Jump to content

HARM Loading Discussion


QuiGon
 Share

Go to solution Solved by QuiGon,

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Furiz said:

 

What debris does harm have on the back of its engine?

Quite a few missiles have a plug to keep the rocket bell clean and clear. This is expelled backwards, at great speed, upon ignition.

See link https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-rear-view-of-a-us-air-force-usaf-agm-88-high-speed-antiradiation-missile-4c2da9

Alien desktop PC, Intel i7-8700 CPU@3.20GHz 6 Core, Nvidia GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. TM Warthog stick and Throttles. Saitek ProFlight pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Furiz said:

what am I looking at, other than HARM missle?

 

The black plug on the rocket motor.

 

This plug is actually there on the 3D model of the HARM in DCS, you don't see it shoot backwards or fragment, but it does disappear so to speak, you can just about see the difference before firing and after burn-out.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas, Caucasus

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

Unlike the HARM in which we have documents and SMEs to support carriage on 4 and 6, We have not seen such evidence for Mavericks on 4 and 6. If you have evidence please PM me. 

 

The payload restriction feature is not going to be used to allow unrealistic loadouts, but it does give more choice for the mission designer.

 

thank you

 

 


 

I am genuinely curious what tech data you have that shows that we can launch from 4, and 6? It’s all fun and games that this is now an enabled loadout. That’s fine I guess.

It’s just… There's no video line for 4&6, but the problem is, that's not written anywhere. So I can understand why there is SME input confusion with this.

 

With that said, Just don't say you have documentation that proves it.  That's the part that is kinda frustrating at this point with the DCS Viper. don't mention legit tech data to end the argument when it isn't true. 

 

 


Edited by Wing
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Wing said:

With that said, Just don't say you have documentation that proves it.  That's the part that is kinda frustrating at this point with the DCS Viper. don't mention legit tech data to end the argument when it isn't true. 

 

Especially after so long insisting that there was absolutely no way they could ever be used on those pylons and there was no evidence for it. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Wing said:


 

I am genuinely curious what tech data you have that shows that we can launch from 4, and 6? It’s all fun and games that this is now an enabled loadout. That’s fine I guess.

It’s just… There's no video line for 4&6, but the problem is, that's not written anywhere. So I can understand why there is SME input confusion with this.

 

With that said, Just don't say you have documentation that proves it.  That's the part that is kinda frustrating at this point with the DCS Viper. don't mention legit tech data to end the argument when it isn't true. 

 

 

 


Hi wing,

 

appreciate you are frustrated, but please dont imply we are lying when we are not. We have the evidence and we are happy, understand that we can not always show technical data in the public forum.

The subject has been discussed many times and the coming payload restriction feature will allow users to make their own choice for their missions. 
 

If anyone does have information about the Mavericks please PM me. 

 

thank you

 

 

  • Like 2

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:


Hi wing,

 

appreciate you are frustrated, but please dont imply we are lying when we are not. We have the evidence and we are happy, understand that we can not always show technical data in the public forum.

The subject has been discussed many times and the coming payload restriction feature will allow users to make their own choice for their missions. 
 

If anyone does have information about the Mavericks please PM me. 

 

thank you

 

 


Can you reference the T.O number? 
You can simply source that, without posting what is within the T.O. (T.O. Titles are not OPSEC)

 

Genuinely curious.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wing said:


Can you reference the T.O number? 
You can simply source that, without posting what is within the T.O. (T.O. Titles are not OPSEC)

 

Genuinely curious.

 

Thanks!


I  am sorry, you have my answer, you will have to accept that or not. 

  • Like 3

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please dont post images from documents and lets not derail this thread, the subject has been done many times. 

 

The subject is closed, the payload restriction feature gives the user the choice.

  • Like 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Wing said:

Unable to cite the Tech Order title that this decision was made from. Copy.

 

Ya'll know I'm no ally of the ED forum mods, but seriously, BIGNEWY is probably not allowed to give you the source. Maybe they didn't get it from a T.O., maybe they got it after consulting with one or more SMEs they know to be trustworthy.

 

Do you really want to argue that HARMs on 4/6 should be disabled again? After ED is giving us the ability to disable them ourselves?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Xavven said:

 

Ya'll know I'm no ally of the ED forum mods, but seriously, BIGNEWY is probably not allowed to give you the source. Maybe they didn't get it from a T.O., maybe they got it after consulting with one or more SMEs they know to be trustworthy.

 

Do you really want to argue that HARMs on 4/6 should be disabled again? After ED is giving us the ability to disable them ourselves?


No matter what “SMEs” say… a TO is required to back it up. Everything is backed by a Tech Order as per USAF AFI.

 

Just a FYI.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

😂 We need DCS rivet gun, then we can put anything we want on the jet. Run out of stations under the wings? no problem just put 10 more mavericks on the top 

 

Wanna sling load cows with an F-16 no problem just rivet the sling to the stabs and Boom.

 

and they could have done all that if they needed too in wartime it's just not in the stores manual because they forgot and they don't even use those anyway. So it's realistic. 


Edited by Wizard_03

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, QuiGon said:

 

Have you not seen the latest mini update for the DCS Viper? Some USAF units apparently have them wired, while others have not.

Can you link that? I've never heard of any USAF F-16 capable of any weapon link on 4/6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Xavven said:

Nice straw man fallacy.

I don't think so, apparently we don't need evidence anymore. You can't prove to me that we can't rivet things to the jet. 


Edited by Wizard_03

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Frederf said:

Can you link that? I've never heard of any USAF F-16 capable of any weapon link on 4/6.

 

Are you referring to this? https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/209147-viper-mini-updates/page/3/#comments

 

"I am posting this here as we hope this will be a good solution for “HARMgate”. Based on further research, it comes down to a “it depends” situation. While some Viper units have had their HARM shooters wired for STA 4 and 6, other did not. This explains the conflicting SME feedback and mass-consternation and confusion."

 

Or are you asking for the source of their research? In which case, BIGNEWY gave you the answer, which is, they can't answer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think accountability is healthy in this dev environment, if anything developers should appreciate some accountability.

As shown earlier in this thread, it is frustrating and confusing at this point when "documentation proof" is stated as reasoning for this gameplay change, yet there actually is no legitmate USAF Tech Order proof that 4&6 can launch. For something this technical, and maintenance related - there should blatantly be tech data on those stations and the HARMS muns capability. There is none. (Totally open to proof that I am incorrect on this)

 

With that said, for gameplay sake, glad everyone is happy with this medium.


Edited by Wing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

31 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

I don't think so, apparently we don't need evidence anymore. You can't prove to me that we can't rivet things to the jet. 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Wing said:

I think accountability is healthy in this dev environment, if anything developers should appreciate some accountability.

As shown earlier in this thread, it is frustrating and confusing at this point when "documentation proof" is stated as reasoning for this gameplay change, yet there actually is no legitmate USAF Tech Order proof that 4&6 can launch. For something this technical, and maintenance related - there should blatantly be tech data on those stations and the HARMS muns capability. There is none.

 

With that said, for gameplay sake, glad everyone is happy with this medium.

 

 

 

I get where you both are coming from. I agree there needs to be evidence for ED to implement a weapon on a particular station. But let's look at an extremely recent interaction with BIGNEWY on this thread:

 

 

8 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

Unlike the HARM in which we have documents and SMEs to support carriage on 4 and 6, We have not seen such evidence for Mavericks on 4 and 6. If you have evidence please PM me. 

 

The payload restriction feature is not going to be used to allow unrealistic loadouts, but it does give more choice for the mission designer.

 

thank you

 

 

 

 

It's clear ED is not going to implement Mavs of 4/6 without evidence, so ironic claims about rivet guns and "anything goes" are not an accurate read of ED's modus operandi at all.  ED had previously made HARMs inoperable on 4/6 based earlier research before this recent change, and they explained why they made this recent change. That explanation is not "because whiny community members wanted it for game balance", the reasoning is in fact documents and SMEs. And finally, they are not at liberty to reveal their sources, probably because they want to keep their jobs. Does that sum it up?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omg just chill. It's just a game. For fun. Relax. You want uber realism? Toggle the option to only fire 2 HARMS. Want to have your cake and eat it too? Toggle it so you can fire 4. It's THAT simple. Don't like carrying 6 Mavs "because realism"? Carry 4. People need to relax and stop trying to force what they think is right onto others. We can all now choose for ourselves.@BIGNEWY would it be possible to do a similar option like the HARMS selection switch, for drag chutes? Since there were some F-16C's that had them?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk



  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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…

  • Like 3

Intel 8700k @5ghz, 32gb ram, 1080ti, Rift S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dannyvandelft said:

Omg just chill. It's just a game. For fun. Relax. You want uber realism? Toggle the option to only fire 2 HARMS. Want to have your cake and eat it too? Toggle it so you can fire 4. It's THAT simple. Don't like carrying 6 Mavs "because realism"? Carry 4. People need to relax and stop trying to force what they think is right onto others. We can all now choose for ourselves.@BIGNEWY would it be possible to do a similar option like the HARMS selection switch, for drag chutes? Since there were some F-16C's that had them?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


 

 

You know what... you're right.

 

If anything, I feel bad for ED. This is how we thank them. They say you can please some of the people all of the time, and please all of the people some off the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. But they'd be wrong.

 

At first ED allowed HARMs on 4/6.

Then ED disallowed HARMs on 4/6.

Then ED gave us the option to choose whether or not to disable HARMs on 4/6.

 

In all cases, they got community uproar. So the truth is that, when it comes to the DCS community, you're pissing someone off no matter what you do.

 

I guess we get to wear that badge now. Not with pride, though.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the sim crowd now has plenty of ways to play the game they want to. DCS is a sandbox after all. It only becomes a problem when said sim crowd goes on an airquake server and expects realism to apply to that...if they do, I have news for them: the number of HARMs carried by Vipers is the least of their concerns. If they don't do that, and instead fly single player and/or with milsim squadrons, then where's the problem?


Edited by TLTeo
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Wags changed the title to HARM Loading Discussion
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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