HARM Loading Discussion

[Dannyvandelft]

Yes but a simulator should simulate realities and not what if Franken loads.  Atleast that’s the way it was with Blackshark and A10c before this became dcs world.  I feel the PK online crowd is taking the Sim down the wrong path.  Granted I will concede that at-least ED has given us control via the Editor to deny franken loads…

If they say there were Vipers that were able to load, and fire HARMS from those 4 stations, it's not a Frankenload.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[randomTOTEN]

29 minutes ago, Xavven said:

At first ED allowed HARMs on 4/6.

No,

at first ED did not allow HARMS on 4/6.

Allowing 4 and 6 was the first change.

[NineLine]

13 minutes ago, randomTOTEN said:

No,

at first ED did not allow HARMS on 4/6.

Allowing 4 and 6 was the first change.

I hope now we are not going to argue about the order of events?

I think it's time to move on, we have given plenty of options for those that want this and those that don't, we are not going to do any sci-fi fantasy load-outs, but if there is enough evidence that we can see, we will consider things like this, or the Mavs. And if you don't want those load outs, its super simple to restrict. 

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, Enduro14 said:

Yes but a simulator should simulate realities and not what if Franken loads.  Atleast that’s the way it was with Blackshark and A10c before this became dcs world.  I feel the PK online crowd is taking the Sim down the wrong path.  Granted I will concede that at-least ED has given us control via the Editor to deny franken loads…

A simulator can do both, and I'd argue that it's healthy to do both, as long as one is clearly separated from the other. Simulation is a broad subject and it's not limited to historical accuracy. You can simulate things that have not happened in reality (happens everyday in engineering fields), even if they are extremely unlikely.

 

With the loadout restrictions, everyone should be happy. If you don't think 4 HARM is realistic, the loadout can be limited to 2.

[Ignition]

This option is the best choice.

[SCPanda]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

I hope now we are not going to argue about the order of events?

I think it's time to move on, we have given plenty of options for those that want this and those that don't, we are not going to do any sci-fi fantasy load-outs, but if there is enough evidence that we can see, we will consider things like this, or the Mavs. And if you don't want those load outs, its super simple to restrict. 

Yep. Time to move on. This is the best decision that suits everyone. 

[Dee-Jay]

"it depends" situation"

 

This is indeed very true and not only for the F-16.

For instanse ... some C-130 can carry and drop GBU-12s.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Dee-Jay
Typo

[QuiGon]

6 hours ago, Frederf said:

"some Viper units" doesn't specify USAF or foreign

 

Given the fact that ED specifically simulates a USAF/ANG Viper and stresses this all the time, I'm pretty sure they meant USAF Vipers when making this comment.

 

  

6 hours ago, Xavven said:

It's clear ED is not going to implement Mavs of 4/6 without evidence

I've not seen anyone requesting Mavs on 4/6 anyways. There was just some curiosity about the technical implication of Mavs on 4/6 if they are wired for HARMs, but no request for ED to allow Mavs there.

Edited September 10, 2021 by QuiGon

[Furiz]

17 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

I've not seen anyone requesting Mavs on 4/6 anyways. There was just some curiosity about the technical implication of Mavs on 4/6 if they are wired for HARMs, but no request for ED to allow Mavs there.

Exactly,

 

For example, I'm curious why is it that we can load TER-9A on stations 3-4-6-7 but on stations 4 and 6 there can be only 1 GBU-12 and on 3 and 7 we can load 2 x GBU-12, at the same time we can load 3 CBU-97 with TER-9A on stations 4 and 6. Doesn't make sense that only one GBU-12 can be loaded on 4 and 6 then, right;D?

 

If Mav can be loaded on 4 and 6 I want them to enable it, it gives a lot of loadout combinations, but if it can't then we shouldn't have them on those stations.

[QuiGon]

3 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Exactly,

 

For example, I'm curious why is it that we can load TER-9A on stations 3-4-6-7 but on stations 4 and 6 there can be only 1 GBU-12 and on 3 and 7 we can load 2 x GBU-12, at the same time we can load 3 CBU-97 with TER-9A on stations 4 and 6. Doesn't make sense that only one GBU-12 can be loaded on 4 and 6 then, right;D?

 

The answer to this can be pretty simple: The USAF probably has made flight and seperation tests for tripple MK-82/CBUs, as this was probably important in the early years of the Viper at the end of the Cold War, when precision munitions were still pretty rare. When GBUs arrived for the Viper the USAF probably saw no need for double GBUs on the inner staions and thus hasn't done any flight and seperation tests for it.

[BIGNEWY]

If we have evidence of it for the Mavericks we will reconsider, but we need to see evidence. 

 

Please PM me if you do.

 

thanks

[macedk]

I saw this question back in 1999

[Wing]

There is no 1553 bus for stations 4&6 USAF blk 50. This means it’s not possible to launch 88s or 65s from 4&6. (You can carry, just not launch). What happened here, is ED trusted a “SME” without reviewing/finding a tech order to back it up. It’s as simple as this.

 

The gameplay change is there now, and again that’s all fun and games. That’s not the point.

The point earlier was that ED overstated what they have proof of.  

Edited September 10, 2021 by Wing

[BIGNEWY]

5 minutes ago, Wing said:

There is no 1553 bus for stations 4&6 USAF blk 50. This means it’s not possible to launch 88s or 65s from 4&6. (You can carry, just not launch). What happened here, is ED trusted a “SME” without reviewing/finding a tech order to back it up. It’s as simple as this.

 

The gameplay change is there now, and again that’s all fun and games. That’s not the point.

 

The point earlier was that ED overstated what they have proof of.  That was the point, not what people carry. Everyone is getting distracted by this.

 

We have been over this more than once. I have told you we have proof, and I can not share it with you, you need to accept that and move on. 

Thanks

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

54 minutes ago, Wing said:

There is no 1553 bus for stations 4&6 USAF blk 50. This means it’s not possible to launch 88s or 65s from 4&6. (You can carry, just not launch). What happened here, is ED trusted a “SME” without reviewing/finding a tech order to back it up. It’s as simple as this.

 

The gameplay change is there now, and again that’s all fun and games. That’s not the point.

 

The point earlier was that ED overstated what they have proof of.  That was the point, not what people carry. Everyone is getting distracted by this.

Your incessant quest to be right and more in the know than everyone is embarrassing. Go on photoshop and print ya a nice participation certificate…..

[twistking]

@BIGNEWY have you considered to somehow explain the realism aspects of certain restrictions to the user through the UI?

The way i see it, the current UI (judging from the pic posted by wags) implies, that restriction to each weapon is equally valid (froma  realism point of view), however there is obviously a difference between restricting use of aim120c and restricting HARMS on 4/6 for realism aspects.

It would be nice if the UI could speak to the user in a way that allows to understand realism implication of certain setups.

This could be done by tooltips, or simply by having the most restricted setup the default (no HAMRS on 4/6), so that users would have to enable the stations and by that understand that they are leaving the super realistic safe space. they could then make their own research or simply roll with it...

Edited September 10, 2021 by twistking

[Furiz]

4 minutes ago, twistking said:

@BIGNEWY have you considered to somehow explain the realism aspects of certain restrictions to the user through the UI?

The way i see it, the current UI (judging from the pic posted by wags) implies, that restriction to each weapon is equally valid (froma  realism point of view), however there is obviously a difference between restricting use of aim120c and restricting HARMS on 4/6 for realism aspects.

It would be nice if the UI could speak to the user in a way that allows to understand realism implication of certain setups.

This could be done by tooltips, or simply by having the most restricted setup the default (no HAMRS on 4/6), so that users would have to enable the stations and by that understand that they are leaving the super realistic safe space. they could then make their own research or simpyl roll with it...

 

 

What do you mean, realism, its realistic 4 harm or 2 harm both is realistic, what are you trying to say? Cause some Vipers had 4 and some had 2 harm, its very well explained.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Furiz

[twistking]

7 minutes ago, Furiz said:

 

What do you mean, realism, its realistic 4 harm or 2 harm both is realistic, what are you trying to say? Cause some Vipers had 4 and some had 2 harm.

 

I think it would be helpful for new user (or for us in many years, when we have forgotten HarmGate), if they could understand this fact through the UI. Some Vipers have 2, some have 4 Harm. But all Vipers can have 120Cs. The interface however implies, that some Vipers can have 120Cs and some don't.

The interface should make clear that restriction of 120Cs (as an example) has other implications than restriction of HARM. That does not change that HARM on 4/6 can be realistic.

Edited September 10, 2021 by twistking

[Furiz]

Can we stop over complicating?

[twistking]

33 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Can we stop over complicating?

I'd argue that good UI can make things less complicated.

 

edit: ps: Just make the default the restricted setup, so HARM on 4/6 is easily understood as optional. Not unrealistic, but optional.

Really too complicated?

Edited September 10, 2021 by twistking
typo

[Hobel]

13 hours ago, Enduro14 said:

Yes but a simulator should simulate realities and not what if Franken loads.  Atleast that’s the way it was with Blackshark and A10c before this became dcs world.  I feel the PK online crowd is taking the Sim down the wrong path.  Granted I will concede that at-least ED has given us control via the Editor to deny franken loads…

We can simulate large and modern wars in dcs.

 

And in a big war, things become possible that have no use in peacetime.

 

So if an f16 can carry a certain armament, it can also fire it.

Then the missing hardware that makes this possible is retrofitted without further ado.

 

 

Those who disagree can continue to destroy T72s, jeeps and tents with the A10.
Because I am not aware that it has ever shot at a T90.

We have that opportunity to do that in dcs now.

Of course, it should all be within reason and I believe that an f16 with 4 HARMs does just that.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Hobel

[ColinM9991]

Can't believe this is still going. Both sides have gotten what they've asked for (and then some, benefitting the cold war servers) yet there are still problems.

 

Never change, DCS community.

Edited September 10, 2021 by ColinM9991

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

 

Edited September 10, 2021 by Mr. Big.Biggs
Not helpful

[Dawgboy]

5 hours ago, ColinM9991 said:

Can't believe this is still going. Both sides have gotten what they've asked for yet there are still problems.

 

Never change, DCS community.

 

 

Yeah.  We've reached a compromise, but we still want to continue arguing the need for a compromise in the first place.  Sigh...

Edited September 10, 2021 by Dawgboy

[Gierasimov]

1 hour ago, Wing said:

There is no 1553 bus for stations 4&6 USAF blk 50. This means it’s not possible to launch 88s or 65s from 4&6. (You can carry, just not launch). What happened here, is ED trusted a “SME” without reviewing/finding a tech order to back it up. It’s as simple as this.

 

The gameplay change is there now, and again that’s all fun and games. That’s not the point.

The point earlier was that ED overstated what they have proof of.  

 

Hello. 

You are apparently the B-52H Dedicated Crew Chief, which is really nice. I have found a thread on the similar (if not the same) topic where a person claims to have 8 years experience loading up HARMS on F-16C Viper and says that all stations are fully weapon ready but stations 4&6 were typically not loaded as it would mean longer mission (finding emitters to attack) with less fuel. 

Long story short, it was not practical but possible - and why would you load just to carry in a combat mission ?

Do you by any chance accept the fact that you could be wrong here, and just live with the fact that ED decided to implement a solution that ultimately closes this topic?