Little help for AvioDev

[paco2002]

I don't know the reson for this, but the C101 only had the AIM9P and AIM9M available from the Sidewinder family, do I decided to modify the file to allow the AIM9L and AIM9P5, the would be no incompablities with the missiles, and since I made it myself, there is no need for AvioDev to use their time in this little change

C-101CC Para AvioDev.lua

[ngreenaway]

Don't you think there might be a reason behind aviodev choosing which loadouts they allowed on the c-101?

Are are you once again applying the "if it fits, it ships" philosophy to loadouts whether they were used IRL or not?

 

Unlike the GBU-12s, it's a little harder to find who had what version of the missile was used by whom, and I prefer to be able to trust the dev's and not have to second guess the integrity of the info. The "helpful" additions made without any citation showing their use by any of the 4 c-101 operators muddies those waters

 

It may be well intentioned, but you have demonstrated a disregard of whether a munition had been actually carried or not which throws the veracity of this addition into doubt.

 

I see no issue with it being used as a mod...he'll, throw it up on the download section for ED... But I would hope the dev doesn't push that on the rest of us

[paco2002]

I will try to be as clear as possible with this topic, and I will try not to mix it with the GBU-12 one.

 

AIM9P structure is the same as the P5, only change was the seeker and I think, it may change the fuze, but not sure about this last one, the missile uses the same pylon, and is launched the same way as the AIM9P. The only change between AIM9P, and P5 is the seeker, the P5 has an all-aspect capability.

 

AIM9L should be also be able to use it, the main reason is that the AIM9M is the same missile as the L variant, with different Fuze, and engine.

 

I'm not going into deep investigations of "This country has this missile" or "this other has this bombs". Im just speaking of the plane being capable of, and having a look at the weights and physical structure of weapons and logic to see if the plane can carry those ones.

uld that

I don't see an issue on adding the P5, and the L to the list of weapons... Why you don't want the devs to accept my file (Or make the modification by themselves) and add the AIM9L, and P5 variants? I don't see the point on saying no to this ones.

[Ramsay]

Why you don't want the devs to accept my file (Or make the modification by themselves) and add the AIM9L, and P5 variants? I don't see the point on saying no to this ones.

 

When "fictional/speculative" weapons are added to a module it becomes difficult to know which loadouts are realistic unless players are already knowledgeable and/or have access to the RL (sometimes classified or foreign language) manuals, etc.

 

You admit as much when you say

 

I'm not going into deep investigations of "This country has this missile" or "this other has this bombs".

 

This isn't specific to your suggestion/mod e.g. I once ask my son to load up Razbam's Harrier with a bomb loadout and he took the most overloaded/over weight loadout he could see (as he didn't know what was realistic).

 

As a user mod your addition is fine but in general I want DCS modules to represent a real aircraft including it's limitations.

[paco2002]

As a user mod your addition is fine but in general I want DCS modules to represent a real aircraft including it's limitations.

 

What type of limitation I'm breaking? I don't see where is the limitation.

Please, share with me why it can't

[paco2002]

I don't want to do off-topic, but, If you are trying to stop people from making a Module better without breaking realism (Even you say it's not), why other modules have realism issues and I don't see people complaining about them?

I'm not asking for something impossible IRL, like adding R-77, I'm asking for a simple thing, that is adding the other variants of the AIM9 series that are SUPPORTED by the plane, nothing more, nothing less.

[ngreenaway]

I will try to be as clear as possible with this topic, and I will try not to mix it with the GBU-12 one.

 

AIM9P structure is the same as the P5, only change was the seeker and I think, it may change the fuze, but not sure about this last one, the missile uses the same pylon, and is launched the same way as the AIM9P. The only change between AIM9P, and P5 is the seeker, the P5 has an all-aspect capability.

 

AIM9L should be also be able to use it, the main reason is that the AIM9M is the same missile as the L variant, with different Fuze, and engine..

 

You are once again making the same argument as with the GBU thread. That's the entire fundamental thrust of what you're doing in both instances, you're only considering certain physical characteristics of the munitions when there are more considerations of whether it's appropriate for the c-101

 

I'm not going into deep investigations of "This country has this missile" or "this other has this bombs". Im just speaking of the plane being capable of, and having a look at the weights and physical structure of weapons and logic to see if the plane can carry those ones.

But there are those who do, and as I mentioned we depend on the devs research to be as correct as can be thru publicly available sources. We don't want to second guess the dev or have to do our own research to see what was a realistic loadout. I do fully support using that as a mod, and for whatever other munitions you like. Rescript the module to do whatever you like, I don't care... because with a mod, it's your active choice to depart reality.

 

I don't see an issue on adding the P5, and the L to the list of weapons... Why you don't want the devs to accept my file (Or make the modification by themselves) and add the AIM9L, and P5 variants? I don't see the point on saying no to this ones

.

I thought I made myself clear on the first post, or the other thread. Hopefully this one does the job, but I have a feeling it wont

[Jester986]

I'm pro Gbu-12 but I don't see the need for this. Release it as a mod and thats fine but trying to get it in the actual module is giving the anti gbu'ers ammo in the "give an inch and take a mile" sense.

[Ramsay]

What type of limitation I'm breaking? I don't see where is the limitation.

 

The limitation is trying to represent 'typical' airframes from a time and place they were used in the 'sandbox' that is DCS.

 

... why other modules have realism issues and I don't see people complaining about them?

 

:megalol:

 

This is an oft debated topic that has included the MiG-21, UH-1H, AV-8B, F-16C, Blackshark 3, etc. and comes about because of wide time span DCS covers and the fact that most players are flying fictional 'what if' scenarios in the Caucasus map.

 

Some users feel DCS is only a 'game' and that anything should go in the name balance/gameplay and others want DCS to be 'hardcore' (despite the fictional conflicts/scenarios and limited map selection).

 

The truth is likely somewhere in the middle, but 'at the end of the day' ED and 3rd Party Dev's have the final say.

 

Comment

 

As I already find the "Sea Eagle" speculative, I wouldn't want more speculative weapons added to the C-101 as I feel they would undermine it's credibility as a realistic and serious representation of the real aircraft.

 

Therefore I have to disagree with making the P5/L variants part of Avdio Dev's standard loadout (I'd prefer the dev's time spent to make the Sea Eagle easier to use/plan in MP), unless you can provide evidence that the option was considered but later dismissed due to cost/doctrine.

Edited September 14, 2020 by Ramsay

[Jester986]

Another thing is aren't they less advanced than the M and isn't our M lacking the all aspect ability that it should have? So you if you want those to simulate older conflicts with a fictional 101 you already have the non all aspect M?

[paco2002]

Therefore I have to disagree with making the P5/L variants part of Avdio Dev's standard loadout (I'd prefer the dev's time spent to make the Sea Eagle easier to use/plan in MP), unless you can provide evidence that the option was considered but later dismissed due to cost/doctrine.

 

AvioDev has already said that they will work in the Multicrew, and AFTER that, they will work in weapons. I have no doubt that they will do their best to make Sea Eagle easier to use in MP,

[paco2002]

Another thing is aren't they less advanced than the M and isn't our M lacking the all aspect ability that it should have? So you if you want those to simulate older conflicts with a fictional 101 you already have the non all aspect M?

Negative, AIM9M in the C101 has all aspect ability. The rear aspect missile is the P.

[kontiuka]

Negative, AIM9M in the C101 has all aspect ability. The rear aspect missile is the P.

Not unless the M has changed in the past month or so. Best you can do is fire it from a 3 o'clock or 9 o'clock position. Hope that gets addressed eventually.

[paco2002]

Not unless the M has changed in the past month or so. Best you can do is fire it from a 3 o'clock or 9 o'clock position. Hope that gets addressed eventually.

That's a limitation of DCS, if you launch an AIM9M in a head on, you only have to put the piper in the enemy, and shoot the missile. Do it, and you will see the missile tracking without any issue the objective.

 

The limitation of DCS is that it cannot have 2 sensitivities for the tone. That happens also in the L39ZA, you can have the R60M that are full aspect, but you won't listen the tone. But you can launch the missile.

[Jester986]

I'm still confused by this. The M on the 101 should be all aspect but as kontiuka said I can only get a lock in the 3-9 aspect. The F-5 and mig-21 both have a mix of rear aspect and all aspect missles so how is this a DCS limitation? Not trying to be overly critical of Aviodev. I love the 101 but would like to see this addressed Since eventually I'll be hunting Super Tucanos in it.

[AeriaGloria]

I'm still confused by this. The M on the 101 should be all aspect but as kontiuka said I can only get a lock in the 3-9 aspect. The F-5 and mig-21 both have a mix of rear aspect and all aspect missles so how is this a DCS limitation? Not trying to be overly critical of Aviodev. I love the 101 but would like to see this addressed Since eventually I'll be hunting Super Tucanos in it.

 

When a module is built, it can only be designed with rear aspect or all aspect heat seekers. So with platforms like this that use both, the developer kind of has to choose. As far as I understand. As soon as it’s off the rail the lock limitations of the module no longer apply and it becomes all aspect, in this case.

 

And I’ll put my vote in with keeping the sidewinder load out the same, for the same reasons previously mentioned

[Jester986]

Please check on the F-5 and Mig-21 then which both have all aspect and rear aspect only missles that work appropriately.

[Fri13]

Please check on the F-5 and Mig-21 then which both have all aspect and rear aspect only missles that work appropriately.

 

AFAIK, the R-60M should be a "limited all-aspect" seeker. IIRC it was 15 degree from the front that you can't achieve a lock. So you should intercept at slight angle at the target.

 

But then again, that is likely only for the bombers or such that has no high speed friction heat in their nose....

[Jester986]

That may be it's real specs but I've never had a problem with it giving me a head on lock.