edited by Zilch
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Zilch79's YouTube Channel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point for consideration for all those who prefer only operationally valid loadouts: the US has never been the only operator of the F-16. The variant were getting will serve in multiplayer and single player missions as a stand-in for any particular variant for the sake of story. Any loadout that is physically possible will add flexibility to mission creators if they are included. Let’s not get stuck on US doctrine at the expense of the player’s experience.

  • Like 1

If you disapprove of this post, please feel free to give me negative rep. If you approve of this post, please feel free to give me negative rep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, stick to the facts.

Technical documentation and aircraft qualifications can state which loadout is possible or not on this F16C Block 50. ED should simulate this.

Real doctrine could be implemented in loadout presets, campaign missions and server side options.

 

 

This is the humble opinion of a non expert, no passion at all :) i'll love the F16 whatever is decided.

  • Like 1

i7 8700k @ 4.7, 32GB 2666Mhz, GTX 2070 Super, SSD 1To, TrackIR 5, TM16000M HOTAS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, stick to the facts.

Technical documentation and aircraft qualifications can state which loadout is possible or not on this F16C Block 50. ED should simulate this.

Real doctrine could be implemented in loadout presets, campaign missions and server side options.

 

 

This is the humble opinion of a non expert, no passion at all :) i'll love the F16 whatever is decided.

 

That’s a solid approach, especially since you can make your own custom presets in the mission editor if you so choose.

  • Like 1

If you disapprove of this post, please feel free to give me negative rep. If you approve of this post, please feel free to give me negative rep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my humble opinion, if a payload is technically possible, it should be possible to configure it, even if it is not realistic. The creator of the mission will decide in any case what to carry.

 

For lovers of 100% realism, why don't implement realistic weapon loading times? Or refueling times? Or if you break a plane you cannot use it for another month?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For lovers of 100% realism, why don't implement realistic weapon loading times? Or refueling times? Or if you break a plane you cannot use it for another month?

 

Very valid point. We all draw the line on realism somewhere. Better to err on the side of letting the player or mission maker decide where that line should be.

  • Like 1

If you disapprove of this post, please feel free to give me negative rep. If you approve of this post, please feel free to give me negative rep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

For lovers of 100% realism, why don't implement realistic weapon loading times? Or refueling times? Or if you break a plane you cannot use it for another month?

 

Or if getting "killed" in DCS you can never use the sim again, because it's not realistic to get revived an fly again. :D

  • Like 2

A-10A, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B, F-5E, F-16C, F/A-18C, F-86F, Yak-52, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Supercarrier, Combined Arms, FW 190 A-8, FW 190 D-9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Normandy + WWII Assets Pack

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of those are the same version that's being modelled. The first one's not a block 50, middle one is a two-seater so not a 16C and the last one is a prototype for a F-16 with a delta wing!

 

Doesn't matter.

 

The ex-boom operator, the ex-ground crew etc claims that F-16 has never used LAU-88 or since F-16A.

 

Yet there are photos of the newer F-16 than A to carry it.

 

That proofs they know not all about what are the all possible loadouts F-16 can carry.

 

And even you fully miss that the last point is not about Delta, but the hardpoint positions related to a LAU-88 configuration that previous images ain't about any other configuration or model.

 

Here is the case. The ex-personnel here are making claims for something, based to their experience.

Then there are other personnel stating otherwise that there are possibilities, and there are photographs even to back those up.

 

Now, some people never seeing ones, ain't proof that it is not possible, especially that there are photos that it is possible.

 

And if it is already said that it gets in DCS but it is mission designers/pilot own idea to use it or not such a way, even when it is not used in combat.

 

These ex-personnel should stop making assumptions, attack the other people with their prejudice and status.

If you have never seen something or done something, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or it had not been done by someone else.

 

Why in the past some ex-pilots etc have left the forum? Because they get attacked?

Maybe they have too big mouth and ego like many fighter pilots do, that they can't accept that they don't know everything and they get challenged with information that conflicts with theirs and that simply puts their previous claims to shame and instead accepting their misinformation, they instead escape.

 

Here are still many real pilots etc, but some are very well respected and listened because they do not make ultimatums or they are prepared to accept that their information has limits and memory fails. And they get more respect when they can about they made mistakes or doesn't know.

 

Now there was one ex-ground crew member or something in one another thread, who said that F-16 is not so standardized as people think. That airbase can have dozens of F-16 with same designation and yet you can't find two that are same as each are unique.

 

Now what does such mean? Even if you have operated years in one base the F-16, or refueled thousands times them, it means that you are more likely never seeing all possible loadouts than witnessing.

 

If someone has never seen one, then better just state their experience that they have not seen one, but it doesn't deny that someone else has seen such.

 

If someone has never loaded such, it doesn't mean that someone else has never loaded such.

 

There are photos of the newer airframes that F-16A carrying double and triple Mavericks on hardpoint. Proofing that someone made the loadouts and someone fueled those aircrafts.

 

There are Polish F-16C Block 52 that carry LAU-88 TRIPLE Mavericks. Deal made 2003 to buy 48 (36 C's and 12 D's), again much never than ours. Meaning that people who claims that new variants for that support dropped.

 

So maybe someone should accept that:

  • new F-16's can carry triple Mavericks.
  • It is not limited to F-16A
  • That refueling them doesn't mean that you know what are possible loadouts
  • That working in one airbase etc doesn't mean you see all of them.
  • That there can be people who knows something else than they do.

  • Like 2

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

Nice thread sentiment. It's going to boil down to how to fix the world though. Hoggit isn't something I feel I can use, the medium allows short, sharp, sometimes comedic, retort-based comments to float to the top regardless of intended factual accuracy peer cross-checking. It also allows an exploitable system like most Social media. I see what the Reddit mod was saying about it's not Hoggit's fault, but it's the same as saying, "It's not Facebook's fault". I don't see Hoggit replacing how I find my information any time soon and if it means wading through a lot of low quality posts and moaning (not all of which are toxic by the way) then I'll continue to enjoy these forums still for the foreseeable. There is a bit of a loose story about "gangster hideouts for banned people from this forum", but I find it a nice filter that they aren't actually HERE.

 

SithSpawn, I don't think you've lost anything by giving up fighting that battle, there's enough going on here and I don't doubt the ED Discord is an endless process. Helping out new comers and growing culture is hard work but it has more meaning than fighting the equivalent to Vietnam conflict elsewhere.

 

 

On the topic of 6x Maverick. I say; let them. It comes down to different people playing the same sandbox sim in different ways. As long as it was possible, who are we to judge what another wants to do with their game? There's plenty of other options in the sim, like invulnerability, magic radios and so on that are "unrealistic". The beauty of the sandbox is just that. It's no worse than a dogfight I had a few months back in a Me109 versus a Hornet. DCS is a toolset. Sometimes the flathead goes into the cross head screw. The line has always been on what is possible, not what is likely. The only meaningful discussion to have is if the model ED are basing this on could have had that loadout, from a technical standpoint.

 

From the point of view of seeing this awful loadout in public servers, it might be an affront to the eyesight but it won't break any fundamental "gameplay". Groups can use or shun the idea as well as individuals. It's appreciated that those with service cannot vouch for it's use, that is exactly what the benefit of these forums are, so helpful for those seeking to be authentic, and as someone else said, shows the true value of the forum.

 

I'll not be decorating one of the worlds most agile fighters with underslung tree logs, but if it were possible, I'd like to point out rule 101 of sandboxing and maintain a sensible perspective.

  • Like 2

___________________________________________________________________________

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks..

 

I get we're all super excited, and we all have features we want, are disappointed if we don't get, they're delayed, they're changed...

 

But can we just please stop the perpetual outrage cycle that has been building in this group for the last week? It's exhausting for us as a community and I'm sure for the devs and ED folks who have to deal with this.

 

See what you've done?

  • Like 1

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fri13

 

Let's not forget the Polish F-16s also have provisions for conformal fuel tanks, something the US never ordered.

 

Sometimes, I wish ED gave the F-16 the option of conformal fuel tanks as an option for those who want to simulate F-16s from other nations like Turkey, Greece, and Poland. But I am still satisfied with what we will be getting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On the topic of 6x Maverick. I say; let them. It comes down to different people playing the same sandbox sim in different ways. As long as it was possible, who are we to judge what another wants to do with their game? There's plenty of other options in the sim, like invulnerability, magic radios and so on that are "unrealistic".

.......

The line has always been on what is possible, not what is likely. The only meaningful discussion to have is if the model ED are basing this on could have had that loadout, from a technical standpoint.

 

If the A ROKAF F-16C Block 32 is capable to carry LAU-88 with three Mavericks, then it is clearly not limited to F-16A or B.

F-16_LAU-88.jpg.e21527169a4775e7a5b103f01d7e7784.jpg

 

 

If the specifications allow configuration X to be done, but is not done by the service as there is no need, then make it possible but do not use it in the official missions and campaigns?

 

It is said that the drag penalty is way too serious for a F-16 with such configurations, so if you implement that so you don't see a virtual F-16 pilots flying with a such configuration for 600 km an back, but limited to realistic ranges (be it then as 50-70 nm from the base if even such) with 5.5 G limitations, then ain't that already such a penalty for the virtual pilot not to take a such a loadout? Being a easy target for any SAM, being easy target for any fighter etc, that will quickly teach a lesson for virtual pilots not to overload their configurations because they want to be one-man-army.

 

If someone wants to simulate a post-cold war scenario where sudden emergency situation calls such a configuration, then give such a possibility.

 

* because I am able to kill someone, it doesn't mean that I will do anything like that, until such a threat would raise that I don't have any other choice than to do so.

  • Like 1

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

@Fri13

 

Let's not forget the Polish F-16s also have provisions for conformal fuel tanks, something the US never ordered.

 

Sometimes, I wish ED gave the F-16 the option of conformal fuel tanks as an option for those who want to simulate F-16s from other nations like Turkey, Greece, and Poland. But I am still satisfied with what we will be getting.

 

Well, while I do agree that there is a point in that, but then again it is slippery slope and quickly. Like look at the KA-50 threads about the R-73 capability. The KA-50 we have is modeled after very specific unique prototype. It is not simulating the KA-50 that was made after it to follow the design, but very specific one. The aircraft has the designs, wires etc all for the R-73 capability, MAWS, IR jammer etc but it is not implemented because at the given time ED had access to it, it didn't have them set, but later on. Even when you have the cockpit switches, buttons, instruments etc, it is not offered only because ED models the very specific prototype model from the very specific time when they had access to it. Not what it was designed to do or how it was modified afterwards ED got time to document it. So what is left is "Not implemented" label in the DCS and "Not Implemented" in the ED Black Shark manual.

 

Was that a fair? That is the two edge sword right there.

 

IMHO, at some times the module developer should take their artistic freedom to implement something that "What it was meant to do in the future", instead trying to be fully strict with something that they don't know. Be it a feature like a datalink or IFF. We know the general idea what is the whole design in those. So why not give the artistic freedom to get them in, even if it is based partially by "guessing" and not by knowing what is "inside a black box".

 

For some community members that is too much, as they really demand full realism. And that is like conflict in the two things, a Doctor's the Hippocratic Oath "Do no harm" where it is as well taken in some cases that no decision is made because there is a risk that harm to patient would be inflicted. And so on the patient might be left for situation where nothing is done. While that can be understood better in two ways, a legal means where a hospital/doctor can be feared from the legal case against them, or that the idea is same as in the laws, that they should be morally justified in good faith. Meaning a doctors job is to heal and improve the patient situation, not to keep status quo and not especially do something that is known to make their situation worse or use them as guinea pig for the future for some other point than healing the patient.

 

Then there is another part about whole life:

"Making a decision is the only way to move forward. Yes, even incorrect decisions. A person who makes a thousand wrong decisions is better off than a person who makes no decisions at all. ... Because a person who has made a thousand wrong decisions has ruled out a thousand things that do not work for them."

 

Meaning, even if the developer doesn't know exactly what is "inside a black box", they should have freedom to do some guessing, some assumptions when the outcome is known.

 

Example, if there is a game that is simulating partially a person body functions, the developer does not need to simulate all the bacteria, veins, nutrients consumptions etc to get the wanted output, how to make player to have need to eat and defecate. The complete, as accurate simulation of the human body is not required at all. The outcome is known. The results for action is known. Just do it simple manner. No one should care if it is not scientifically perfect.

At some point the level of the accuracy is required to be drawn or otherwise nothing can be done.

 

In a F-14 thread there were wishes for a R-27 attached to the F-14A then to simulate a Iranian Tom Cats. Some people went to say that it is just fictional thing and shouldn't be there.

But then again, developers do not have access to the software modifications etc in the airframe, but if the result is known:

 

lKXYxit.jpg

 

Then why not try to make it simple guessing work for that very specific Iranian variant? So the mission designer can add a F-14A to nation from Iran and only using Iran livery and only that unique model being able to mount R-27?

 

Even if you don't know exactly how the "black box" operates, it should be allowed to be limited to that one nation.

 

Same thing is here little bit. F-16C Block 50 for another country to be allowed to carry some other configuration, not the USA nation ones etc. But if something is known that there is possibility, lock it to those nations.

 

But then again there are those who want that the simulation is very very specific for the given serial number in the US warehouse or base. Even when if that is unique model in the whole airbase! Sure ED can't do all the possible configurations out there and line needs to be drawn somewhere. But at least consideration should be made about would it be possible at all.

 

After all we are not talking about fantasies like R-27ER launched from a F-5E or give a F/A-18C Lot 20 capability to carry nuclear bombs.... (Oh wait, Hornet is capable for that!)

 

But here is my personal input about those extra fuel tanks for F-16C. It is fairly heavy flight modeling adjustment. Even when the docs says that drag impact is minimal/non-existing, it still is IMHO something that can be a too big and radical difference to make.

 

I don't know exactly how accurately the DCS simulates each payload affect in the airframe, but someone did good testing just while ago about Hornet and different missile/bomb payloads, and did find very very interesting things. Like how a Hornet was faster with a larger bomb load than in clean configuration. So there is something wrong, and so on many many things needs to get improved and fixed in such accurately and carefully modeled aircrafts as F/A-18C, and I wouldn't like to see such to happen for F-16.

 

But there are always limits, and it can't be so black and white "The pilot handbook doesn't mention it" or "I have never seen one to fly in such configuration". As those are known to be false in various situations and lacking information.

 

It needs to be done case by case, with a logic and good faith.

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

Players may use some strange load out that never happened in real life just for fun. Such as a 120C on left wing tip and a 9L on right wing tip. The game shall not eliminate this possibility just because USAF never load them as that.

Triple Mavericks operation may have some risk. If the game can reflect this risk (like random explosion?) of this load out, that would be better, maybe?:D

 

billeinstein THAT is a great idea...Load 3 MAVs...ailerons burn off and are inoperative following firing...:megalol:

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Primary Computer

ASUS Z390-P, i7-9700K CPU @ 5.0Ghz, 32GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4 @ 3200Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce 1070 Ti AMP Extreme, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 NVMe drives (1Tb & 500 Gb), Windows 10 Professional, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, Thrustmaster Warthog Stick, Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle, Cougar MFDs x3, Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals and TrackIR 5.

 

-={TAC}=-DCS Server

Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3, i7-3770K CPU @ 3.90GHz, 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 @ 1600Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mad-mex

Just let it go, no point to post here anymore.

Panther worked the jet for 20 year, they wont listen to her

I worked the jet for 15 years, won't listen to me

Sierra99 the same

Why do you think so many people with real life experience stop posting?

There is not point.

 

C'est la vie

This! I’ve been working the jet since ‘93. People on this forum just wont listen to us SMEs. :doh:

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

MSI MPG X570 Gaming Plus MOBO||Ryzen 9 3900X 12 Core, 24 Thread Processor || MSI GTX 1070Ti 8GB GPU OverClocked || 32GB GSKILL DDR4 RAM @3600 || Samsung 1TB SSD || Samsung 250GB SSD || WD Caviar Black 2TB HDD || WD Caviar Black 1TB HDD || Thermaltake ToughPower GF1 850W PS || Thermaltake Tower || Windows 10 Pro 64bit || Thrustmaster Warthog and Cougar sticks, throttles and MFDs || Saitek Rudder Pedals || Trackir 5 ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This! I’ve been working the jet since ‘93. People on this forum just wont listen to us SMEs. :doh:

 

mad-mex

Just let it go, no point to post here anymore.

Panther worked the jet for 20 year, they wont listen to her

I worked the jet for 15 years, won't listen to me

Sierra99 the same

Why do you think so many people with real life experience stop posting?

There is not point.

 

C'est la vie

 

Now y’all understand why I don’t post much anymore especially concerning the A-10C. ;)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holleeewould

 

I guess with all this anger it's still to soon to start the Iron Eagle thread.

 

I don't care what block or it's payload, just arm the gun, strap that walkman to my keyboard and fire up the Queen sound track.

 

Meanwhile preorder or don't. You do have a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

billeinstein THAT is a great idea...Load 3 MAVs...ailerons burn off and are inoperative following firing...:megalol:

 

Are there any proofs that they will burn off on the first launch? How did those test aircrafts land or fly as they got burned ailerons?

 

Or would it likely be the case that in the peacetime you can't do that as you would much sooner require too many repairs and service costs because eventually you are just burning ailerons after multiple launches?

 

Meaning, something that would be in the wartime as a situation where you need maximal destruction capability regardless the cost for future, as there is no future if you do not stop the enemy in the next few hours/days, and so on such loadouts are permitted only at the scenario of such?

 

What for are you saving your military vehicles, if you are going to lose them that way instead using them at maximal potential?

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

billeinstein THAT is a great idea...Load 3 MAVs...ailerons burn off and are inoperative following firing...:megalol:

 

Launching the third maverick does not “burn the ailerons off.” I’m not sure where this myth came from. It was shown in testing that REPEATEDLY launching the third maverick would damage the aircraft over time which is why it was limited to wartime usage only. The plane will not explode or spiral out of control after firing the last mav.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

It does annoy me how much some people obsess over how many of a weapon you can carry. Using the weapons is fun but it is not really important at the end of the day because there are already quite a few available.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2019 at 4:02 PM, Fri13 said:

 

Are there any proofs that they will burn off on the first launch? How did those test aircrafts land or fly as they got burned ailerons?

 

Or would it likely be the case that in the peacetime you can't do that as you would much sooner require too many repairs and service costs because eventually you are just burning ailerons after multiple launches?

 

Meaning, something that would be in the wartime as a situation where you need maximal destruction capability regardless the cost for future, as there is no future if you do not stop the enemy in the next few hours/days, and so on such loadouts are permitted only at the scenario of such?

 

What for are you saving your military vehicles, if you are going to lose them that way instead using them at maximal potential?

This. On one side you have armchair generals who thinks the USAF F-16CM-50 circa 2007 should have CFTs, Scorpion HMDs, etc. and on the other side you have the SMEs and c/o who are willing to give their lives in order to stop that 4/6 umbilical from being featured in-game.

 

In my eyes it's very simple: Allow the USAF F-16CM-50 circa 2007 to do what it was ABLE to do. Yes, the umbilicals weren't there at that time. But if the Cold War 2.0 broke out and there was an actual risk of a war where you can't just drop GBU's on shepherds with complete air superiority, I'd be very surprised if the USAF didn't but those umbilicals back in with haste. Likewise, we shouldn't have access to CFTs because the USAF don't have CFT's for the F-16 in their inventory and they wouldn't be able to just add it without making modifications to the airframe. And regarding triple mavs, I don't think anyone would give a hoot about longevity when you're fighting a conflict where hundreds of aircraft would be shot down each month.

 

I don't think this stance is unreasonable. Should we only be able to fly the types of missions the F-16CM-50 circa 2007 flew in 2007? COIN, CAS, etc? Should we not be able to employ the F-16CM-50 circa 2007 in the way the USAF would have employed it in 2007 if some WWIII situation broke out? We're not talking modifying the entire aircraft or anything, we're just talking about using things that aren't actively used in order to reduce costs, things that could and would be used by the USAF without any notable modifications if the types of conflicts we often simulate in DCS would've become a reality.

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 1

-Col. Russ Everts opinion on surface-to-air missiles: "It makes you feel a little better if it's coming for one of your buddies. However, if it's coming for you, it doesn't make you feel too good, but it does rearrange your priorities."

 

DCS Wishlist:

MC-130E Combat Talon   |   F/A-18F Lot 26   |   HH-60G Pave Hawk   |   E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound   |   EA-6A/B Prowler   |   J-35F2/J Draken   |   RA-5C Vigilante

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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