[NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR] GBU-54 for Hornet ?

[fagulha]

Exactly.

 

And yet we have a Hornets flying in missions that are from future, or are from the history, against enemies that are not anymore in service or use on year Hornet is claimed to model....

 

Solution is simple.

 

You add all the weapons to DCS. You stamp them with the fiscal year they were in service for filtering. And you add weapons to all modules that are technically capable use them.

You make default official weapons loadouts as what has been used by the country for the task.

And then if players do not use the year/country filter, they get access to all weapons and can make a custom loadouts with them.

 

Nothing unrealistic is happening more than already now, and actually be more realistic than now argument "this module models year 2005 only".

 

+1!

[BarTzi]

No, you don't. You don't add all the weapons, and you don't add all the weapons to every plane. Why? Because it puts every plane in a never ending state of development.

[Andartu]

No, you don't. You don't add all the weapons, and you don't add all the weapons to every plane. Why? Because it puts every plane in a never ending state of development.

 

Not all of the weapons. Just the ones that are correct for the airframe. Just dependent on mission year.

 

Nobody talks about getting a Pheonix on the Hornet. No talk down by generalizing please :smilewink:

[Fri13]

No, you don't. You don't add all the weapons, and you don't add all the weapons to every plane. Why? Because it puts every plane in a never ending state of development.

 

So, you fly Hornet in missions that is not in year 2005?

How about, do you fly Hornet, Warthog or Viper same time?

Okay, and you have a what weapons already in the Hornet?

[BarTzi]

Not all of the weapons. Just the ones that are correct for the airframe. Just dependent on mission year.

 

Nobody talks about getting a Pheonix on the Hornet. No talk down by generalizing please :smilewink:

 

It's not generalizing. You expect any future weapon that is added to DCS to be added to each airframe that could carry it.

This puts some modules at a never ending state of development. It doesn't work like that. There's a point in time where you go from developing the code, to maintaining the code and that's it.

[Andartu]

It's not generalizing. You expect any future weapon that is added to DCS to be added to each airframe that could carry it.

This puts some modules at a never ending state of development. It doesn't work like that. There's a point in time where you go from developing the code, to maintaining the code and that's it.

 

Yes when the weapon could be carried by an airframe it should be available to that certain airframe.

 

And as we know the Hornet is not yet in the state of maintaining the code, by far.

 

Also.. really, there is not an endless list of weapons per airframe, it is limited (so no Phoenix for the Hornet!).

 

But again yes, what belongs to a thing, has to be on the thing, and that is it.

 

And when it takes development time then yeah of course, it takes development time. Heck we all here are very well trained in the discipline of waiting. Even when it´s really not fun though :book:

 

But to fully refuse something with something like "Not Correct For Year" is simply the wrong turn if you want to satisfy your costumers. Especially when a good amount of the user base likes to have a certain (and even not unrealistic) toy for a product they could have bought nearly two AAA titles for.

 

When they show us the candy on frames like the A-10C II and the Harrier that also realistically could be used by the Hornet, they cannot expect us to hold back and say "well ok".

 

And sorry, just me personally, I am not interested to buy those just to use certain toys that I could have on "My" frame. Those are completely different aircraft that I don´t want to fly.. I have the Hog (really great module, was my first), but nowadays I can´t stand it´s low speed anymore, no matter what i´ts other qualities are. So I fly exclusively the Hornet. But this is of course just me and my special quirk :D

 

Hell I just want the GBU-54 for the Hornet and not Ace Combat or a Death Star :joystick::D

 

They do not deny me in the editor to set up missions in 2015 with a legacy Hornet and a Navy paintjob in PG or Syria. And that is good.. so please don´t argue with "Not Correct For Year". It´s all mixed up anyways, in the end it´s all about imagination (Holy moly I hope i don´t set the idea to limit the year for the Hornet to 2005 now :doh: Sorry but that would be a lame way for ending the thread :helpsmilie:).

 

As Fri13 said.. bound to mission year or even better have and just don´t use/ban it if you think it is not correct for you.

 

Everyone could be happy and have some cake and these discussions would be very much needless :chef:

 

edit: typos

Edited October 1, 2020 by Andartu

[dudeman17]

Seeing as they collapsed on the viper and gave us triple rack mavericks. Then it would seem fair to have the GBU-54 on the hornet. However, I cant find anything anywhere that shows the gbu-54 to be rated on the F/A-18C of any type. I can see plenty in regards to it being a supported platform for the F/A-18E/F. Does anyone have anything that demonstrates a charlie hornet using this bomb?

[toilet2000]

We are sold a mid-2000s hornet right? Yet we have SLAM which retired in 1999, and Walleye which retired in 1990s. Not to mention the AAMs, but I will ignore those.

 

 

I'm pretty sure the [NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR] applies to the software and not the retirement/introduction years of weapon.

 

 

Lot 20s from 2005 still had the logic implemented for launching SLAMs and dropping Walleyes, as these are in the documentation available publicly. Just look for the Hornet tactical pocket guide.

[Andartu]

Seeing as they collapsed on the viper and gave us triple rack mavericks. Then it would seem fair to have the GBU-54 on the hornet. However, I cant find anything anywhere that shows the gbu-54 to be rated on the F/A-18C of any type. I can see plenty in regards to it being a supported platform for the F/A-18E/F. Does anyone have anything that demonstrates a charlie hornet using this bomb?

 

After a quick google search I found those two mentions:

 

Royal Malaysian Air Force F/A-18D:

 

https://www.nst.com.my/news/exclusive/2017/07/260429/more-lethal-sting-rmafs-hornets

 

Yes ok it is a "D" Hornet.. but still..

 

And this one:

 

http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/january_2018/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1297133#articleId1297133

 

↑↑↑↑:

 

"JDAM and Laser JDAM are integrated with B-1B, B-2A, B-52H, AV-8B, A-10, F-15E, F/A18A+/C/C+/D/E/F, F-16C/D and F-22A aircraft. Follow-on integration efforts are under way to evaluate compatibility with the F-35A/B/C and MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle. Additionally, the Navy is on track to deliver a GBU-56, 2,000-pound JDAM penetrator with PLGS, to the fleet in 2020."

 

 

Correct me if I totally understand this wrong..

[Fri13]

It's not generalizing. You expect any future weapon that is added to DCS to be added to each airframe that could carry it. [/Quote]

 

 

Yes... Why not?

 

If it is technically capable use it (point, most are not) then you would use it in the time of is available.

 

This puts some modules at a never ending state of development. It doesn't work like that. There's a point in time where you go from developing the code, to maintaining the code and that's it.

 

If you add the weapon to DCS, it has basically two modes AFAIK.

 

1) A 3D model hanging in the aircraft itself, easily to be modded even so, like a Mavericks or Hellfires on KA-50. AND THEN system modeling in cockpit how to use them (again, possible use something existing).

 

2) When the weapon is launched, it becomes own entity in DCS simulation and it will follow the programming of existing weapon by DCS SDK. Example a module developer AIM-9 version becomes at launch as ED AIM-9 version.

 

This is not about all weapons, all modules and everything. Because not all weapons are backward compatible. Not so weapons can be used on all our many aircrafts.

There are these special weapons like in real world that are backward compatible! Tested, used, done, completed....

 

This is not about "now you need to add R-27ER to MiG-19P!" or "AIM-120 on F-14B" kind arguments.

 

But argument that are:

 

1) Module is completed and will not be touched by any means...

2) Our module presents it only as in year 2005...

 

Are illogical and so on invalid.

 

Because software evolve and is needed to be changed all the time when it is wanted to be changed for some other reasons.

If you are going to sell your product, you must maintain and develop is further.

 

This doesn't mean that F/A-18C Lot 20 must be transformed as F/A-18F Lot 26 Block 3.

 

It means that weapons should be handled separately from the modules itself, as additional assets in the DCS simulator, regardless is the aircraft using it a AI-only or client Module.

[Northstar98]

Fri13 said:

And yet we have a Hornets flying in missions that are from future, or are from the history, against enemies that are not anymore in service or use on year Hornet is claimed to model...

Because we don't have a choice, at all. We physically can't make a mission that is set in 2005 for the Hornet, it is basically all by itself. We have to have things time travelling, or not have a peer-to-peer mission, there isn't an alternative. We don't have any true post-2000s REDFOR aircraft (nor are we likely to get any), and it's only really the Tomcat that fits the era of the other assets.

DCS is all over the place when it comes to era and there's very little consistency when you do find it. For those that are interested in missions that as far as the equipment is concerned is historically authentic, this is not a good thing.

The overwhelming majority of assets are mid-to-late Cold War, Soviet-era stuff. Basically the 70s up to the very early 90s. The only peer-to-peer stuff we have is WWII, the F-86F and the MiG-15bis, the F-5E-3 and the MiG-21bis and from there it basically stops and some degree of time travelling by at least a decade has to be done from here on in, that is if you want a peer-to-peer mission of a consistent era.

Most BLUFOR modules however are post-2000s, with the new A-10C it reaches into the 2010s. Meanwhile REDFOR is still stuck in the late-80s at best and that's the simplified stuff. In terms of full-fidelity fixed wing, the most modern we get is from 1972.

Sometimes approximations aren't too bad where differences are insignificant (like the F-15C), but sometimes they are more significant (like arguably the F-16).

But bringing up "oh but if you want to be strict about the year, you're being a hypocrite if you set it to anything else or whatever" is moot because I literally don't have a choice. I don't have an 80s/90s Hornet and I don't have 2005 REDFOR, I don't have another option. I would love an F-16A Block 15 or a C Block 25/40. And I would love a MiG-29M even if it is basically a prototype/demonstrator, but I don't, nor are any planned so I'm left with assets that in terms of era are inconsistent, at the very least a 20 year gap for the F-16 and F/A-18.

Fri13 said:

Solution is simple.

This isn't a solution at all, for newer weapons it makes the problem I'm describing even worse than it is. If anything we need more historical versions from the 80s to early 90s, going more modern just increases the era gap.

The problem is lack of historical BLUFOR aircraft, like earlier blocks - we only really have the F-14 and the F-5E-3 here, maybe the F-4E but it seems it's on indefinite hold right now.

Going further into the future with newer weapons increases the disparity not reduces it, and this is on top of it not being representative of the aircraft it's supposed to be. Again, full-fidelity REDFOR fixed-wing stops at 1972, BLUFOR is now post 2012, a 40 year gap, the same age difference as the F-4E and the F-22. Air defences in DCS stop before reaching the 90s, so a ~20 year gap, which is the same difference as the Me-262 and the F-4E.

Seeing the issue?

Fri13 said:

You add all the weapons to DCS. You stamp them with the fiscal year they were in service for filtering. And you add weapons to all modules that are technically capable use them.

So weapons that don't mandate any kind of avionics update to be utilised, so APKWS and what else?

And if we're going to field APKWS on our Hornet, that means the Hornet is for all intents and purposes a 2005 one, but has access to a 2012 weapon, but nothing else is representative so not only are the eras not consistent with other, now the aircraft aren't too...

Also, how far do you take this? JASSM for the F-16C? AIM-120C-7/D, GBU-39B/B, Harpoon Block II+, AIM-9X Block II, AGM-88E? Meanwhile we don't have our current weapons implemented or present?

Fri13 said:

You make default official weapons loadouts as what has been used by the country for the task.

And then if players do not use the year/country filter, they get access to all weapons and can make a custom loadouts with them.

A brilliant idea, especially if we could get full names and variants for our equipment i.e AIM-120C-5 for instance.

Fri13 said:

Nothing unrealistic is happening more than already now, and actually be more realistic than now argument "this module models year 2005 only".

Well, what we should be doing is striving for more aircraft variants, going by "well this is unrealistic, so this should be allowed to be unrealistic" shouldn't be what we're doing. And again with the year thing, we don't have a choice, and DCS should accurately represent the aircraft it's based on, for the year it's supposed to be, but let you have free reign over the scenarios - doing anything else would naturally mean getting rid of the mission editor.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Northstar98
grammar

[Fri13]

Lot 20s from 2005 still had the logic implemented for launching SLAMs and dropping Walleyes, as these are in the documentation available publicly. Just look for the Hornet tactical pocket guide.

 

And the same Lot 20 without modifications is capable launch APKWS when it became available as it was designed to be backward compatible weapon requiring no modifications to platform.

 

How was GBU-54, is it technically possible be carried and used without modifications in last years of hornet service?

[Fri13]

But bringing up "oh but if you want to be strict about the year, you're being a hypocrite if you set it to anything else or whatever" is moot because I literally don't have a choice.[/Quote]

 

It is not moot, but totally valid point, and you have a choice, you don't fly against those units unless you have an AI to fly more modern ones or you can't come up with scenario that matches those units... Be it a kazakhstan air force or some other that still operates with such aircrafts....

 

If it makes things more difficult, then so be it... Still a valid point.

 

I don't have an 80s/90s Hornet and I don't have 2005 REDFOR, I don't have another option.[/Quote]

 

As said, make what you can with limited options, but if not realistically possible, bad thing.

 

I would love an F-16A Block 15 or a C Block 25/40. And I would love a MiG-29M even if it is basically a prototype/demonstrator, but I don't, nor are any planned so I'm left with assets that in terms of era are inconsistent, at the very least a 20 year gap for the F-16 and F/A-18.[/Quote]

 

So bending the time rules regardless is not realistic, but denying a technically compatible and usable weapons to be used for proper airframes in missions where they would be available is then a bad thing and shouldn't be allowed?

 

This isn't a solution at all, for newer weapons it makes the problem I'm describing even worse than it is. If anything we need more historical versions from the 80s to early 90s, going more modern just increases the era gap.[/Quote]

 

It doesn't make problems, you simply do not make any missions past the year the weapons are on service, you keep them disabled and they don't matter to you.

 

The problem is lack of historical BLUFOR aircraft, like earlier blocks - we only really have the F-14 and the F-5E-3 here, maybe the F-4E but it seems it's on indefinite hold right now.[/Quote]

 

F-4 will come, MiG-23MLA is coming, MiG-29A exist, A-10A is there, F-15C is old, Sea Harrier is coming... There will be more matching aircrafts in future, but it doesn't matter to modern times eras...

 

Going further into the future with newer weapons increases the disparity not reduces it, and this is on top of it not being representative of the aircraft it's supposed to be.[/Quote]

 

So, our Hornet is not same in 2020-2021 as in DCS?

USN can have it out of service in boneyard, but there are countries operating that exact model even today, and next 10 years...

 

Again, full-fidelity REDFOR fixed-wing stops at 1972, BLUFOR is now post 2012, a 40 year gap, the same age difference as the F-4E and the F-22. Air defences in DCS stop before reaching the 90s, so a ~20 year gap, which is the same difference as the Me-262 and the F-4E.

 

Seeing the issue?[/Quote]

 

Yes, the issue is that forum is full of people wanting ultra realism by denying weapons that are compatible, but are not willing to accept that they love unrealistic gameplay when it makes them feel good...

 

So weapons that don't mandate any kind of avionics update to be utilised, so APKWS and what else?[/Quote]

 

Well, future tells more... Maybe some weapons manufacturers invent new weapons and sell them to current operators in the future?

 

And if we're going to field APKWS on our Hornet, that means the Hornet is for all intents and purposes a 2005 one, but has access to a 2012 weapon, but nothing else is representative so not only are the eras not consistent with other, now the aircraft aren't too...[/Quote]

 

But it is not intended to be 2005 year... It is the variant of that era that can be flown 2005+ missions, not restricted to 2005 only as some people want to argue (and yet they don't as they think they have no choices).

 

Also, how far do you take this? JASSM for the F-16C? AIM-120C-7/D, GBU-39B/B, Harpoon Block II+, AIM-9X Block II, AGM-88E? Meanwhile we don't have our current weapons implemented or present?[/Quote]

 

How far? So far as you can technically present them to be possible....

 

So either we deny technically anyone ever flying any module outside the mission year that module is presenting (developers pick that one year, one year only), or we accept technically capable weapons on all airframes and let the gamers decide what is their simulator....

 

It is not about "AGM-88 to Su-27S too!"...

 

 

A brilliant idea, especially if we could get full names and variants for our equipment i.e AIM-120C-5 for instance.[/Quote]

 

Full technical names, years and all to be used in filters and such... Already done mostly.

 

and DCS should accurately represent the aircraft it's based on, for the year it's supposed to be, but let you have free reign over the scenarios - doing anything else would naturally mean getting rid of the mission editor.

 

So arguing with logic that is broken to begin with....

 

It is 100% realistic that 2017 (IIRC) Our exact hornet flew combat missions with APKWS. No modifications, no changes, updates etc...

 

In 2030 the same hornet is still in service on many countries. Likely without any upgrades at all, but flying with new compatible weapons.

 

And correct if I am wrong, doesn't even today some countries operate with MiG-21Bis, even MiG-15Bis?

 

USN retired our hornet already, but there are current operators for that same one....

 

So either we have acceptance for realistic weapons loadouts, flexibility in the years, or we go full ahead to non-negotiable single year modules without any changes to mix or alter years, countries, branches, politics in Weapons or aircrafts.

Meaning, we forget such things as "simulator".

 

"Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

 

As only way that dream will happen is that ED restricts everything to one year, example 1989 and nothing outside that is not allowed by any means...

 

GBU-54 is technically not a unrealistic weapon AFAIK. APKWS defineatly ain't.

 

Both are already in the game, programmed, modeled, textured, ready.... All that it requires is that some people stop being stubborn for realism and a fact that DCs is just a game.

[med-taha]

Isn't that a bit contradictory? to Tag it as (NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR)

A year ago, Wags mentioned that they don't have any data about the GBU-54 but he didn't mention that this is unrealistic.

but as we see Right now They have DATA :) so why not now?!.

Please ED make it happen!

Thanks

screen:

[Andartu]

It is not moot, but totally valid point, and you have a choice, you don't fly against those units unless you have an AI to fly more modern ones or you can't come up with scenario that matches those units... Be it a kazakhstan air force or some other that still operates with such aircrafts....

 

If it makes things more difficult, then so be it... Still a valid point.

 

 

 

As said, make what you can with limited options, but if not realistically possible, bad thing.

 

 

 

So bending the time rules regardless is not realistic, but denying a technically compatible and usable weapons to be used for proper airframes in missions where they would be available is then a bad thing and shouldn't be allowed?

 

 

 

It doesn't make problems, you simply do not make any missions past the year the weapons are on service, you keep them disabled and they don't matter to you.

 

 

 

F-4 will come, MiG-23MLA is coming, MiG-29A exist, A-10A is there, F-15C is old, Sea Harrier is coming... There will be more matching aircrafts in future, but it doesn't matter to modern times eras...

 

 

 

So, our Hornet is not same in 2020-2021 as in DCS?

USN can have it out of service in boneyard, but there are countries operating that exact model even today, and next 10 years...

 

 

 

Yes, the issue is that forum is full of people wanting ultra realism by denying weapons that are compatible, but are not willing to accept that they love unrealistic gameplay when it makes them feel good...

 

 

 

Well, future tells more... Maybe some weapons manufacturers invent new weapons and sell them to current operators in the future?

 

 

 

But it is not intended to be 2005 year... It is the variant of that era that can be flown 2005+ missions, not restricted to 2005 only as some people want to argue (and yet they don't as they think they have no choices).

 

 

 

How far? So far as you can technically present them to be possible....

 

So either we deny technically anyone ever flying any module outside the mission year that module is presenting (developers pick that one year, one year only), or we accept technically capable weapons on all airframes and let the gamers decide what is their simulator....

 

It is not about "AGM-88 to Su-27S too!"...

 

 

 

 

Full technical names, years and all to be used in filters and such... Already done mostly.

 

 

 

So arguing with logic that is broken to begin with....

 

It is 100% realistic that 2017 (IIRC) Our exact hornet flew combat missions with APKWS. No modifications, no changes, updates etc...

 

In 2030 the same hornet is still in service on many countries. Likely without any upgrades at all, but flying with new compatible weapons.

 

And correct if I am wrong, doesn't even today some countries operate with MiG-21Bis, even MiG-15Bis?

 

USN retired our hornet already, but there are current operators for that same one....

 

So either we have acceptance for realistic weapons loadouts, flexibility in the years, or we go full ahead to non-negotiable single year modules without any changes to mix or alter years, countries, branches, politics in Weapons or aircrafts.

Meaning, we forget such things as "simulator".

 

"Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

 

As only way that dream will happen is that ED restricts everything to one year, example 1989 and nothing outside that is not allowed by any means...

 

GBU-54 is technically not a unrealistic weapon AFAIK. APKWS defineatly ain't.

 

Both are already in the game, programmed, modeled, textured, ready.... All that it requires is that some people stop being stubborn for realism and a fact that DCs is just a game.

 

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

Thank you very much for saving me from answering all of this :v:

[Andartu]

Isn't that a bit contradictory? to Tag it as (NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR)

A year ago, Wags mentioned that they don't have any data about the GBU-54 but he didn't mention that this is unrealistic.

but as we see Right now They have DATA :) so why not now?!.

Please ED make it happen!

Thanks

screen:

 

Oh look at that :thumbup:

[Northstar98]

Fri13 said:

It is not moot, but totally valid point, and you have a choice, you don't fly against those units unless you have an AI to fly more modern ones or you can't come up with scenario that matches those units... Be it a kazakhstan air force or some other that still operates with such aircrafts...

Oh brilliant, I do have a choice, I just have the choice not to it, fantastic. I also said peer-to-peer, and there's still an up to 40 year gap.

Fri13 said:

As said, make what you can with limited options, but if not realistically possible, bad thing.

You're not even addressing the point at all, you're basically just saying "deal with it".

For full-fidelity aircraft there's a 40 year gap, fantastic, the same gap between 3rd gen and 5th gen. And apart from the A-10C II and Kiowa there's nothing else full-fidelity, peer-to-peer of an appropriate era, and they're at least 30 years out of date.

Fri13 said:

So bending the time rules regardless is not realistic, but denying a technically compatible and usable weapons to be used for proper airframes in missions where they would be available is then a bad thing and shouldn't be allowed?

Our actual Hornet doesn't have a single clue what APKWS or GBU-54s are, because they didn't exist at the time.

Fri13 said:

It doesn't make problems, you simply do not make any missions past the year the weapons are on service, you keep them disabled and they don't matter to you.

Yes they do, the problem is lack of consistency and no era past the 70s is consistent for high fidelity aircraft, like at all. How does adding things from the post 2010s solve that issue? (It does the opposite).

Fri13 said:

F-4 will come, MiG-23MLA is coming, MiG-29A exist, A-10A is there, F-15C is old, Sea Harrier is coming... There will be more matching aircrafts in future, but it doesn't matter to modern times eras...

The F-4E is on indefinite hold, I'm not holding up much hope for the MiG-23MLA and Sea Harrier. The MiG-29, A-10A and F-15C are all low-fidelity and simplified...

Fri13 said:

So, our Hornet is not same in 2020-2021 as in DCS?

USN can have it out of service in boneyard, but there are countries operating that exact model even today, and next 10 years...

Is our aircraft supposed to represent a Hornet from 2005? If yes, why is it modernised with 1-2 2010+ weapons and not others? What about avionics or other upgrades? Whatever they might be.

Fri13 said:

Yes, the issue is that forum is full of people wanting ultra realism by denying weapons that are compatible, but are not willing to accept that they love unrealistic gameplay when it makes them feel good...

And you're still evading the point. If I set-up a peer-to-peer mission with the A-10C, F-16C and F/A-18C I can't do it without having some time travelling going on, the aircraft eras between REDFOR and BLUFOR are all over the place. I cannot do it. And having the choice not to it and deal with it as you said above is a pretty poor answer.

My only option is to set-up a scenario where I take these post 2000s aircraft and put them up against a force at least 20 years out of date (so not peer), or make a fictional conflict between GREENFOR, or have BLUE on BLUE...

There isn't another option. I either time travel, or I don't do it at all...

Think about it this way, if we wanted to make a WWII mission, that would put the aircraft era centred around the 1940s, if people wanted WWII that's what they would want yeah? However, for our current BLUFOR, it's the equivalent of taking an Fw 190 up against the F-4E Phantom II - it's the same age gap. WWII players probably would think that kind of sucks, and isn't realistic at all, why is it any different from what I'm talking about? Only they get peer aircraft, so they can set-up a realistic, peer-to-peer mission of a consistent era, current BLUFOR cannot. Only thing we have is the GREENFOR JF-17...

And if you want to enforce realistic scenarios, feel free to ask ED to get rid of the mission editor, sounds like a good idea (not).

The aircraft should be representative, the scenarios are up to you. That's what DCS has always been about. I mean at the moment the Viggen is totally map-less, so Heatblur should delete it, right?

Seeing as the Cold War didn't go hot and seeing as we don't have a Korea, Vietnam or Iraq map, it might get a bit dull fast with the current assets if you want to keep things strictly realistic, sound like a good idea? Otherwise you're only choice is to set-up asymmetric missions, that aren't peer-to-peer...

Fri13 said:

Well, future tells more... Maybe some weapons manufacturers invent new weapons and sell them to current operators in the future?

So implement weapons that are WIP in real life? So the development cycle never stops? Until all the legacy Hornets are gone.

Fri13 said:

But it is not intended to be 2005 year

Is it not?

Wags said:

There have been a lot of questions regarding what sensors and weapons will be available at the launch of the early access DCS: F/A-18C Hornet. This decision is based on balancing a great, first experience, while getting quickly into the hands of those prefer early access adoption. We realize that early access is not for everyone, but for many, it is. If you prefer a completed product, we ask that you wait for the final release. Take that time to monitor previews and early access reports to make an informed purchase.

We believe that starting with the more “simple” systems at early access roll-out allows a more shallow learning curve at the start. By then adding new systems gradually, it introduces the Hornet’s sensors and weapons in a more structured manner… much like what a real Hornet pilot goes through when learning the aircraft. This also allows us more time to fully develop the more complex systems in a way that delivers the most realistic experience possible.

Note that this is all very much subject to change for our mid-2000s F/A-18C USN Hornet.

 

Fri13 said:

It is the variant of that era that can be flown 2005+ missions, not restricted to 2005 only as some people want to argue (and yet they don't as they think they have no choices).

Sure, you do what you want with it, I don't care what mission you take it into, it's completely up to you, as it should be. If you keep it realistic though, against a peer faction (like Russia or China), you're going to run into problems fast when you see that there's basically nothing consistent or comprehensive. I mean what if you want to set up a mission from 2005 with peer 2005 assets? Oh wait you can't? Because there isn't a single peer REDFOR asset that represents the same year? They all peak at the mid-to-late 80s? Save for a few Chinese ships?

Fri13 said:

How far? So far as you can technically present them to be possible...

So a potentially endless development cycle. And you're just going to assume that absolutely nothing was upgraded or changed?

Fri13 said:

So either we deny technically anyone ever flying any module outside the mission year that module is presenting (developers pick that one year, one year only), or we accept technically capable weapons on all airframes and let the gamers decide what is their simulator...

*Weapons that our Hornet never fielded, nor existed at the time, and was over half a decade before they came, and over a decade before they actually found their way onto a legacy Hornet...

And close to literally "Let me have all the weapons, or get rid of the mission editor", why bother modelling a specific year at that point?

Fri13 said:

Full technical names, years and all to be used in filters and such... Already done mostly.

Meh-ish, apart from some SAMs full names, most are basically absent, and I can only think of one unit that has the year explicitly specified in the unit listing.

I guess what I mean is instead of just T-72B -> T-72B obr.1989. Instead of FF 1135M "Rezky" -> Krivak II-class FF (Pr. 1135M "Burevestnik-M" SKR). I'll make a wish for it later or something.

Fri13 said:

So arguing with logic that is broken to begin with....

Logic isn't broken just because it disagrees with you. Our Hornet is supposed to represent a USN F/A-18C of the mid-2000s, so isn't it logical that it represents a USN Hornet of the mid-2000s?

What's broken logic about that? There's nothing about scenarios in there at all. Just that the Hornet, is supposed to represent a USN one, as it was, in the mid-2000s... What's the problem here?

Fri13 said:

It is 100% realistic that 2017 (IIRC) Our exact hornet flew combat missions with APKWS. No modifications, no changes, updates etc...

Our exact Hornet? The only US Hornet I can find with APKWS was a USMC one in 2017, you're telling me it wasn't upgraded at all? I mean, a whole decade has passed...

And I'll say it again: "our mid-2000s USN F/A-18C"

And great, now we have 2017 stuff going up against Cold War stuff from the 80s, and no choice to have it any other way, while keeping it peer-to-peer and historically authentic... Sure I can limit weapons, it's still a time travelling aircraft, with time travelling avionics, and last I checked, there's nothing I can do about that...

Fri13 said:

In 2030 the same hornet is still in service on many countries. Likely without any upgrades at all, but flying with new compatible weapons.

Is "likely" your personal opinion?

Fri13 said:

And correct if I am wrong, doesn't even today some countries operate with MiG-21Bis, even MiG-15Bis?

That's why I said peer-to-peer...

Just because a WWII era Type XXI U-Boat was still around and in service in 1980, doesn't mean it's peer-to-peer going up against a 688, ironically that's the approximate age gap between current full fidelity fixed-wing REDFOR, and our current mid-2000s Hornet...

Fri13 said:

USN retired our hornet already, but there are current operators for that same one...

Let's have it again: "For our mid-2000s USN Hornet"

Not having a Hornet that other nations use is a pain, I get it, in an ideal world we'd have multiple variants spanning multiple eras and operators. But if you want to approximate another Hornet, we don't have a choice but to work with what we've got - usually by restricting weapons and not much else. At least for other operators there are different liveries.

Fri13 said:

So either we have acceptance for realistic weapons loadouts, flexibility in the years, or we go full ahead to non-negotiable single year modules without any changes to mix or alter years, countries, branches, politics in Weapons or aircrafts.

Meaning, we forget such things as "simulator".

Again, it's either we have every feasible future weapon the platform operates, or ED has to get rid of the mission editor... Sounds like such a great move.

And if you want flexibility in the years, why doesn't that apply to avionics? Why just weapons, in fact, why bother modelling a specific aircraft at all?

Fri13 said:

"Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

 

As only way that dream will happen is that ED restricts everything to one year, example 1989 and nothing outside that is not allowed by any means...

Rubbish, you see how it says "of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships"? It doesn't say anything about what scenario you choose or what missions you fly, zip, none whatsoever.

And again, if I want to set-up a historically authentic mission, peer-to-peer, with full fidelity aircraft, I can't do it. I don't have a choice, there's always going to be some degree of time travel going on, it's not ideal but it's the closest I've got. You can chalk that up to me being unrealistic (ironic how me trying to do something historically authentic, is me being unrealistic when it suits me, funny that isn't it?).

Fri13 said:

GBU-54 is technically not a unrealistic weapon AFAIK. APKWS defineatly ain't.

 

Both are already in the game, programmed, modeled, textured, ready.... All that it requires is that some people stop being stubborn for realism and a fact that DCs is just a game.

Game != necessarily inaccurate. I mean you're taking DCS, a game that's supposed to "offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible.", but then you have a problem with it doing exactly that...

Okay...

I mean this whole 'it's just a game' thing, when applied to DCS is kinda like saying: "What's up with this forest? Why are there so many freaking trees?"

med-taha said:

Isn't that a bit contradictory? to Tag it as (NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR)

A year ago, Wags mentioned that they don't have any data about the GBU-54 but he didn't mention that this is unrealistic.

but as we see Right now They have DATA so why not now?!.

What? How is it contradictory, like at all?

They didn't mark it as [NOT FEASIBLE] they marked it as [NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR], ED now have data on the GBU-54, it's still [NOT CORRECT FOR YEAR]...

Edited December 4, 2021 by Northstar98
formatting

[SkateZilla]

We are sold a mid-2000s hornet right? Yet we have SLAM which retired in 1999, and Walleye which retired in 1990s. Not to mention the AAMs, but I will ignore those.

 

 

Anything Prior to 2000's technically would be capable as the upgrades done to the mid-2000's point did not remove capability, if you got F/A-18s flying 1 1980s scenario w/ mid-2000's weapons, the mission designer obviously pencil pushed the mission and didnt do a decent job.

 

 

Kind of funny how users have been very vocal that "APKWS doesn't require any changes to the jet to work!" and yet in the first implementation video released they have a custom weapon name in the DSMS for the A-10.

 

 

Seems that a lot of what people think is "strap on" really isn't.

 

Despite the Marketing Videos and Slides, APKWS is not "plug n play.", more like: Install a Quick Patch, and Play.

 

You cant take a 80s aircraft out of mothballs that's still running an early OFP and expect it to work, with no upgrades,

nor can you slap it on a bird without an update and expect that same computer system to know what it is without updates.

These new Stores Management and Flight Control Systems account for Stores and their weight/drag parameters, as well as weapon profiles.

Otherwise the FCS would let you pull the same G as if you loaded rockets that weigh 13lbs each instead of the APKWS Rockets that weight 32lbs each.

 

Now remove the computer system that manages most mid-80s aircraft (ie Hornet F-16 etc), and take a 60's/70 Aircraft (ie F-5E) and it's a different story,

As the dials are usually Manual A/A, A/G, BOMB/ROCKET, GUN/AIM9, IN/OUT/CEN, etc. and the FCS system does not have a computer that limits based on payload, nor an SMS that controls advanced HUD and trajectory displays.

It's all on testing and the Pilot.

Edited October 3, 2020 by SkateZilla

[BarTzi]

Yes when the weapon could be carried by an airframe it should be available to that certain airframe.

 

 

This is the most important thing. As I said before - it will put modules at a never ending state of development. This is not how the development of those addons should be like.

 

And as we know the Hornet is not yet in the state of maintaining the code, by far.

 

All of the additions you seek will be added to the bottom of their priority list, and when they get there (if they do), it will be after the full release of the module. It's becauuse those additiones are outside of the original scope of the program. The worst kind of additions.

 

 

Also.. really, there is not an endless list of weapons per airframe, it is limited (so no Phoenix for the Hornet!).

 

But again yes, what belongs to a thing, has to be on the thing, and that is it.

 

And when it takes development time then yeah of course, it takes development time. Heck we all here are very well trained in the discipline of waiting. Even when it´s really not fun though :book:

 

 

Development time, sure - and also money. There's a limit to how much you can spend on each of those modules. It doesn't really matter how good you are at waiting.

People seem to think it's an easy plug and play adding those weapons to the Hornet. Just a low hanging fruit.

 

 

But to fully refuse something with something like "Not Correct For Year" is simply the wrong turn if you want to satisfy your costumers. Especially when a good amount of the user base likes to have a certain (and even not unrealistic) toy for a product they could have bought nearly two AAA titles for.

 

 

You shouldn't try to satisfy your customer base by adding features that were not originally planned.

 

 

When they show us the candy on frames like the A-10C II and the Harrier that also realistically could be used by the Hornet, they cannot expect us to hold back and say "well ok".

 

 

The harrier could carry the 54, right? The Hornet is a mid 2000 airframe, so it couldn't. Basing it on a specific year is a very good decision, because it helps limiting the scope of the program.

 

The A10C was a paid upgrade. Do you see the difference?

 

 

 

And sorry, just me personally, I am not interested to buy those just to use certain toys that I could have on "My" frame. Those are completely different aircraft that I don´t want to fly.. I have the Hog (really great module, was my first), but nowadays I can´t stand it´s low speed anymore, no matter what i´ts other qualities are. So I fly exclusively the Hornet. But this is of course just me and my special quirk :D

 

 

Then let's boost the Hog's speed to satisfy customer needs, right? :smilewink:

 

 

Hell I just want the GBU-54 for the Hornet and not Ace Combat or a Death Star :joystick::D

 

 

And let them shoot themselves in the leg by blocking potential upgrade paths to the module, or stepping in Rhino territory for no reason? All of that while spending more time and money after completing the plane already?

 

 

They do not deny me in the editor to set up missions in 2015 with a legacy Hornet and a Navy paintjob in PG or Syria. And that is good.. so please don´t argue with "Not Correct For Year". It´s all mixed up anyways, in the end it´s all about imagination (Holy moly I hope i don´t set the idea to limit the year for the Hornet to 2005 now :doh: Sorry but that would be a lame way for ending the thread :helpsmilie:).

 

 

It's not correct for year, because it's not correct for the year their plane is based on. There's nothing more to it unless they say otherwise.

 

 

As Fri13 said.. bound to mission year or even better have and just don´t use/ban it if you think it is not correct for you.

 

 

Ah, so how about you just use the airframe that can use that weapon instead?

 

There are places and topics you should insist on, like a realistic implementation of the avionic systems, or features of the radar or the TGP.

However, asking for every new weapon that is added to the game to be added to another module 'just because', is not going to get you anywhere.

Edited October 3, 2020 by BarTzi

[Wizard_03]

Seems like if we can make gameplay concessions like having LITENING on 4 and BRU-55s which also are not correct for year of this hornet we can add GBU-54s and pretend...

[Swift.]

Seems like if we can make gameplay concessions like having LITENING on 4 and BRU-55s which also are not correct for year of this hornet we can add GBU-54s and pretend...

 

I counter that litening claim:

[Wizard_03]

I counter that litening claim:

 

 

That doesn't matter, the USMC did not have any Lot 20 hornets at that time. Its irrelevant when the USMC got the capability for THEIR hornets. Because all Lot 20 hornets were exclusive to USN up until the USN completely retired their fleet of legacy birds last year. Never mind all the OFP version differences. Or the fact that a LOT 20 bird wouldn't even use that Pod to begin with, unless they were attached to an MEU which they never were.

 

 

 

But Besides all that we don't even have the same LITENING They use, we have a Spanish version. Really nothing about the LITENING implementation, is correct based on the year and specific hornet we have.

 

 

 

So yeah it was a game play consideration. Plane and simple. So if they can do the mental gymnastics on that one why not GBU-54s??

Edited October 8, 2020 by Wizard_03

[Kev2go]

That doesn't matter, the USMC did not have any Lot 20 hornets at that time. Its irrelevant when the USMC got the capability for THEIR hornets. Because all Lot 20 hornets were exclusive to USN up until the USN completely retired their fleet of legacy birds last year. Never mind all the OFP version differences. Or the fact that a LOT 20 bird wouldn't even use that Pod to begin with, unless they were attached to an MEU which they never were.

 

 

 

But Besides all that we don't even have the same LITENING They use, we have a Spanish version. Really nothing about the LITENING implementation, is correct based on the year and specific hornet we have.

 

 

 

So yeah it was a game play consideration. Plane and simple. So if they can do the mental gymnastics on that one why not GBU-54s??

 

 

 

Not to mention we have had actual former USMC pilot Lex Talonis go on record saying he had never seen or heard about Litening 2's used on anything but Centerline station when he was flying them. ( from 2005-2009 IRRC). Plus skate also chipped in.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Kev2go

[Northstar98]

Wasn't the LITENING supposed to be an interim in lieu of ATFLIR on our Hornet? Just so players had a TGP?

 

Might be talking out of my rear here...

 

might

Edited October 9, 2020 by Northstar98

[Bananabrai]

 

Now remove the computer system that manages most mid-80s aircraft (ie Hornet F-16 etc), and take a 60's/70 Aircraft (ie F-5E) and it's a different story,

As the dials are usually Manual A/A, A/G, BOMB/ROCKET, GUN/AIM9, IN/OUT/CEN, etc. and the FCS system does not have a computer that limits based on payload, nor an SMS that controls advanced HUD and trajectory displays.

It's all on testing and the Pilot.

 

Cool, so we will get APKWS for the Huey then?